Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 9

    Polite Inquiries

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    Nothing short of a full Royal Commission into the nationwide pandemic response will be satisfactory given the scale of government intervention, the hurt caused, and the economic and social legacy it has left on Australia.

    One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find. Such was the case in Victoria, when retired judge Jennifer Coate headed the inquiry into Victoria’s bungled Covid hotel quarantine system, a vulnerability which led to months of lockdown across the state. She found that ultimately ‘no one’ was responsible for initiating the conditions under which breaches occurred, which largely revolved around contracted private security being compromised by lack of supervision and infection control training. 

    Premier Daniel Andrews took the opportunity to roll his then Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, and the report was able to pinpoint the decision to use contracted private security as a key failing. In the end, two departments blamed each other (a fine was paid from one to another), Andrews apologised and claimed ‘accountability’, and we never quite found out why the police force or ADF were shunned while expensive security contracts were whipped up and tendered with lightning speed. 

    Daniel Andrews

    So as the Federal Government launches its own inquiry into the Federal response to the Covid 19 pandemic, libertarians, and indeed anyone interested in the truth of these matters, could be forgiven for remaining cynical.  

    But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic.

    For one, this inquiry ought to be a Royal Commission – one that can obtain key documents and communications, and compel witnesses to appear and truthfully answer questions. In Victoria, phone records and key communications were redacted, the inquiry and media focussed solely on only one key decision (or ‘creeping assumption’), and the political damage was very limited.    

    As mentioned, an inquiry operates within the confines of what the current government is prepared to expose. In the case of Andrews in Victoria, a few carefully selected heads rolled. With this upcoming Federal inquiry, the goal will undoubtedly be to inflict further damage on former Coalition ministers. 

    The terms of reference focus solely on the federal pandemic response, and specifically rules out the ‘unilateral actions of state and territory governments’. Thus, many of the most harmful government interventions and gross acts of bureaucratic inflexibility cannot be examined. 

    The language of the terms of reference also fails to mention human rights, and seems fixated on systems, rather than the human cost of the pandemic. I daresay the findings of this inquiry will focus on how government can be improved during a pandemic or emergency, not how it can be minimised.    

    One of the many well-known rules of politics is that one only calls an inquiry when one is already sure of what it will find.

    We will however have a chance to ruminate on the two years of international border closures and inflexibility on that front. We can shine a light on the secrecy of National Cabinet meetings, the role of the Home Affairs department in suppressing online information, and the role of the ADF at supporting the enforcement of State restrictions. We can also reflect on the Federal Government’s role in communicating to Australians about Covid-19, vaccines, safety assessments and initial restrictions. Finally, perhaps we will have a chance to inspect the economic damage inflicted by the dramatic fiscal response, perform a cost-benefit analysis and review the economic legacy of programs such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker and HomeBuilder. 

    Join Mailing List

    But it is a disgrace that we may never be able to hold the states accountable for the most egregious government interventions during the pandemic. What of the bureaucratic inflexibility at state borders, which kept families and loved ones apart and even resulted in the deaths of infants? What of the vaccine mandates that drove a wedge between those who ‘consented’ and those who didn’t, inflicting untold social and economic damage in many cases? What of the state-imposed lockdowns which persisted well beyond the initial period of uncertainty and panic in 2020? 

    We deserve to have these questions picked over with the finest of combs, and those responsible for unnecessary harm must be held accountable.  

    Australia No Longer Has Informed Consent For Medical Procedures

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    6

    As the Publisher of Liberty Itch, I receive six industry briefings, exposes or whistleblower tips weekly. Some are anonymous, others with a name.

    Most don’t advance the debate on public issues.

    Recently though, I spoke with a doctor, frustrated at the way government has ruined a once proud and independent profession.

    His firm conclusion: informed consent, the underlying component for any doctor-patient relationship, is no longer possible in Australia.

    He has been practicing medicine in Australia for 15 years, so his career is well-advanced. He presents as a professional who loves his job, with all the challenges and rewards it brings. 

    Until the governments around Australia coordinated on Covid-19, he said he never cared much for politics. It wasn’t part of his life. But witnessing politicians trample over human rights, intrude and violate the sacred relationship between doctor and patient, was enough to activate him.

    He’s not in the mood for forgiving the perpetrators.

    Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.

    When a patient presents with any health problem or condition, a doctor must convey all of the available relevant information to the patient in order to gain his or her voluntary consent for any medical procedure. When a government hides or lies, and a patient is coerced into a procedure, informed consent is dead!

    Relevant information regarding a vaccination might include the side effects, relevant and absolute risk of prevention, trial information, and any other safety data. Yet the Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this. 

    The British Medical Association’s BMJ has written that Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration is dependent on funding by pharmaceutical companies at a worrying 96%, the highest among peer international organisations. This leads to obvious questions about independence and whether there are conflicts of interest. 
    In July 2023 the TGA stated: “As reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination are very stable, we will not include this section in future COVID-19 vaccine safety reports”.

    Yet as our doctor-friend pointed out to me, “The rates were in fact stable, at the highest levels recorded in history. What are they now? We don’t know, because the TGA won’t give us this information.”

    Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.  Vaccine mandates were slapped on a trusting populace on the basis of the greater good – of protecting others. Even now there are many places where these mandates remain despite overwhelming evidence that vaccination against Covid-19 does not prevent either infection or transmission of the disease. And despite numerous reports of adverse side effects, still no reliable data is provided. 

    Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.

    I listened to this doctor’s contempt for authorities as he described himself watching the CDC change its definition of the words ‘vaccine’ and ‘vaccination’ in real time to accommodate the shortfalls of the available Covid vaccines. 

    One could perfectly understand his visceral reaction to the deplatforming of professionally-acclaimed, peer-reviewed medical experts simply because they shared research data that did not fit the narrative of ‘safe and effective’.

    But then witness Dr Jeanette Young, the Queensland Chief Health Officer at the time, who cautioned against one vaccine whilst promoting another while, as the Courier Mail reported, her husband, Professor Graeme Nimmo, was financially incentivised by Pfizer. 

    Dr Jeannette Young

    Dr Young should have been punished for failing to declare a major conflict of interest, but instead was promoted to Governor of Queensland, a handsome reward from her friend Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has now resigned without facing the consequences of her own Covid-19 decisions.  

    “So what happens if your doctor wants to caution you about any of this information?”, I naively asked our whistleblower doctor.

    The sobering answer should send chills down the spine of all Australians.

    “They will likely be suspended. The governing body of Australian doctors, AHPRA, has done just that that to several who were brave enough to speak out. As a registered doctor with AHPRA, I am not allowed to publicly state my opinions on health policy (including on social media), as it may undermine the confidence in those in political positions making up the rules. Any Australian doctor who denies this statement does not fully understand their conditions of registration with AHPRA.”

    Join Mailing List

    To protect his livelihood and family, he only talks to me.

    The greatest discoveries in medicine and science have come from testing a hypothesis that contradicts traditional schools of thought. When the health system is hijacked by conflicted bureaucrats, problems inevitably arise. The past few years have left our doctor with an absolute disgust for our Chief Health Officers and Health Ministers, and for the first time a sense of embarrassment at what should be an honourable profession without government interference. 

    Most disconcertingly of all, he feels most concern for patients who are now subject to near-complete control by the collectivist bureaucrats and their centralised treatment plans for diseases which are yet to come.

    A Hungry Christmas

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    Christmas is characterised by the ubiquitous plentiful Christmas lunch. However, many Australian families will struggle to afford to put food on the table, as they face food insecurity troubles.

    Defining Food Insecurity
    According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the UN, food insecurity is defined as “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or the ability to acquire acceptable food in socially acceptable ways, is limited or uncertain.”

    Food insecurity is ascertained by one simple question: “In the past 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy any more?”

    Reasons for food insecurity in Australia
    Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity. Cost of living pressures have been exacerbated by a number of factors.

    • Above average inflation: In January this year, the CPI headline reading of 7.8% was the highest since 1990. This figure has remained around this mark all year. Recently, the RBA stated that inflation won’t return to target range (2% to 3%) until the end of 2025.
    • Elevated food inflation: Data indicate that food prices will continue increasing by up to 10% each year. This will increase the average household’s annual grocery bill of $13,000 by ~$108 per month. 

    Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer.

    • Elevated interest rates:Mortgage payments increased 71% YOY this year, as people came off fixed-rate mortgages and on to higher variable rates. By the end of this year, 48.5% of total borrowers will require 30%+ of their income to service their mortgage, according to Australian National University’s Australian tax and welfare system model.

    • Declining household savings: Increasing mortgage repayments and inflation have seen the average household savings ratio drop to 1.1% – the lowest level since 2007.
    • Wages unable to keep up: The Australian Bureau of Statistics says the wage price index increased 1.3% in Q3, the biggest quarterly rise in the 26-year history of the report. Simultaneously, the RBA raised interest rates to a 12-year high of 4.35% in order to combat a CPI increase of 5.4% over the 12 months to September 2023 quarter.

    Libertarian solutions
    As Adlai Stevenson said, “A hungry man is not a free man”. Addressing food insecurity from a libertarian perspective requires furthering freedom and voluntary cooperation. In practice, this includes minimising government intervention to maximise efficient allocation of resources and productive output.

    Adlai Stevenson

    Australian farmers are essential for our food production and security. According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), most of the food sold within this country is supplied by Australian producers. 

    National Farmers Federation’s (NFF) recent campaign made a stand against expanding government intervention, claiming “food production is not a central priority for the current Federal government”. NFF went on to add that Labor is running a “niche ideological agenda” and “wilfully ignorant of the plight of farmers”. To support these claims, NFF cited a recent survey finding a majority of farmers think the Labor government’s policies are harming the agricultural industry. 

    Contributing to this sentiment is the federal government’s proposition to introduce a new Biosecurity Protection Levy from the 1st of July 2024. According to the DAFF, “taxpayers, importers, international travellers and producers” would be subjected to this cost. 

    Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity.

    In their research paper ‘Towards Levyathan? Industry levies in Australia’, the Productivity Commission included a case study on the Biosecurity Protection Levy. This report is unerring in its analysis of government motivation for opting for the levy structure. The report:

    • Suggests that targeted industry “levies” may encounter less community resistance compared to broad tax increases.
    • Highlights the public’s immediate concern with direct costs of taxation, emphasising the potential favourability of perceived indirect costs of an efficient tax system.
    • Notes that people may view levies more positively, assuming they are not directly impacted, creating a phenomenon termed “fiscal illusion.”

    Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer. In this case, further increasing grocery bills for families across Australia. The report asks and answers two important questions:

    • Will levy payers be in a position to monitor and influence how levy proceeds are used?
    • How will primary producers know whether levy proceeds are going to activities that they value?
    Join Mailing List

    The answer: unclear, but unlikely. Levy proceeds will only fund a proportion of overall biosecurity activities, and it is not proposed that those revenues will be allocated to particular activities.

    As libertarians, we stand in opposition to the appropriation of funds for opaque causes. It is essential we “watch the watchmen”, and advocate fiscal responsibility and austerity. This is an important part of our work to spread a singular life-giving, flourishing freedom throughout our country, including affordable food.

    The Libertarian ACT Party’s Influence On The New Coalition Government

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    Strange Mixture of Ethno-Nationalism And Soviet-Style Authoritarianism Is A Very Real Risk.

    The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the formation of coalition governments. The usual outcome is a coalition featuring one of the traditional major parties, the leftist Labour party or the centrist National party, with another party, perhaps plus other sympathetic parties providing confidence and supply from outside government. 

    Only twice in the 27 years of proportional representation has this scenario not occurred. In 2020, where an electorate inexplicably grateful for the Covid response handed Jacinda Ardern’s Labour party an unprecedented absolute majority, and 2023 when the centrist National party, the populist NZ First and libertarian Act parties formed a three-way coalition. Members of all three parties will hold ministerial warrants inside and outside cabinet, and a comprehensive policy platform has been agreed amongst them.

    The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been

    The essential objective of the policy platform is recovery from the devastation wrought over the last six years by the Labour-led government. Every key economic and social metric is in the red, core Crown debt has tripled, infrastructure is crumbling, cost of living and inflation are crises, Stalinesque centralisation of devolved services such as health and tertiary education have been eye-wateringly expensive failures, and democracy at all levels of government has largely been supplanted by the euphemistically named “co-governance” of public services: Maori prima inter pares Apartheid.

    In six short years the far-left ideologues of the Labour party, cheered on by their fellow travellers in the corrupted media, have taken NZ’s “Rockstar Economy” to the point where the country is teetering on the verge of middle-income instead of first world nationhood, and a society where civil unrest between a coalition government seeking to reassert democratic norms and a significant proportion of the populace dedicated to replacing democracy with a strange mixture of ethno-nationalism and Soviet-style authoritarianism is a very real risk.

    The proportional representation electoral system in New Zealand encourages the
    formation of coalition governments.

    The hope of the Act and NZ First constituencies (and to a lesser extent, their National party peers) is that the two minor coalition partners can provide National with some much needed backbone. Traditionally a centre-right party representative of rural interests, business and exporters, National today has devolved into the blandest of beige centrist parties, pitching themselves as more fiscally prudent and better at delivery than their Labour party counterparts. Whilst accurate, these are not the radical characteristics needed by the incoming coalition to reverse the calamity of six years of unrestrained wokeism.

    A lack of unity amongst the parties might be the coalition’s greatest weakness, embodied by the leader of NZ First Winston Peters, whose reputation for capriciousness and venality is well-earned. Since 1996 he has entered into coalition four times, twice each with Labour and National, an experience both parties came to regret on all four occasions.

    Winston Peters

    The fear of Act and National voters is he will blow up this coalition as he has done to coalitions in the past. And much to the dismay of libertarians, that risk is largely the fault of David Seymour, leader of the Act party. As early as 2022 Act were polling around 15% and an all-time high of 20% seemed achievable, which would almost certainly propel a National/Act coalition to the treasury benches.

    Much to the chagrin of party rank and file, and grandees such as previous leader Rodney Hide, David Seymour took the inexplicable decision to broadly back Jacinda Ardern’s autocratic approach to pandemic lock-downs, vaccine mandates and the protests against them.

    Going so far as repeating Labour party agitprop against anti-mandate demonstrators in a very public refusal to meet with them, Seymour singularly alienated a large section of Act’s constituency. A constituency Winston Peters was only too glad for the opportunity to champion.

    Join Mailing List

    Embracing the disaffected constituency that Seymour repudiated was enough for Peters to re-enter parliament and coalition government. Conversely for David Seymour, abandoning Act’s libertarian principles consigned the party to a paltry 8.6% of the popular vote, and the ignominy of coalition with NZ First. Act supporters can only hope David Seymour has been suitable chastened by the experience to refrain from such a damaging strategic mistake again, and that Act and National can survive the impact of NZ First upon the coalition government.

    The libertarian influence over the new government is a lot less than it could have been, at least in its first three-year term of office.

    Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    7

    But where were you last Sunday morning?

    It is the festive season. You are annoyed every time someone wishes you “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.  You are a libertarian who wants to save Christendom, but where were you last Sunday morning?

    Personal salvation aside, there are a number of compelling reasons for spending your Sunday mornings in the pews.  I suggest there are two broad reasons. First, a church not supported by its local community will disappear – and that’s a bad thing.  And second, Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    If a local community does not support its local church, it will disappear because without attendance, volunteerism, and financial contributions, it will lack the necessary resources to operate.

    That’s a bad thing for libertarians.

    These local institutions often embody principles fundamental to libertarian thought. Local churches are more than just places of worship; they are community hubs where individuals come together voluntarily, a core tenet of libertarianism. They foster a sense of community and interconnectedness, offering a means of social engagement, moral discourse, and mutual support, all without reliance on government intervention.

    The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    Moreover, churches traditionally play a significant role in providing social services, education, and charity, operating independently of the state (think of all those schools and hospitals called “Saint Paul’s” etc). This aligns with the libertarian preference for private, community-based solutions over government-run programs. The disappearance of local churches has a compounding effect that means a reduction in the number of non-governmental avenues available for community support and social welfare, increasing reliance on the state.

    Furthermore, churches often serve as bastions of moral and ethical teachings.  These complement and reinforce libertarian principles of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. A moral framework that helps guide individual and community behaviour, essential in a society where libertarian principles prioritise individual decision-making and self-governance.

    So, the disappearance of local churches means a loss of important community structures that support libertarian values of voluntary association, community-driven welfare, and moral guidance, making it a concerning development for those who advocate for a society built on these principles.

    Take a moment to ask yourself – where does the rubber really hit the road in a libertarian society?  We mythologise the empowering of community groups and volunteerism in order to disempower the state – but what do you think this looks like?  An individual accountable only to their families and God is the epitome of personal responsibility.

    Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    How then do Christian teachings complement libertarian ethics? By reflecting a harmonious blend of spiritual beliefs and political philosophy. At the core of both systems is a strong emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility. Christian doctrine champions free will, advocating that individuals are morally accountable for their choices, a notion that resonates deeply with libertarian values. Additionally, the concept of stewardship in Christianity, which calls for responsible management of resources and care for the world, parallels the libertarian emphasis on self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

    In terms of ethical conduct the Christian Golden Rule, which advises treating others as one would wish to be treated, aligns closely with the libertarian non-aggression principle, which advocates peaceful and voluntary interactions among individuals. Both philosophies encourage charity and voluntary aid, preferring acts of compassion and generosity over compulsory state-led welfare. This common ground highlights a shared belief in the power of individual and community action in addressing social needs.

    Join Mailing List

    Moreover, Christian teachings about peace, non-violence, and the significance of smaller, community-based decision-making resonate with libertarian views on limited governance and opposition to unnecessary wars. The respect for moral autonomy and the individual conscience is a crucial intersection of these belief systems. It underscores the importance of making ethical decisions based on personal convictions, free from external coercion. The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    So quit complaining and save your local church. But find a “traditional service” that preaches the Gospel and not progressive talking points.  Make the effort and do your homework. Start with a Christmas service.  It will be the most impactful thing you can do to save Christendom and the libertarian values it enshrines.  And you may even save your soul.

    The Farce of NZ Ministry of Health Data Leak

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    0

    Dealing With A Number of Organisations Concerning These Data For More Than A Year.

    Several days ago Database Administrator Barry Young emerged as the Ministry of Health whistleblower. Mr Young had appropriated more than a terabyte of Covid vaccine data and released it to selected contacts in the vaccine sceptical community within New Zealand and overseas. The data was presented alongside excess mortality rates to draw startling conclusions.

    Subsequently it emerged that Mr. Young had been dealing with a number of organisations concerning these data for more than a year. Sacrificing whatever little credibility he might have enjoyed, Mr. Young decided to use the NZ Loyal political party as his vehicle to announce the data release.

    It is information pertinent to the health and well-being the vast majority of New Zealanders who got vaccinated against Covid.

    NZ Loyal is a party founded by the journalist Liz Gunn, with a policy agenda consisting of a typical grab bag of poorly considered responses to conspiracy theories. Garnering a mere 26,000 votes at the recent general election, NZ Loyal is the epitome of a ‘fringe political movement’ – anti-globalisation, anti-international institutions, fluoridation is a conspiracy to keeps the population docile, and vaccines turn people into WiFi terminals.

    Party leader Liz Gunn interviewed Mr. Young in the ludicrously titled Mother of All Revelations podcast. It was anything but: Mr Young squandered the opportunity to appear as a dispassionate analyst of the data and revealed himself to be a partisan acolyte of the Church of the Holy Mother of Idiotic Conspiracies. Compounding his error, Mr. Young issued a variety of highly suspect pronouncements concerning the causality (conflated with correlation) between the vaccine and excess mortality rates in New Zealand; pronouncements simply unsupported by the data and so tenuous and tangential as to be laughed at by anyone who cared to look.

    Barry Young

    Which of course the conspiracist community, revelling in confirmation bias, refrained from doing. Mr Young became the overnight sensation of vaccine sceptics worldwide, conducting interviews with such bastions of empirical evidence, the scientific method and dispassionate enquiry as Alex Jones of InfoWars and Steve Kirsch. Even Russell Brand got in on the action as the news of the leak spread around the world, amplified and exacerbated with salacious detail.

    Three days after the disclosure Mr. Young was arrested by New Zealand police and charged with accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes, an offence which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison. He had his home ransacked and electronic equipment seized and, doubtless to keep him in communicado, was remanded in custody for several days.

    (Such is the New Zealand justice system: murderers awaiting trial typically do so on home detention and serial rapists have been sentenced to home detention instead of prison. Potentially embarrassing the state through misappropriating information is a far more serious offence.)
    The data itself was subject to injunction and many websites complied with the New Zealand court’s ruling notwithstanding it was ultra vires, further piquing the curiosity of the conspiracist community.

    The data was presented alongside excess mortality rates to draw startling conclusions.

    New Zealand’s whistleblower protection laws are weak. To enjoy their protections (such as they are), a whistleblower must follow the disclosure policies of the organisation concerned in the first instance and subsequently, a suitable authority such as the office of the ombudsman. Mr. Young maintains that he followed this procedure, raising concerns with the Ministry of Health and then the Deputy Prime Minister. He has not so far released any documentation to provide corroboration, as he will require if he is to mount a robust defence against the charge he now faces.

    One would hope he mounts such a defence. Losing his employment and gaining the opprobrium of those capable of critical thinking ought to be punishment enough for this fantasist who, in the final analysis, is little more than a distraction from the real issues.

    Because he is, fundamentally if accidentally, correct.

    There was an unexplained increase in excess mortality rates in New Zealand during the pandemic response and vaccine roll-out. The New Zealand authorities should be releasing the data they hold for independent analysis, suitably anonymised. Hiding behind commercial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and spurious interpretations of privacy provisions is improper, bordering upon malfeasance.

    Join Mailing List

    These data should be the property of the New Zealand people. It is information pertinent to the health and well-being the vast majority of New Zealanders who got vaccinated against Covid, and to the decisions taken by the authorities on our collective behalf. In the interests of both public health and the democratic body politic it should be available for scrutiny.

    Never mind the distraction of useful idiots, the data must be released.

    Security To Slavery

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Australia’s Struggle with Security And Freedom

    China’s Tech Dystopia I: The Surveillance State

    On a recent visit to China, the first thing that struck me was the omnipresence of surveillance cameras. They loomed on literally every street corner, a silent yet potent symbol of the state’s watchful eye. This brought to mind the unsettling parallels with George Orwell’s ‘1984,’ where constant surveillance and the distortion of truth are central to maintaining governmental power.

    China’s Surveillance Web: A Reality Check

    In ‘1984,’ Orwell presents a society under unrelenting watch by a totalitarian regime, an image that resonates deeply with China’s current surveillance state. By 2021, the country had deployed over 540 million surveillance cameras, a number that is only expected to grow. This vast network, integrated with advanced facial recognition and AI, is a piece of a much larger puzzle. Coupled with extensive monitoring of digital activities and the implementation of a social credit system, the Chinese government has harnessed technology to orchestrate an unprecedented level of societal oversight and control.

    COVID Zero Policy: A Page from Orwell’s Playbook

    The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for the Chinese government to expand its surveillance capabilities under the guise of public health. The COVID Zero policy, with its aim of eradicating the virus, saw the introduction of mandatory health apps that tracked each individuals’ movements and health status. In practice, these apps controlled where people could go, who they could meet, and enforced strict compliance with quarantine measures. While the measures were somewhat effective at controlling the spread of the virus for nearly three years, they also served to normalise a level of state intrusion into private lives previously unimaginable even within previous CCP standards.

    Powerful reminder of the undeniable priority of freedom, ensuring that advancements in technology do not usher us into a new era of digital slavery.

    A Real-Life ‘1984’ in China

    The parallels between China’s surveillance state and Orwell’s dystopian vision are striking. Orwell’s novel portrays a society where surveillance is not only about monitoring but also about manipulating reality – a theme that finds echoes in the modern Chinese context. However, unlike Orwell’s mostly passive characters, there have been instances of resistance in China. A notable instance of this was when Shanghai’s young generation held up blank sheets of A4 paper as a form of protest, a response to censorship and representing all the unsayable things. The courage displayed by the participants in these movements provided a glimmer of hope, suggesting that the human spirit’s desire for freedom and autonomy can persist even under the most oppressive surveillance regimes.

    Ethical Dilemma: Safety vs. Freedom

    The ethical dilemma posed by China’s surveillance regime is profound. Is the safety provided by such a system worth the cost of individual freedoms? Benjamin Franklin coined the famous warning: ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ This sentiment captures the core of the dilemma; the notion that safety must come at the expense of freedom is a slippery slope, leading to a society where individuals are under constant watch, reminiscent of modern slavery.

    Australia’s Struggle with Security and Freedom

    As we examine China’s approach to surveillance, it’s instructive to reflect on similar tensions experienced in Australia. The Australian government implemented strict measures to control the spread of the Covid virus, closely mirroring China’s approach. This included lockdowns, travel restrictions, extensive contact tracing, and the introduction of a vaccine passport (a policy even China didn’t implement). While these measures satisfied many, as shown by some election results, especially the 2021 WA state election, they also sparked a nationwide debate over the balance between public safety and individual liberties.

    The Chinese government has harnessed technology to orchestrate an unprecedented level of societal oversight and control.

    The pandemic response raised important questions about the extent to which governments can curtail freedoms in the name of security. The enforcement of lockdowns and the implementation of what many viewed as apartheid via a choice regarding vaccination led to significant disruptions in daily life and raised severe concerns about government overreach. This experience mirrors the broader global conversation about how societies value and protect individual freedoms in times of crisis.

    Concluding Thoughts: Navigating the Future

    As we navigate the post-pandemic world, it is crucial to learn lessons from both China’s and Australia’s experiences. The global community must engage in a thoughtful dialogue about the role of technology in governance and the paramount importance of safeguarding individual liberties. The echoes of ‘1984’ in these real-world scenarios serve as a powerful reminder of the undeniable priority of freedom, ensuring that advancements in technology do not usher us into a new era of digital slavery.

    Join Mailing List

    The choices made by governments and societies today will determine the role of technology in our lives and the preservation of our fundamental freedoms. As we stand at this crossroads, it is imperative that we choose a path that respects individual liberties while harnessing the benefits of technological advancements for the greater good.

    The ABS Just Found 188,000 Public Servants Hiding Behind The Lounge Cushions.

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    1

    The Numbers Grow Ever More Staggering Every Year.

    Around early November of every year, the ABS publishes statistics on the number of public sector employees in Australia.  The numbers grow ever more staggering every year.

    The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023.  That is across Commonwealth, State, Territory, and Local Government.  By way of context, this is:

    • more than the entire population of Perth;
    • a centimetre away from the entire population of Brisbane;
    • five times the entire population of the ACT; and
    • four times the entire population of Tasmania.

    How bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

    The salary costs for all these employees for the 12 months to 30 June 2023 was a humble $215 billion.  Again by way of context, Australia could pay for the multi-year AUKUS nuclear submarine program with one and one third years of Australian public sector employee salaries.

    In November 2022, the ABS said there were 2,160,000 public sector employees at June 2022.  Twelve months later, in November 2023, the ABS said there were 2,348,400 at the very same date.  That is, the ABS somehow found an extra 188,000 extra public sector employees hiding behind the lounge cushions.  Just a small 9% variation.

    The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023

    This is not a suggestion that there should be no public sector employees.  But 2.4 million?  Is it any wonder that Australia is experiencing economic pain and inflation with ever more resources being transferred from production to the public sector.  Plus all the reported skills shortages … in engineering, ICT, legal, accounting, and trades … how bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

    Join Mailing List

    These numbers are staggering but are sadly par for the course in Australia, where our political leaders seem to believe that any problem can be solved by taking money and property by means of legal force from taxpayers to give to people who pay no price when their schemes and solutions don’t work.

    Argentina Elected A Libertarian Leader, And It Could Happen Here

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    1

    But it probably won’t.

    Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President.

    Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement a good chunk of them.

    This is not just good for Argentinians, it is good news for us. Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

    But we shouldn’t get carried away. Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish list, and not all of his policies are good.  And the circumstances of Milei’s election won’t be repeated in Australia any time soon.

    Milei has good policies.
    Milei’s party has an exemplary, wide-ranging, libertarian platform promoting both social and economic freedoms. Milei did not appear to walk away from any of this platform in his campaign.  

    The campaign naturally focussed on economics, given Argentina’s current crisis.  In his campaigning Milei skilfully educated voters on why a libertarian prescription on monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is the way to go.  

    The lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government

    Milei is likely to be able to implement some of his policies.
    The formal powers of the Argentinian President are similar to those of the US President, with appointment, veto, and decree powers.

    Unlike US Presidents, Argentinian Presidents are in the habit of regularly introducing a budget, so Milei will be better placed to cut government spending than an American President.

    Milei will bolster the credibility of libertarian parties in Australia.
    We can now point to a libertarian in power in a country with more than 45 million people.

    We now have a great counter-point to claims that libertarianism is irrelevant.

    Australian libertarians seeking election will be able to say that if libertarians can be elected, and if libertarian policies can be implemented in Argentina, then the same can happen in Australia.

    But not all of Milei’s policies are good.
    Milei stoked and tapped into anti-woke sentiment, including through supportive references to America’s Trump and Brazil’s Bolsonaro.

    This is a problem if it translates into the implementation of illiberal policies, or concentrating on issues of wokeness at the expense of more crucial reform, or if it means Milei has the same regard for the law as Trump and Bolsonaro.

    Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

    That said, Milei’s comments cleverly tapped into anti-woke sentiment without committing to do anything illiberal. After all, there’s nothing illiberal about abolishing a Women’s Ministry. So there might be nothing to worry about on this score.

    A more clearly disappointing campaign tactic was Milei’s opposition to legalising euthanasia.

    But this tactic may well have been a smart move. A large proportion of Argentinians claim to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-euthanasia. Argentinian politics, even for presidential elections, involves considerable coalition building, with Milei’s party working with Argentina’s Faith Party. Milei also faced significant criticism from the Church for wanting to slash welfare, so perhaps it was best to concentrate the attack on the Church at its weakest point.

    Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish-list.
    Milei’s alliance of parties will have 38 of the 257 seats in the lower house of the national parliament, and 7 of the 72 seats in the upper house.

    Argentina is a federal country, and there is next to no libertarian presence at Argentina’s provincial level.

    Many of the circumstances of Milei’s election will not be replicated in Australia.
    It seems that Milei was elected because both the traditional left-wing grouping (who were in government) and the traditional right-wing grouping (who were in opposition) were unusually splintered and unpopular. Both groupings also lacked a charismatic leader, with both the incumbent President and Vice President not contesting the election. Such conditions could occur in Australia.

    Join Mailing List


    But the main reason Milei was elected was Argentina’s economic malaise. Argentina currently has one of the highest inflation rates in the world, and its economy is shrinking. The latest assessment of Freedom House is damning:

    “Aggravated by corruption and political interference, the lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government. Leftist spending measures and price controls distort markets, and government interference still hobbles the financial sector. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship.”

    Freedom House’s assessment of Australia is glowing in comparison.

    So Argentina needs a libertarian leader more than Australia does, and hopefully more than Australia ever will.
    Milei’s election does not presage a global wave of libertarianism, but it is still great news, not just for Argentinians, but for Australians too. Let’s watch and learn.

    The Covid Precursor Everybody Ignored

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    1

    You May Be Shocked To Learn This

    Imagine the Australian government weaponising an engineered health crisis to rob citizens of their freedoms and destroy businesses. Then imagine the public fully supporting the government’s grotesque overreach, parroting the government’s pseudoscientific propaganda and even pimping the dubious chemical cocktail disingenuously offered to solve the crisis by the same people who sponsored it.

    You may be shocked to learn this did actually happen, several years before the Covid scamdemic. The health scare in question was the skin cancer epidemic supposedly caused by commercial sunbed operators.

    You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds? The attitude of most Australians was that people who used sunbeds were narcissists. But the solarium ban seemed to open pandora’s box. Australia’s famous sense of humour soured. Australians started calling for more and more activities to be restricted and regulated. The government eagerly obliged, increasing its rate of law making by almost 30%.

    Just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

    The propaganda formula for selling the solarium ban was an early prototype of the formula we saw employed for Covid. It also showcased the components used in the great climate scam and many of the other liberty-leeching cons being perpetrated by governments around the world.

    Like Covid and climate change, the propaganda began with nonsensical, reality-bending lies. Suddenly, what people had known for millennia was said to be wrong. “Tanned skin is damaged skin”. “A tan does not protect from the sun”. Until this, a tan was known to be a natural adaptive process that protected skin from burning in the sun. Sun damaged skin was not golden brown; it was red and blistered.

    Next came the hysterical fear-porn based on largely irrelevant, cherry-picked statistics. “Two of every three Australians are expected to develop skin cancer”. “More than 1,200 Australians will die of melanoma this year”. Conveniently omitted from the discussion was that only 0.5% of Australians used solariums. Obviously, 130,000 people using sunbeds cannot significantly contribute to 15,000,000 people developing cancer. So the relevant statistic was redacted, just as it was omitted that more than 90% of people who caught Covid had mild to no symptoms.

    Then came the extraordinarily abnormal, non-representative case studies. With the solarium ban, one 26 year old girl died of melanoma. With no evidence, she claimed her cancer was caused by just 20 solarium visits. Over 1,200 other Australians died of melanoma that year, but none mentioned using a solarium. 130,000 other Australians used solariums without dying of melanoma. Yet this one girl was plastered all over the TV, internet, radio and newspapers as the obvious proof of the danger of solariums.

    You probably barely remember the crisis because, well, who really cares about sunbeds?

    Next was the absence of any genuine science. No study actually showed that solariums cause skin cancer or that skin cancer rates were higher in solarium users. No study showed that prohibiting commercial solarium businesses would reduce skin cancer. The Queensland legislation even acknowledged that the sun was the primary risk factor, and the sun was not being banned.

    There is strong evidence that suggests a strong link between skin cancer and a dietary imbalance of essential fatty acids (EFA’s). The average Australian diet reflects this imbalance. It is also directly responsible for epidemic levels of heart disease and diabetes, costing billions of dollars in healthcare and lost productivity. Any serious discussion about public health, including skin cancer, could not ignore Australia’s nutrition. But, like Covid, there was no place for any discussion that contradicted the dominant narrative and predetermined course of action.

    Finally, just like Covid, the solarium ban featured a product so awful it needed a government sponsored con to sell. Fake tan was the solarium ban’s equivalent of the Covid vaccine, and the climate con’s carbon credits. In virtually every story covering the solarium ban was the sales pitch for the ‘safe and effective’ fake tanning products that would ‘save lives’ from the dangers of sunshine and solariums. It was as blatant as it was shameless.

    Join Mailing List

    Now that almost a decade has passed, we can fairly assess the government’s success in reducing skin cancer by banning solariums. More Australians are now diagnosed with skin cancer than before, the rate of skin cancer has increased, and more die of melanoma. In other words, the government failed as dismally as basic logic and math predicted. The forcible closing of over 400 small businesses, the dozens of prosecutions, the thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars spent on propaganda and legislation all achieved absolutely nothing. Nothing except the pointless erosion of freedoms of citizens.

    1...8910...16Page 9 of 16

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    WA Liberal Leader Scurries Out The Back Exit

    Fiona Hui - 1
    It’s Lunar New Year this week. The term Lunar New Year is more accurate than Chinese New Year. The spring festival is not exclusively Chinese...

    Nicola Sturgeon Out!

    The Famine Upon Our Minds.

    No. No. No. It’s Not A Chinese Spy Balloon

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv