“We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice.”
F.A. Hayek

Let’s recap.

In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1), I addressed Duncan’s self-described ‘indifference’ to the Voice as an issue and that the ‘Yes’ case really acquiesces to systemic racism.

This is:

• Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism

In 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments’ (Part 2), I then tackled his leading two arguments, exposing the flaws in each:

• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

This is the third and final instalment, in which I’ll conclude with two more blind-spots which, I suggest, no libertarian would accept:

• Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
• Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

*****

BLIND-SPOT #4: BUREAUCRATIC EXPANSION

If the former Senator had diverted us from the libertarian freeway by this point, he next drives us into a philosophical traffic-jam with “The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.”

Not likely. Definitely. Not short-term. Long-term.

Consider the half century bureaucratic history just on this issue alone:

1967 – Council of Aboriginal Affairs

1972 – National Aboriginal Consultative Committee

1973 – Department of Aboriginal Affairs

1977 – National Aboriginal Conference

1981 – Aboriginal Development Committee

1988 – Mabo (No. 2)

1990 – ATSIC

1991 – Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

1992 – Wik case

1993 – Native Title Act

He’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored

1995 – National Inquiry into the Separation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Children

1999 – Preamble Referendum

2006 – Reconciliation Action Plan

2008 – National Apology to Stolen Generation

2010 – National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, Expert Panel on Constitutional Reconciliation

2012 – Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island People

2013 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island People Recognition Act

2014 – Act of Recognition Review Panel

2015 – Referendum Council

2017 – Uluru Statement From The Heart calling for Voice, Treaty and Reparations

2023 – Voice Referendum

It’s a novel argument. I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy, short or long term.

My simple fig farmer mind is more attracted to the libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke, who wrote:

“The growth of government is like the spread of a dense jungle, and the average citizen can hack through less of it every year.”

I’m still grappling with NDIS budgets growing from $4 billion in 2016 to $49 billion in 2023. I’m imagining that’s what the Voice will be, plus of course the $450 million just to run this Referendum!

Further, what the former Senator dismisses as a ‘slippery slope’ argument in the next step to Aboriginal treaties is a stated ambition in the Uluru Statement From The Heart.

I suspect he believes No campers are jumping at conspiracy shadows. You know, if our opponents write a 26-page mission statement called the Uluru Statement and conduct national roadshows talking about their plans for treaties, I listen.

And, ignoring this, if we do have a Voice, what would the logical argument from the former Senator be then: ‘They’re jumping at conspiracy shadows with reparations. Vote ‘yes’ to treaties.’

Step by methodical step, we move in the wrong direction towards an expanding bureaucracy.

*****

BLIND-SPOT #5: GOVERNMENT IS HARMLESS

Then there are the worrying one-line snippets which suggest very little by way of libertarian thinking, all downplaying the impact government has. In his language, he implies government is somehow harmless or innocuous.

In one example, the former Senator says the Voice will have “little bearing on lives of individuals”.

Then why push it? Libertarians are pro individual. Let’s not push the collective.

The former Senator blithely continues, “the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.”

I’d turn that line back on the good Senator as an argument against the Voice. If the Voice does nothing to reduce existing abilities to make representations, great. Let’s keep that benefit without yet another bureaucratic expansion.

I’ve never heard of a libertarian accepting an increase in the size of bureaucracy

He rails against “arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed”. Oh, it won’t be listened to? Why have it then?

Further, he’d have you believe a politically-charged, constitutionally-enshrined Voice would be ignored. Come on. Look at the oxygen it’s already sucking from the public square. Look at the money suck over the last 50 years.

*****

There are other points to raise, but I suggest this is enough to dispatch the Yes case.

Five blind-spots in the ‘yes’ camp arguments:

• Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism
• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else
• Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
• Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

Let me know in the comments whether you agree or disagree.

And finally, I want absolutely nothing in my response to the former Senator to suggest disrespect. He is an honourable man. Rather, I began this three-part response quoting John Milton, so I’d like to conclude with what he wrote on the importance of playing the ball not the man:

“ … to dwell at large upon the arguments, and to insist upon the reasons, and not to insult or domineer”
John Milton

“The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism.”
Wole Soyinka

My inbox was jammed and my phone was ringing all day in response to the debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes by former Senator Duncan Spender.

To see what all the controversy is about, read that article first.

Then read 5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1). That’s my initial response to the drama in which I identified an indifference towards systemic racism as a flaw from the Yes camp.

Now, buckle-up, here’s instalment two, in which I confront:

• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

Having dealt with the former Senator’s omission regarding systemic racism, next I tackle what he calls his “two half-decent arguments”. In my view, neither pass the smell test.

BLIND-SPOT #2: CAN’T GET MUCH WORSE

“Firstly, Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse”, he asserts.

Really?

Warren Mundine once said to me that the vast majority of Aborigines live in the suburbs, have a job, are repaying their mortgages, educating their children, and coaching the footy team on the weekends.

Who are we to disagree? Sometimes, we political types focus too much on the problems without pausing for a moment to see what’s been achieved.

Some facts might provide perspective.

In the last 235 years, Aborigines in general have courageously transitioned from semi-nomadic hunter-gather societies to the Internet Age. Who can deny the seismic advance.

In 1788, Aborigines spoke at least 250 languages across as many tribes, none of them written. Among today’s Aborigines are highly-literate doctors, barristers, senators, engineers, magistrates, authors and professors communicating in English, a Top 3 language of global penetration and advantage. You can see one shining exemplar here on Liberty Itch.

In 2005, Aboriginal life expectancy was 67 for males and 72 for females. By 2015 it had advanced to 71 for males and 75 for females.

In 1788, Aborigines couldn’t possibly comprehend a Westminster-style bi-cameral parliament, executive and judiciary. Today, there are eleven Aborigines in the Federal Parliament alone, an achievement proportionally greater than the entire Aboriginal population, Aborigines are also serving as Ministers in the Government and as judges. 

In 1788, the records show Aborigines removed fingers to facilitate fishing activities for survival. Today some Aborigines play sport at elite levels, win Olympic Gold medals, with two ranking world #1 in women’s tennis in modern times.

In 1788, Aborigines saw only the land they could physically walk. Today, they live and travel worldwide.

In 1789, Aborigines were particularly susceptible to small pox and other introduced diseases. The earliest journals and official medical records point to tragic, widespread loss of life. However, the last case of smallpox in Australia was 1938. “Couldn’t get much worse” ignores our history.

In 2005, Aboriginal life expectancy was 67 for males and 72 for females. In 2010, this improved to 69 for males and 73 for females. By 2015 it had advanced to 71 for males and 75 for females. Again, “couldn’t get much worse” is not accurate.

The former Senator contradicts himself when he simultaneously says “Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse” and then this incendiary, “We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets.” So things could get worse now?

Both these opposites are hyperbole and run counter to the facts I’ve listed.

BLIND-SPOT #3: CONCEDE OR ELSE

The former Senator continues with his leading arguments, “Secondly, saying no would disempower Aboriginal leaders pushing the Voice and empower militant Aboriginal leaders instead. If you say no to Martin Luther King you end up with Malcolm X.”

My agitated mind is desperately trying to follow the former Senator in shoehorning Marcia Langton’s divisive comments into the soaring rhetoric of Martin Luther King. Maybe he has her in mind for the Voice when he writes “if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.” Forgive my scepticism.

Today some Aborigines play sport at elite levels, win Olympic Gold medals, with two ranking world #1 in women’s tennis in modern times.

I just can’t help but feel the former Senator is caving-in to keep the peace like a parent hectored by a naughty child. That only leads to more complaint and grievance.

Or perhaps it’s driven by fear, like giving protection money lest the mob send in their henchmen to rough things up.

Concede Czechoslovakia and hope the next claim won’t be Poland.

No. Never buckle to fear.

So far, I’ve deal with:

• Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism
• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

In the third and final instalment, I’ll tackle two more blind-spots which, I suggest, no libertarian would have:

• Blind-Spot #4: Bureaucratic Expansion
• Blind-Spot #5: Government Is Harmless.

In the meantime, let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

“Where there is much desire to learn,
there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.“

John Milton

Libertarians believe in free speech.

We do not have to agree with the arguments we hear.

I therefore defend the publication of former Senator Duncan Spender’s debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes, and I welcome him to the publication.

If you haven’t read his piece, you should before reading this response.

I’ve read and reread his article. I’ve endeavoured to be as open-minded as possible, but he hasn’t convinced me.

I am firmly in the ‘No’ camp and stand by my 14 Reasons To Vote No In The Voice To Parliament Referendum.

In this piece and two others, I’m going to do my best to expose five blind-spots in his arguments.

Today, the big one.

BLIND-SPOT #1: SYSTEMIC RACISM

One thing I’ll say in favour of the former Senator’s arguments is that, as a Yes camp advocate, at least he doesn’t slip into the ‘you’re a racist’ slander. Name-calling is never a winning formula when the burden to convince is on your shoulders.

In fact, he concludes with an undeniable ‘indifference’ – his word. We are offered a kind of reluctant accommodation for race-based activism. For precision, I’ll use his words:

“While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.”

If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition.

I’m a simple fig farmer from the Adelaide Hills. But I’m left feeling empty at this meatless argument. More nourishing would have been ‘systemic racism is wrong’ and ‘race-based admission criteria to a constitutionally-empowered body is dangerous’.

Knowing my limitations, I checked with leading libertarian minds. I’m reminded of the great Thomas Sowell who wrote:

“Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”

Is it just me or does the prospect of systemic racism under the new management of the Voice’s architects fill us with dread? At the risk of being accused again of ad hominem, these people are animated by collectivist values, whether race-based or communist. And I am no collectivist.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

A properly-centred libertarian cannot simply rationalise the Voice as something to accommodate because we have a Race Power. We must say No, and fight to remove the Race Power at the very next opportunity.

The former Senator either agrees the Voice is a race-based project or not. As I see it, it self-evidently is. If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition. The burden of proof sits with the Yes camp to demonstrate why systemic racism is desirable.

It is philosophically unmoored to say “this is not a libertarian issue.” Murray Rothbard, no less, wrote:

“Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby an individual is presumed to possess certain characteristics and moral attributes, or defects, solely because he is a member of a particular race or ethnic group.”

Should we Australian libertarians in 2023 limply concede systemic racism because it is “prudent and gracious”. Or should we listen to Ayn Rand:

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

Tomorrow, I’ll cover Duncan’s two leading arguments and their defects as I see them, being:

• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

Until then, I’d love to see your thoughts to this piece in the comments section below.

I read hundreds of bills when I was advising Senator Leyonhjelm.  

Some of the bills would significantly alter the size of government or the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals.  For these bills, my advice and the Senator’s decisions were aligned and easy to predict.

But most bills were not like this.  

We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets

Most of the bills wouldn’t make Australia less libertarian or more libertarian.  They represented tinkering with the labyrinthine statute book of a bloated state.  They were fiddles while Rome burned; a re-arranging of deckchairs on the Titanic.

There were bills to change the composition of agencies that shouldn’t exist, the elements of pointless regulations, and the application process for unwarranted handouts. 

I still provided advice on these uninspiring, run-of-the-mill bills.  If such a bill might marginally improve the functioning of our dysfunctional bureaucracy, and if it was supported by a smattering of individuals who had to deal with that bureaucracy, I would advise the Senator to vote for the bill.

I feel much the same way about the Voice referendum, which is why I will be voting yes.

… if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

The Voice referendum isn’t a particularly libertarian issue.   It has little bearing on the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals, or on the size of government.

A bureaucracy making representations is not an infringement on anyone’s freedom, and the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.  The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.  But the overall size of Australia’s indigenous bureaucracy, and the bigger issue of indigenous-specific handouts, would remain a question for Australia’s parliaments.  Reducing indigenous-specific bureaucracy and handouts will remain an important task for libertarians, whether the referendum passes or not.

Some argue against introducing race into our Constitution.  But, unfortunately, race is already in our Constitution.  While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.  Just as, if we were silly enough to have laws about Dutch Australians, it would be reasonable to be explicit that Dutch Australians can make representations to the Parliament and Government.

Some argue that the Constitution should remain limited to our major institutions.  But our Constitution already has provisions for minor institutions.  Consider Section 105A, inserted by referendum in 1928, to underpin the now moribund Loans Council.  I suspect that those who wax lyrical over our Constitution have only read bits of it.

Other arguments against the Voice referendum represent a cavalcade of fallacies.  

The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.

There are straw-men: arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed.  

There are slippery slopes: arguments against separate things, like treaties and a different Australia Day, that will be argued for regardless of the referendum result.  

And there’s ad hominem: arguments against proposers rather than the proposal.

For me, there are two half-decent arguments in favour of the Voice referendum.  

Firstly, Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse.  If the Voice delivers more of the same, we haven’t lost anything.  But if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

Secondly, saying no would disempower Aboriginal leaders pushing the Voice and empower militant Aboriginal leaders instead. If you say no to Martin Luther King you end up with Malcolm X.  We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets, as occurs in other countries.  We should not be so naive to think that such violence is not possible in Australia.

Despite the popularity of tribalism, not every issue warrants a strong, certain, and unwavering response.  Some issues warrant only weak support or opposition, or even indifference.  This is one such occasion.

As our libertarian principles are not at play, we should be prudent and gracious, and vote yes – then move on to more consequential matters.