Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 6

    The Everyday Libertarian

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?  

    I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.

    I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”.  When I say this, libertarians “get it”.  But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.

    Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power

    How about a more congenial conversational pivot:  “That’s why we need smaller government.”

    Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.

    Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:

    1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way? 

    2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.

    3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.

    4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.

    Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market

    5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.

    6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.

    Join Mailing List

    I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation.  Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.

    By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.

    Who will watch the Watchers?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    The Inspection House Principle

    Curiosity for a deeper understanding of how Jeremy Bentham’s Inspection House principle relates to our current world has got the better of me. There is so much to dissect in the Panopticon that I thought it fitting to follow on from last month’s contribution.

    At the end of his treatise, Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring. He argues that those under surveillance must know they are subject to being watched, as this will result in producing the intended ideal outcome of: “morals reformed, health preserved, industry invigorated, instruction diffused, public burdens lightened, economy seated as it were upon a rock, the Gordian knot of the poor-laws not cut but untied…”

    Yet, the detailing of his idea belies such an approach:

    “It is obvious that, in all these instances, the more constantly the persons to be inspected are under the eyes of the persons who should inspect them, the more perfectly will the purpose of the establishment have been attained.” 

    Those who are incarcerated would be fully aware of being watched, in the same way we associate with the omnipotent eye of Big Brother. But to insist they will somehow be “kept in the loop” by their watchers is folly.  Also, such an approach would merely produce robots rather than solve an unsolvable problem via the cutting of a Gordian knot. 

    There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle.

    It is idealism on steroids to assert that those who you’ve incarcerated would always be kept abreast of your intentions and then expect to obtain the results referred to above. It is akin to today’s central planners – their intentions versus actions always at loggerheads. 

    This brings us to the question of who will watch those watching us?

    Tyrannical-type characters have been waiting in the wings to exert their control over societies throughout history. At least in the ancient world there was a limit to how much territory those with power could seize; we are not so fortunate. The global entities of the UN, WEF, and WHO have gained a stronghold over the entire world. They work in lockstep with one another and with leaders of every nation – witness the coordinated pandemic response of 2020, still bearing fruit in 2024 via whipped up fear of new deadly viruses on the horizon – and predictions of global boiling ready to consume us in a fiery furnace. 

    Jeremy Bentham’s circular cell building arrangement of surveillance eerily mirrors what we are seeing planned today with 15-minute cities and herding of people from regional to urban areas. We are told it is to make life easier when it is just a foil to “monitor” us more closely. 

    Jeremy Bentham’s

    Consider this final paragraph of Bentham’s Panopticon:

    “What would you say, if by the gradual adoption and diversified application of this single principle, you should see a new scene of things spread itself over the face of civilised society?”

    Between 1787 and 2024 his idea has indeed spread, gradually and fully over the face of civilisation. 

    Bentham refers to his principle as a “great and new invented instrument of government,” going on to define its excellence as the “great strength it is capable of giving to any institution it may be thought proper to apply it to.” 

    Stopping the spread requires parents and extended families to reclaim control over the raising of their children. It begins with the young, as they will be the future leaders and shapers of the world to come. No easy task when all around we see large, factory-like buildings being constructed for the sole purpose of “early learning.” 

    Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring.

    Reforming offenders in prisons is one thing, but schools are something else; at least, that’s what most of us would think. Yet, in Letter 21 of his treatise, Bentham raises the spectre of introducing “tyranny into the abodes of innocence and youth.”  

    Including the next generation in the need to be trained within a setting akin to reforming prisoners, reveals Bentham’s inclination to authoritarianism. Yet it is at this level that world rulers seek to manipulate and control.  The current global ruling elite relish the idea of control, portraying it under the guise of moral reformation (much the same as Bentham), for example with health emergencies and restrictions cloaked in the narrative of keeping us safe.

    Who better to inculcate a heart wrenching story into the minds of the young than those who seek to rob us of our freedoms and liberties? There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle. Have they managed to take Bentham’s blueprint to its natural conclusion? One may wonder at such a feat of horror. 

    Join Mailing List

    But wonder, we must. When Bentham writes of a “simple idea of architecture” being the vehicle to improve morals, productivity and stabilise the economy, this does not necessarily mean a physical place, for in our world that would indicate our digital environment. We are already incarcerated inside our very own modern-day Panopticon, replete with watchmen on every digital corner. 

    Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes – Who will watch the watchers? 

    We must!

    The University Trap

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    As the university semester begins and students head back to classes for another year, it is worth examining the troubling history and reality of Western higher education.

    THE INCOME CEILING

    It is widely acknowledged that without a university education the ability to earn an income can be limited. While trades, vocational institutions and technical colleges do present lucrative opportunities, achieving a six-figure income is more difficult for those who choose not to pursue university study. A bachelor’s degree is even becoming an insufficient prerequisite in some cases, with employers demanding, whether overtly or covertly, post-graduate qualifications.

    But has it always been necessary to spend three to ten years at university to achieve a worthwhile income?

    ARTES LIBERALES

    Throughout much of human history, entry to most professions has been achieved via apprenticeship. Aspiring lawyers and doctors spent years working in law offices or hospitals shadowing actual lawyers and doctors – and providing actual value – instead of years in a centralised institution.

    Government should not only get out of the business of universities, but also regulating merit

    Even today in California, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, aspiring lawyers can practice law after several years of apprenticeship study. In Maine, New York and Wyoming practice is permitted with a combination of apprenticeship study and only one or two years of law school.

    In a similar vein, in many parts of the world it is possible to attain a PhD by publishing a collection of material that shows noteworthy advancement in the field of study; formalised post-graduate study with a dissertation is not required.

    While many conservatives and libertarians criticise the modern university landscape for providing useless degrees and failing to adequately prepare students for the modern workplace, this has never been their role. Universities were never supposed to be the employee-creation factories that people now expect them to be. Liberal arts education (septem artes liberales) has been the traditional academic course in Western higher education for centuries.

    It is only in very modern times that we have come to see university as a necessary piece of the education puzzle: a place where most late teenagers and young adults are expected to go after completing their state-mandated education. Throughout most of history, university was a place exclusively reserved for the children of elite, often noble, families; a place where rich parents sent their children to become more worldly and provide more interesting conversation at dinner parties.

    MODERN PROBLEMS

    For 90% of their history, universities were an elite luxury. From its ancient origins, it was a place to satiate those with a scholarly desire for understanding. And while there certainly is utility in such a pursuit, it was only for those not encumbered by the toils of labour.

    It is widely acknowledged that without a university education the ability to earn an income can be limited. 

    The reflection of this in modern universities is obvious: lush, green campuses stretch out across hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of prime real estate. And while scholars are no longer expected to be rich nobles, students still rely on the luxury of other people’s labour. In fact, the universities of old had more credibility because at least the cost was borne by a rich family rather than the ordinary taxpayer.

    Now, non-university-educated taxpayers not only pay for the cost of another person’s education, they pay them a modest stipend while they study. More than that, they pay for the privilege of further enhancing this bloated institution.

    MODERN SOLUTIONS

    While modern universities still provide value and certainly have a place within the education-workforce dynamic, that place is greatly overstated. I would have no problem being operated on by a surgeon who had no formal qualifications but had spent many years being trained in the real world by actual doctors – in fact, I would choose this surgeon over one a modern university had spat out.

    Join Mailing List

    The fact that governments have partnered with this obscure government-but-not-government institution and then insisted it is the only institution that can deem someone worthy of high-paying work is the kind of fascism that should have university students everywhere in uproar.
    Government should not only get out of the business of universities, but also regulating merit. The market is actually incredibly good at optimising for merit. Similarly, employers need to stop overvaluing the merits of university education, particularly post-graduate education, and realise that universities have never been concerned about their hiring preferences.

    Finding common cause with the Greens

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    Because politics isn’t meant to be easy

    In Australia, libertarian candidates are rarely ranked highly on voters’ ballots.

    Libertarian candidates get first preferences from the small fraction of society who know and support the idea of libertarianism.

    And if they are still in the race when a conservative candidate is eliminated, they tend to get a reasonable share of the conservative candidate’s second preferences.

    But if they are still in the race when a progressive candidate is eliminated, they tend to get few of the progressive candidate’s second preferences.

    As a result of all this, more often than not the libertarian candidate fails to win a seat.

    To improve the prospects of libertarian candidates, one of the things required is for libertarian candidates to pick up more preferences from progressive voters. And they need to do this without losing votes from libertarian voters or preferences from conservative voters.

    It might be that this can be done by recognising the common ground a libertarian candidate has with progressive voters, and emphasising this common ground when communicating specifically with progressive voters.

    Residents of Australia’s offshore territories have a right to self-determination.

    Finding common ground is not easy.  Most policies promoted by progressive parties and favoured by progressive voters are statist, illiberal, and prone to failure. But not all. Some progressive policies can be supported by libertarian candidates.

    It would serve libertarian candidates well to reach out to progressive voters and let them know of this common ground. Such efforts could earn the libertarian candidate an occasional second preference on the ballots of progressive voters and might be the difference between victory and defeat.

    Consider the following policies of the Greens.  By my assessment, each of these policies is good. Libertarian candidates would be well served by communicating to progressive voters their support for such policies, and their willingness to work with progressive parties like the Greens to make them a reality.

    • Each state and territory should have at least one proportionally elected parliamentary chamber.
    • Incarceration should not be a bar to voting.
    • Being a public servant or dual citizen should not be a bar to becoming a parliamentarian. 
    • Australia should become a republic.
    • Residents of Australia’s offshore territories have a right to self-determination.
    • Citizens living in territories should have the same rights as citizens living in states, including the right to make their own laws regarding assisted suicide. 
    • The captivity, transport, and slaughter of animals should be regulated to prevent cruelty and suffering.
    • The production, sale and use of cannabis for recreational use should be legalised.
    • Forced female genital mutilation should be prohibited.
    • Consensual adult sex work should be decriminalised.
    • Stamp duties should be replaced with land tax.

    In Australia, libertarian candidates are rarely ranked highly on voters’ ballots.

    • There should be early parliamentary engagement in Australia’s negotiation of treaties, and agreements should be reviewable by parliament.
    • There should be no impacts on air and water quality detrimental to human or ecological health.
    • Australia’s ‘counter-terrorism’ legislation should be reformed to protect freedom of expression and association, freedom from arbitrary detention, legal due process, and the right to privacy.
    • Escaping violence on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status should be grounds for being considered to be a refugee.
    • Judicial discretion in sentencing should be upheld and mandatory sentencing legislation should be repealed.
    • The regulated sale of X-rated material should be allowed.
    • Australia should reject the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
    • Australian Defence Force personnel should not be used in strike-breaking or policing activities which go beyond their remit.
    Join Mailing List

    Each of these good policies of the Greens sits alongside a raft of repugnant policies. So it can be hard, when in conversation with a Greens voter, to stick to the good Greens policies without mentioning the other policies. But this is what libertarians need to do, because when libertarian candidates start winning second preferences from progressive voters, getting elected and making real change becomes possible.

    The Missing Ingredient – Assimilation

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    When Al Grassby was Immigration Minister in the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, he announced that multiculturalism was to be Australia’s future policy. Assimilation was over. 

    There was a time when Australia actively promoted assimilation. It was the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries  and applied to Aborigines, varied by state and location, involved the removal of vulnerable children from families, included an obligation to learn English, discouraged speaking local languages, and prohibited certain customary practices – particularly those involving violence. 

    But Grassby was not referring here to Aborigines or to policies from the distant past. Nor was it a reference to the White Australia policy, which the Whitlam government had officially ended. His comment was about new immigrants and implied that they had been subject to a policy of assimilation. 

    In the generally accepted meaning of the word, this was complete nonsense. What Australia had was a policy of promoting integration. And, as history shows, it had been remarkably successful. 

    The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.

    Mostly European and British, Australia’s post-war immigrants were referred to as “New Australians”. Although encouraged to learn English, they were never asked to disown their origins. There were free English classes for adults, and parents were required to send their children to school, like everyone else, where lessons were conducted in English. The kids often became interpreters for their parents. 

    Most immigrants became Australian citizens relatively quickly, the only negative being they had to renounce the citizenship of their original country; Australia did not permit dual citizenship until 2000. 

    If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second. Immigrants married other immigrants, their children married other immigrant children, and many went on to be highly successful. 

    The Whitlam government also began to admit significant numbers of people from Asia, initially Vietnam and Cambodia. And while there were pockets of resistance to this, with Whitlam himself wary of accepting anti-communist Vietnamese refugees, these also integrated well. Later waves from places such as Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Malaysia and India were equally successful. 

    But then something changed. Certain immigrants began to form enclaves and avoid contact with other Australians They also made minimal effort to learn English. The men often went back to their country of origin to find a wife, even if they were born in Australia, refusing to contemplate finding one locally. 

    Most importantly, they became contemptuous of Australian culture and values while demanding respect for their own. This was not about football, music or food, but core aspects of liberal democracy: equality before the law, presumption of innocence, respect, democracy, free speech, economic opportunity, and tolerance. This was accompanied by a major upsurge in violent crime and welfare fraud. 

    While it obviously reflects a failure to integrate, this is nonetheless multiculturalism. The culture of these people is maintained in parallel with Australia’s traditional culture. 

    If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second.

    After several decades of this, Australia’s laidback ‘live and let live’ culture is now under serious challenge. 

    In a number of countries in Europe, the same issue has arisen. Several are now abandoning multiculturalism in favour of active integration. Perhaps it could even be called assimilation. 

    The Netherlands, for example, now requires most immigrants (including asylum seekers) to undertake a “civic integration” examination within three years of arrival. The examination tests knowledge of the Dutch language and society, and a pass is required to obtain permanent residence and citizenship. Certain classes of prospective immigrants must also pass a test even before they first enter the country. The pass mark is being steadily raised. 

    It is obvious that Al Grassby’s policy is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. Liberal democratic values are jeopardised when authoritarian, doctrinaire or anti-liberal cultures are given equal standing. The presumption of innocence took a major hit in the Higgins case, for example; equality before the law came under threat with the Voice referendum; freedom of speech faces yet more limits with the Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation bill; and economic opportunity is being squeezed by excessive taxation and red tape. Meanwhile, tolerance is challenged by cancel culture and antisemitism.

    None of these is directly attributable to a failure of immigrants to integrate, but they indicate a lack of national commitment. If traditional values are not defended, alternative values will inevitably gain a foothold. 

    Join Mailing List

    There are multiple ways to rectify this problem. Australia already has an integration test for citizenship, for example, but it could be made more like that of the Dutch. There are many sources of potential immigrants, so we could select those most likely to integrate (most of those refusing to integrate come from the Middle East). And we could also make it abundantly clear to prospective immigrants that they are expected to adapt to Australian culture, not vice versa.  

    The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.

    25 Provocative Predictions For 2024 From The World’s #1 Political Observer

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

    1. Habeas corpus will not be restored in Australia.
    1. The Australian Federal Budget will be in deficit and expenditure will increase on the previous year.

      Correct: “A deficit of $28.3 billion is forecast in 2024–25.”
      Source: Statement 1: Budget Overview. Page 2.
      https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs-1.pdf

      Correct: Forecast expenditures for 2023-24 and 2024-25 are $691,070,000,000 and $734,518,000,000 respectively.
      Source: Statement 6: Expenses and Net Capital Investment. Page 233.
      https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/index.htm


    ENVIRONMENT

    1. There will be at least 7 tropical cyclones or severe tropical cyclones in Australia.

      Correct:
      Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Anggrek. 10-25 Jan 2024.
      Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Kirrily. 12 Jan – 5 Feb 2024.
      Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Lincoln. 14-25 Feb 2024.
      Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Neville. 4-24 Mar 2024.
      Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Megan. 13-21 Mar 2024.
      Category 5 Severe Tropical Cyclone Olga. 4-11 Apr 2024.
      Category 2 Tropical Cyclone Paul. 9-12 Apr 2024.
      Source:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Australian_region_cyclone_season

    STOCK MARKET

    1. Woolworths’ revenue will be lower in the March 2024 quarter than in the March 2023 quarter.

      Incorrect: Federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, called for a Woolworths boycott because it would not stock Australia Day paraphernalia. I incorrectly thought this extraordinary interference with the market might suppress sales below the same quarter the previous year. However, revenue for the 2024 March quarter was $16,800,000,000, higher than for the 2023 March quarter which was $16,338,000,000.
      Source: Page 2.
      https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20240502/pdf/0634t0t80r8xxq.pdf

    HEALTH

    1. There will be 10 or less global cases of wild polio.

      Pending: As at 25 May 2024, there have been two cases of wild polio globally, both in Pakistan. Watch this space for more updates.
      Source:
      https://www.who.int/news/item/08-04-2024-statement-following-the-thirty-eighth-meeting-of-the-ihr-emergency-committee-for-polio#:~:text=Sudan%20and%20Sudan.-,Wild%20poliovirus,samples%20to%20date%20in%202024
    1. For the first time, 33% or more of the Australian population will be obese.

    SOCIAL TRENDS

    1. The sale of sex dolls will increase in Australia.
    1. In at least one month during 2024, social media platform X will attract more than 450 million monthly users.

      Correct: On 24 May 2024, Elon Musk announced X achieved over 600 million monthly active users.
      Source:
      https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/elon-musk-x-now-600-million-monthly-active-users/717078/ and https://backlinko.com/twitter-users#twitter-monthly-users
    1. Mount Barker SA will have a larger population than Busselton WA, Orange NSW, Bowral NSW, Dubbo NSW, Nowra NSW or Bathurst NSW.
    1. At least 25% of Australians will attend church monthly.
    1. Less than 50% of Australians will use TV as their source of news.
    1. Pet ownership in Australia will grow to more than 70% of all households.

    SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

    1. Space X’s Starship will successfully reach orbit. 

    ECONOMICS

    1. The number of new incorporations will decrease in Australia from the previous year.

      Pending: In 2022-23, there were 406,365 business entries in Australia. We are waiting for the 2023-24 number
      Source:
      https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/business-indicators/counts-australian-businesses-including-entries-and- exits/latest-release
    1. Cash transactions will decrease below 17% of total transactions.
    1. Australian coal exports will increase from last year.


    ELECTIONS

    1. The ALP-Greens Coalition will be returned to government in the ACT General Election.
    1. The Country Liberal Party will win the Northern Territory General Election.

      Correct: The CLP won the election on 24 Aug 2024.
      Source:
      https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/country-liberal-party-promises-new-chapter-after-northern-territory-election-win/cwyuz1x0a
    1. The Liberal-National Party will win the Queensland State Election.
    1. Barring court-affirmed election fraud, a diagnosis of ill-health, imprisonment or assassination, Donald Trump will win the US Presidency.


    GEOPOLITICS

    1. In 2024, China will neither invade Taiwan by land nor impose a naval blockade.
    1. The United Nations General Assembly will pass at least three resolutions concerning Israel and Australia will vote with the United States.

      Pending: UN Security Council Resolution 2735 adopted 10 June 2024.
      Source: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/165/11/pdf/n2416511.pdf
    1. There will be no resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.
    1. At least two international borders will change.

      Correct:
      1 Jan 2024. Republic of Artsakh reintegrated into Azerbaijan.
      1 Apr 2024. Puntland announces independence from Somalia.
      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present)
    Join Mailing List

    DEATHS

    1. At least two of the following people will die: Ray Lawler, Sophia Loren, Julian Assange, Patricia Routledge, Tom Hughes, Jimmy Carter, Mike Carlton.

      Pending: Ray Lawler died on 24 July 2024.
      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Lawler

    SUMMARY
    Correct: 5
    Pending: 19
    Incorrect: 1

    E-Scooters: A Two Wheeled Burden?

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    Since approximately 2016 there has been a rapid increase in personal and for-hire electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities around the world. Over 600 cities now have e-scooter for-hire services and, globally, the electric scooter market is valued at more than AUD $49 billion and growing at 10% per year. In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.

    However, there are serious concerns regarding e-scooter related injuries.  

    The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset has released figures regarding e-scooter riders seeking emergency care in hospitals: 502 in the 2022 financial year, then 958 in the 2023 financial year; nearly a twofold increase year on year. Victoria introduced its e-scooter trial with 2500 rental scooters in Melbourne, Port Phillip, and Yarra council areas in February 2022, and legalised  private e-scooters on public roads in March 2022.

    Despite the minimum riding age being 16 there have been 193 presentations by children below this age over the past 3 years. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Victorian chair Dr Patrick Lo has stated that 3 children presented in one week with a brain haemorrhage, brain swelling and a broken neck. 42 unfortunate pedestrians have also been treated for e-scooter-related accidents.

    Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%.

    Queensland has released similar figures. In that state, e-scooter injuries admitted to hospitals were as follows: 279 in 2019, 877 in 2022, and 801 by September of 2023.

    In Western Australia there was a 386% percent increase in hospital admissions in the year July 2021 to June 2022. There was a 200% increase in injuries between 2017 and 2022.

    A study by the University of California San Francisco found that in the US, e-scooter-related injuries and hospital admissions increased by 222% from 2014 to 2018, climbing above 39,000. Hospital admissions expanded by 365%.

    Severe Injuries, Lack of Helmets

    The study “Comparison of Injuries Associated With Electric Scooters, Motorbikes, and Bicycles in France, 2019-2022”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), looked at 5,233 e-scooter injury patients. Mortality due to e-scooter traffic accidents was 9.2%. The risk of severe traumatic brain injury, 26%.

    In a study done by University of California San Francisco, electric scooter injuries included fractures 27%, contusions/abrasions 23% and lacerations 14%. Most concerning, almost one third reported head trauma. 

    The study “Characteristics of Electric Scooter and Bicycle Injuries After Introduction of Electric Scooter Rentals in Oslo, Norway”, published in the JAMA, found that e-scooter injuries often occur at night, to young adults, who aren’t wearing helmets, and have a high blood alcohol reading. Dr Sarah Whitelaw, an emergency doctor in Victoria, echoes this sentiment. She said in addition, riders were often travelling at high speeds.

    In Australia, there was an 800% increase in e-scooters from 2016 to 2021.

    Economic Burden

    In the US, UCLA research reveals that the healthcare cost of e-scooter injuries increased from $6.6 million in 2016 to $35.5 million in 2020.

    Doctors in New Zealand reviewed data of surgeries on injured scooter riders from October 2018 to February 2019. Adding up costs including anaesthetic, theatres, staff, implants, time in hospital and lost income, each injury averaged $19,282 NZD. Over $400,000 was spent in less than five months. 

    The study “The impact of electric scooters in Melbourne: data from a major trauma service” published on Wiley, looked at e-scooter injuries admitted to Royal Melbourne Hospital from January 2022 to January 2023. 247 riders and 9 pedestrians presented for treatment. 33% of riders were wearing helmets at the time of incident. 50% reported head injuries. Hospital cost totalled $1.9 million, and median cost was $1321.66 per patient. 

    According to the hospital’s website, “The Royal Melbourne Hospital is part of Australia’s public health care system and offers hospital care to any Australian resident under Medicare arrangements.” This also applies to the 696 other public hospitals across Australia many of which would be treating e-scooter injuries, paid for by the taxpayer. 

    Solution

    The question for libertarians is not whether to restrict or ban e-scooters, which is what authoritarians prefer, but how to move the financial risk and economic burden of injuries from taxpayers to e-scooter riders.

    Join Mailing List

    One potential solution is to establish an insurance requirement for both rental and private e-scooter owners. Purchased by riders, this would function like first-party and third-party car insurance. In the event of an accident, the insurance would cover resultant medical costs. 

    Consistent with the concept of personal responsibility, this approach would shift financial liability to individual riders and decrease reliance on public healthcare funds. It might even become a model for managing other health risks.

    Part II:Programmable Money

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    0

    Two years ago the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir John Cunliffe, spoke the most sinister sentence I’d heard in a long while. The menace was unmistakable: 

    “giving your children pocket money but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.” 

    This statement was offered in the context of Central Bank Digital Currencies. Let me explain what these are and why Sir John’s statement is terrifying. 

    Everyone knows about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. In January 2024 their total market capitalisation reached $US 1.77 trillion. For central banks that is an inordinate amount of money sitting outside traditional financial systems and regulatory frameworks. 

    The crypto market has evolved. Until fairly recently it was difficult to spend, so it tended to be treated more as an investment asset than as a mechanism of exchange. The time taken to process transactions was the most inhibiting factor. Unlike the near-instantaneous transactions of current electronic payment systems, cryptocurrency processing can take minutes.

    Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month.

    That made it suitable for a making a purchase from an online retailer, but not so good for buying a coffee in the local café.

    Technology has evolved to address this limitation. Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies. One such service is a debit card directly linked to a crypto account.  

    This resolves the usability issue. A card such as a WireX can be used wherever Visa is accepted with transactions debited from the user’s crypto account at the speed of a standard EFTPOS transaction. Spending cryptocurrency to buy an espresso has become mundane.

    And in consequence, financial technology (fintech) becomes tomorrow’s battlefield. 

    Conducting private transactions with a democratised digital currency is nirvana for libertarians but a nightmare for the state. Tax departments find it difficult to levy goods and services taxes on transactions that are opaque, while central banks can struggle to set monetary policy when sections of the populace are using a different currency. In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s ‘Future of Money’ discussion paper identifies this as the primary risk to New Zealand’s monetary sovereignty. For a small economy, the prospect of goods and services being priced in a cryptocurrency instead of $NZD is a very real challenge to the Reserve Bank’s overarching objective of stewarding a stable anchor of value.

    What to do? For the state the answer is to co-opt and regulate, which is where Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) come in. 

    Like most central banks, the Bank of England realises digital currencies are inevitable. Their plan is to mandate a state-controlled alternative, linked to the traditional local currency. 

    As Sir John points out, CBDCs can be programmed like any other cryptocurrency. From the point of view of the state this is fantastic: improved efficiencies in the financial system generating economic benefit whilst enhancing the control that states traditionally exert over fiat currency. 

    From the point of view of the people it is not so good. Programmability has the potential to enable totalitarian micro-control over every aspect of our financial lives. When every transaction is recorded and the state can manipulate the currency with immediate effect, the people are reduced to mere economic units whose financial behaviours can be strictly monitored, manipulated and mandated.

     Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies.

    Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month. Imagine being automatically sent to the bottom of the queue for diabetes treatment because the health system has determined you spent too much on Coca-Cola over the last 12 months. The possibilities afforded by control of currency at this granularity are endless. 

    In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s discussion papers are at pains to obfuscate the essence of this aspect. In response to concerns raised by the public, industry and no less than the Privacy Commissioner himself, the Reserve Bank stressed that privacy would be a consideration. It has not been elevated to the status of principle. Of perhaps greater concern is the Reserve Bank’s differentiation between the definitions of privacy and anonymity:

    “’Privacy’ means that it is possible that data was collected but has not been shared, while ‘anonymity’ means data was not collected.”

    Between the competing regulatory demands of the Privacy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, the Reserve Bank’s view of precisely where on the spectrum New Zealand should reside certainly isn’t leaning towards privacy or the anonymity Kiwis currently enjoy with physical cash currency.

    Alongside the introduction of CBDCs will be initiatives to hobble the competition. Governments will endeavour to regulate existing cryptocurrencies out of existence and are likely to impose stiff penalties on those who trade in them, an aspect the Reserve Bank addresses with the vague and rather euphemistic intention to ‘Regulate new forms of money and payments that impact stewardship goals.’ 

    Join Mailing List

    This is already happening in China: the introduction of the Digital Renminbi CBDC in 2021 was accompanied by an outright ban on other cryptocurrencies, the Standing Committee knowing full well that control of the digital currency was essential to the long-term success of the overlying Social Credit System.

    Western governments are likely to put a friendlier face on CBDCs, arguing trust, convenience and efficiency. Despite those arguments and the fluffy, paternalistic authoritarianism espoused by technocrats such as Sir John, no-one but your mum should have the right to tell you how many sweets you can buy with your own money. 

    Because she has your best interests at heart. Sir John espouses the best interests of the state.

    Forum Shopping for Native Title rights

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    The Rolling Stones were wrong: you can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.  And if you forum shop. 

    So it was with a recent native title ‘victory’ at the High Court of Australia. The Court overturned a decision of the full court of the Federal Court of Australia.

    Native title holders at the Macarthur River in the Northern Territory wanted a say over a new tailings dam associated with the mining and transhipment of zinc-lead-silver ore. Fair enough. The McArthur River Project ore concentrate must travel 120 kilometres by road to the “Bing Bong” loading facility located on the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is loaded onto a bulk-carrier vessel for transhipment to larger ocean-going ships. 

    This part of the Gulf is shallow, and the bulk carrier must use a navigation channel, which needs to be maintained by regular dredging. The resulting dredged sediment is pumped onshore to a Dredge Spoil Emplacement Area, which has been filling up. In 2013, Mt Isa Mines applied for a new mineral lease under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) to construct a new area on a pastoral lease near the Bing Bong loading facility.

    This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. 

    The Northern Land Council sought to prevent the issue of the minerals lease and a declaration that the proposed grant of the lease was invalid because the procedures under their preferred section of the Native Title Act had not been followed.

    The High Court ordered that the Northern Territory Minister be restrained from deciding the application for the future act until the completion of the procedures under the Native Title Act. The High Court had to decide whether, besides freeholder rights, the native title claimants had a right to object under native title. It seems they did. 

    Imagine fighting all the way to the High Court of Australia: first the Federal Court, then appealing to a full bench of the Federal Court, and then to the High Court. The time and cost to Australian taxpayers are enormous. And for what?

    The victory was that the High Court resolved differing interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility… associated with mining” in the context of the 633-page Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

    The key was whether native title holders had access to one ‘notification, objection and consultation procedure’ under the Native Title Act, or to another procedure under the same Act. It was either the same procedural rights as the holders of ‘ordinary title’ land or additional procedural rights to object to the future act and have those objections heard by an ‘independent person’. 

    If that wasn’t sufficiently indulgent, the applicants were entitled to processes under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT), a right to negotiate procedure, and a right to be heard at the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or have an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Indeed, an ILUA was commenced in 2021 before the appeal to the full court of the Federal Court.

    You can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.

    The decision by the High Court relates to one set of facts about what constitutes a mining operation. This may or may not provide a guide to any other disputes between native title holders and miners. At the outset there were six families involved in discussions on the mine. Three families were not directly affected but have now been drawn into the ILUA. The context is important; there are no other major economic bases in the region; the mine and associated works are it. Twenty three per cent of the workforce are Aboriginal.

    This matter started in 2013. The mine and its associated infrastructure began in 1992. The original applicant for the objection died before the courts resolved the matter. For whom is this a victory? 

    The Northern Land Council hoped this decision would prompt the mining company to ‘engage proactively and in good faith with the native title holders, through their … legal representatives, to obtain free, prior and informed consent before further disturbing their native title.’ There is no evidence it did not, but it probably spoke to the native title holders in preference to the NLC and its lawyers. 

    Join Mailing List

    The term ‘free, prior and informed’ is taken from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. If Aborigines keep playing this rent-seeker game, they will never escape poverty, and the culture that holds them in a state of dependence on public servants and land councils will remain.

    Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research

    The New UAE Corporate Tax

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax rate for all but a very few exempted industries.

    The implementation of a corporate tax is not because the UAE needs the money to build new roads, hospitals, schools or public facilities. The UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world. None of it required tax revenues. Nor was it all paid for with money from oil revenues.

    Similarly, the UAE is not implementing a tax regime to fund public services such as policing, rubbish collection, healthcare or education. Again, the UAE embarrasses high-tax countries when it comes to public safety, maintenance of public spaces, healthcare and education. People in the UAE cannot even conceive of being robbed, let alone mugged; or even seeing a homeless drug addict. The unparalleled safety and cleanliness of the UAE has not required tax revenues; nor was it all funded by oil revenues.

    The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The UAE is also not implementing a tax regime to fund a social welfare program. 89% of the UAE’s 9 million residents are expatriates. They must support their residency through work sponsorship or business profits, or else they have to leave. Technically, there is limited assistance available to the 11% minority of native emirate citizens. In reality, there is an unspoken positive discrimination applied to emirate citizens for various job positions. So taxes are not needed for welfare.

    The UAE is also not implementing a corporate tax to cover a ballooning government bureaucracy and out-of-control public indebtedness, like that seen throughout the “developed” Western nations, such as Australia. The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The idea that Governments need an instrument as crude as tax to monetise a national economy is as archaic as it is absurd. We live in a world in which some of the largest and most successful companies lose money on their core business in order to drive greater profits from tangential sources. Airlines, for example, knowingly lose money from the business of flying planes, because greater profits come from the financialisation of their frequent flyer programs. Google and Facebook also stand out as companies whose revenues exceed the GDP of entire countries despite their ‘core products’ being ostensibly given away for “free”.

    The UAE has attracted literally trillions of dollars of foreign investment, hundreds of thousands of companies, millions of residents, tens-of-millions of visitors each year, and built some of the most incredible cities on earth in scarcely a few decades; primarily, arguably, as a result of eschewing taxation. So why would the UAE change direction after achieving such success following a far more sophisticated business model?

    UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world.

    The reason the UAE is sacrificing the zero-tax brand it worked so hard to build, is due to political pressure from socialist, globalist, kleptocratic politicians in high-tax, western nations. That is, the same politicians responsible for the terminal decline and humiliation of the West – the exponentially increasing debt, monetary debasement, deindustrialisation, illegal migration, growing homelessness, increasing crime, energy shortages, insane ‘woke’ politics, military weakness, civil unrest etc etc etc – are demanding that other nations, like the UAE, follow their lead.

    Unfortunately, the last time the UAE ignored the bullying of Western politicians they were placed on a so-called international ‘grey list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FTAF) for not doing “enough” to “fight money laundering”. Compared to the money laundering taking place in the US, the volume going through the UAE is a pittance. But the issue was never about money laundering; it was demonstrating fealty to the Western political cabal. The ‘grey-listing’ was to embarrass the UAE rulers. The practical effect was simply to increase the paperwork burden placed on UAE banks moving money to and from overseas. That burden has made routine banking more difficult and expensive for legitimate SMEs, while having virtually no impact on companies and individuals transacting large sums. 

    Join Mailing List

    So the embarrassingly incompetent boobs overseeing the decline of the world’s richest countries have finally forced the UAE to start penalising businesses for being successful. The question now is: what is the likely impact going to be? 

    In 2018, the UAE was similarly pressured into implementing a goods and services tax (VAT) that included precious metals. The new 5% tax caused a 75% reduction in precious metal trade. Just 6 months later the Government exempted precious metals from the tax, restoring trade to previous levels.

    So it will be very interesting to see what comes of the new UAE tax.

    1...567...16Page 6 of 16

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    A Reply to “Centre-Right National Strategy”

    Jordan Dittloff - 0
    Leaving aside for a moment the question (very ably posed by LibDems South Australia President James Hol) of when exactly the Liberal Democrats became known...

    Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

    Brave Little Trooper

    Morning Essentials Tips

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv