Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Random

    United States

    Home United States

    The Art of the Deal

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    US Libertarians met for their National Convention in Washington DC late last month, where they heard from a range of speakers and selected their presidential candidate. However, this was unlike any other Libertarian National Convention – in fact, it was unlike any prior political party convention in US history.

    MAKE AMERICA LIBERTARIAN AGAIN

    The headline speaker for the Libertarian National Convention was the 45th President of the United States and presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 Presidential Election, Donald Trump. Never before in US history has a rival political candidate addressed a political party convention.

    While much of the Trump-hating media described the speech as being met with a chorus of booing and heckling, that was not entirely accurate. While Trump certainly faced one of his most hostile crowds, there were several points where he managed to draw cheers from the libertarians. One of those moments probably marks the biggest political win for libertarians in history.

    US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates.

    THE THREE PERCENT

    During his speech, Trump gave Libertarians an ultimatum: continue wining a meaningless three percent of the vote or join me and win together. Along with promising to free Ross Ulbricht, the founder and operator of Silk Road, Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government. And while there are genuine questions regarding the trustworthiness of Trump’s word, he is absolutely right.

    The Libertarian Party, particularly within the US electoral system, will never win a single meaningful election. In over 20 years, the Libertarians have only won one of the possible 8,161 seats available in any federal, state or territorial congress. Having libertarians in Trump’s cabinet and senior levels of government would be a far more politically successful outcome for Libertarians than anything the Party has ever been able to achieve in its 53-year history.

    The “The Party of Principle” needs to consider whether it is time to start putting principles over partisanship and accept that sometimes supporting someone else is the greatest force for liberty.

    Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government.

    THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE

    Unfortunately, most of those in the room that day missed the boat, choosing to boo the former President for no other reason than that he is a former President and has an “R” next to his name. While I understand being derisive when non-libertarian policies are advocated at a Libertarian Convention, booing Trump for merely entering the room and approaching the podium is simply childish. Never have I been more embarrassed to be a libertarian.

    Instead of embracing Trump’s offer, the Libertarians decided to nominate Chase Oliver: someone who publicly gushed over his favourite type of mask and virtue-signalled about how COVID-safe his family’s Thanksgiving dinner was. With a woke candidate, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr siphoning the protest vote, the Libertarian Party, faces an existential crisis. When Trump asked whether Libertarians would continue to be happy with three percent of the vote, he was being generous: the Libertarian Party will be lucky to achieve even one percent of the vote in this presidential race.

    Join Mailing List

    TAKING THE L

    US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates. Hopefully those within the Libertarian Party – and the “small-L” libertarians – can put their pride aside and see where this opportunity truly lies: alliances and influence.


    Libertarians (both big and small-L) need to decide what matters more to them: clinging on to a meaningless three percent of the presidential vote (if they’re lucky) or having libertarians in the White House and senior government positions. It seems like an obvious choice to me.

    Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    Dean Russell, a staff member at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), was the first to propose that America’s classical liberals and individualists rebrand themselves as “libertarians.” In an article published by FEE in 1955, Russell wrote: “Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our use the good and honourable word ‘libertarian.’” 

    That good and honourable term was actually coined, or at least first used in print, by William Belsham in 1789. At that time, and until its political repurposing by Russell, it denoted a distinct philosophical school in the context of debates about free will. The opponents of philosophical libertarians then were necessitarians.

    The context for Russell’s proposal was the perversion of the term “liberal” in the American political context at the hands of big government New Deal interventionists. This development led to the rather awkward, and unusual, situation of political opponents using exactly the same language to define themselves. The libertarian rebrand was, if nothing else, an admission of defeat: the term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals who identified with the tradition of nineteenth century liberalism and the principles of the American revolution. Yet, it proved to be wildly successful and is now in wide usage by America’s liberty lovers in all their diversity and eccentricity. Indeed, there now exists a robust “libertarian” ecosystem in America, replete with think tanks, academics, journalists, magazines, personalities, the odd celebrity and a political party to boot.

    The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia

    However, this linguistic turn, which proved so successful in the American context, has struggled to find relevance and application in other contexts like Australia. Here, “liberal” has stubbornly retained its nineteenth century brand connotations, if not its genuine ideological content. Thanks to the dominance of the Liberal Party as the right-hand pole in Australia’s bipolar political contest, the term “liberal” continues to evoke in the minds of many political consumers something right of centre, as amorphous, incoherent and ill-defined as that may be. This brand phenomenon has served as a bulwark against the kind of leftward semantic evolution that the term “liberal” underwent in early twentieth century America. 

    Moreover, the most ambitious among those who now embrace the term “conservative” to describe their political identity still find the Liberal Party of Australia to be the most conducive vehicle for political influence, notwithstanding pressures and temptations from Australia’s motley collection of right-wing populist minor parties. As such, Australia’s Liberal Party boasts an influential conservative wing, described routinely in left-friendly media outlets as the “hard right” or “far right.” This association of the term “conservative” with “liberal,” let alone “hard right” with “liberal,” is an association that simply does not exist in the American political market. It is a peculiar distinctive of the Australian political landscape, a quirk, as it were. It does, however, provide yet further explanation for why the term “liberal” has resisted its American descent into the semantics of liberal progressivism, at least in the minds of the public, and through them the political vernacular of Australia 

    The term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals

    The fact that Australia’s most successful libertarian party was founded under the name Liberal Democrats in 2001 and only changed its name to the Libertarian party in 2023 speaks volumes about the fortunes of the term “liberal” in Australia (there were legal reasons to change the name). It speaks, on the one hand, to the classical liberal connotations of the term in Australia of 2001, the golden age of Howard’s Broad Church, with its putative synthesis of Millian liberalism and Burkean conservativism. Its name change, on the other hand, in an era in which so-called “moderate” liberals in the Liberal Party stand for woke-lite social policy and a slightly less interventionist economic policy than the Australian Labor Party, signals the final severance of the conjunction “classical” and “liberal in the Australian context, more than 200 years after it arrived in the Australian continent with European settlement, and 68 years after a libertarian rebrand in America. 

    The Liberal Party is now constituted by incompatible liberal progressives and conservatives, neither of whom show any real interest in advancing the classical liberal cause. While an uneasy truce prevails following the sectarian civil war of the immediate past, they now inhabit a rather unhappy marriage of convenience. They sleep in separate bedrooms, but stay together for the sake of the kids, in this case the chance at electoral success. Meanwhile, Australia’s classical liberals have deserted the Liberal Party and thrown in their lot with Australia’s radical liberals to embrace, albeit with some consternation and anxiety, the label “libertarian.”

    Join Mailing List

    The challenge confronting Australia’s nascent libertarian movement, now that it has finally parted ways with the term “liberal,” is to galvanise Australia’s small but passionate band of liberty lovers around a term that is foreign to the Australian political lexicon. More challenging still, there is the task of cultivating a libertarian constituency that prizes and prioritises individual freedom, property rights, unhampered markets, limited government and peaceful international relations in a country whose founding mythos and national identity are not centred around the concept of liberty, as they are in America. The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia, are different species of the genus “liberalism,” each with their own distinct origins, political histories and intellectual development. All political ideologies face a temptation in the Australian context to simply ape and regurgitate the loud, exciting and flamboyant political ideas and innovations that inevitably flow downstream from America to Australia. This is a particular temptation for Australia’s right-wing heirs of the liberal tradition who have recently chosen to embrace the language of the much more highly developed and institutionalised ecosystem in America. If libertarianism is to have any future at all in Australia, it will need to take inspiration from the best that American libertarianism has to offer and adapt, refine and develop it for the unique socio-political environment of Australia. 

    Raw Deal

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

    I found two things rather confronting about this story. 

    First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident. 

    The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one. 

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

    Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns. 

    It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening. 

    I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations. 

    The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.    

    Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.  

    And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.   

    Join Mailing List

    “In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system. 

    Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
    *https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

    Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.

    Solar

    As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050. 

    Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects. 

    The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.

    Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water. 

    Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.

    Wind 

    Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.

    Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.

    To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China. 

    US 

    Solar 

    Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”

    There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

    Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.” 

    Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate. 

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.

    Wind

    The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”

    Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.

    According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050. 

    China 

    China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.

    The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade. 

    Solar 

    China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts. 

    Join Mailing List

    However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.

    Conclusion

    The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.

    A Digital Dark Age

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly,
    ‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy,
    Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain,
    For who goes up to your winding stair, 

    Can ne’er come down again.

    Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.

    Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament. 

    We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.

    In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.

    The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:

    The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

    – Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.

    – Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.

    – Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

    – Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.

    – Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.

    The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:

    – Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.

    – Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.

    – Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

    – Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

    Other penalties may also apply. 

    The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

    Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.

    Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms. 

    Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’. 

    Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’

    “In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.

    “The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.

    Harsh words indeed.

    In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.

    Join Mailing List

    And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.

    To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’

    To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.

    Tomorrow: part 2.

    Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? After all, Australia is, it surprises many to learn, the only Western democracy with neither a constitutional nor legislated Bill of Rights. Various attempts over the years to legislate one have failed.

    The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992, when the High Court ruled that the Constitution carried an implied right to free speech — in political matters only. As the Chief Justice observed:

    To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments.   

    If that sounds like a reach, later High Court rulings found that it was. When a public servant who had been sacked for criticising the government on Twitter appealed the sacking on the grounds of such an implied right to political speech, she lost. The court ruled that there is no personal right to free speech, but a restriction on legislative power, which “extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution”.

    The Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act”

    If anyone still doubted that Australians’ basic rights are not protected from government overreach, the last five years should have put a brutal end to such illusions.

    But Canada has a Bill of Rights, and so does New Zealand, and yet their governments were no less draconian in crushing basic rights, from informed consent, to free assembly, to free speech.

    So it looks like a Bill of Rights is worth precisely shit when the government boot comes down.

    Or is it?

    For all its faults, the United States’ Bill of Rights is holding up reasonably well against sustained assault by the state and its corporate attack dogs.

    The difference lies in how a Bill of Rights is framed: to whit, which view of freedom is at its heart.

    There are, in essence, two basic conceptual frameworks of freedom, with very different outcomes. These are positive liberty and negative liberty. At first blush, “positive liberty” may seem like the preferred option. It’s “positive”, after all!

    In fact, positive liberty is the stomping ground of collectivist ideologies which are almost invariably associated with the worst shackles placed on individual freedom. That’s because positive liberty is better understood as “freedom to”.

    That is, the freedom to act only within the constraints set down by law and society. Anti-discrimination laws are an example of positive freedom: citizens are free to act only within the bounds established by the laws enacted by the state. You are free to say only this and not that. You are only as free as the state decides to let you be. You can choose any colour, so long as it’s black.

    Negative liberty is very different. Negative liberty is the “freedom from”. Freedom from constraint. Negative liberty establishes what citizens can tell the state it is not allowed to do. It is the type of freedom associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. The US First Amendment is a negative liberty: Congress shall make no law… The Second Amendment is in the same vein: the peoples’ right shall not be infringed.

    The other great difference between the USA’s, and NZ’s and Canada’s, Bills of Rights is that the United States’ is Constitutional; NZ’s and Canada’s are legislative.

    A Constitutional law is the absolute bedrock law of the land. No matter what the government of the day may legislate, it must conform to the Constitution.

    Legislation can be overturned by a simple vote in parliament. Or, like NZ’s, it can be restricted such that it cannot override any other legislation. Unlike the US Supreme Court, a NZ court cannot strike down or override any act of parliament with reference to the Bill of Rights. Which makes it a moot point as to why it exists at all.

    The only way to get a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia would be by referendum. Good luck with that. The Australian Constitution was framed such that amending it is extremely difficult: a proposed amendment must secure not only a national majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states as well. Australians have, by and large, chosen to validate that high hurdle: of 45 referendums since Federation, only eight have ever been passed.

    No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support (and few indeed of those that had bipartisan support). Given that a legislated Bill of Rights has never made it past parliament, the chances of it passing referendum seem almost nil.

    A major reason that a Bill of Rights has never passed parliament, let alone been proposed at referendum, is the suspicion voiced by former prime minister John Howard that such a Bill would transfer power from elected representatives to unelected judges and bureaucrats. It’s not hard to see the wisdom of his observation: consider, after all, just how much power health bureaucrats seized during the pandemic.

    The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992

    Even the High Court’s “implied right to free speech” decision could be seen as just the sort of judicial overreach Howard warns against. As the US Supreme Court did in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, the Australian High Court took it on itself to invent a potentially far-reaching decision out of Constitutional thin air. More recent High Court decisions, which affectively affirm the role of magic — a supposed Aboriginal “spiritual connection to the land” — in law show that such unelected judges are the last people to whom we should trust our rights.

    As it happens, the Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act” — and it’s even worse than you might think. 

    As should surprise no-one, given its origin in a left-wing government, it’s mired, waist-deep, in a mindset of positive liberty. That is, it’s all about what the state will allow Australians to do — not what Australians can tell the state what it cannot do.

    For instance, freedom of religious belief is only allowed at the discretion of a judge. A judge can restrict religious freedom any time he or she considers it “reasonable” and “justified”. Religious freedom may be restricted in order to “protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of ­others”.

    Who wants to take bets on how politically-appointed judges will interpret that one?

    Freedom of speech gets even shorter shrift. Speech may be restricted — again, at a judge’s discretion — “in order to respect the rights and reputations of others or to protect national security, public order or public heath”. Ask Zoe Buhler, the Victorian mum arrested, pregnant, in her pyjamas, and crying, in front of her children, simply for posting the details of an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, how that one’s likely to play out.

    Perhaps the most alarming aspects of the proposed Human Rights Act is that it would include a mechanism that would enable everyone to sue for monetary compensation whenever they decided that their rights had been breached. Again, we only need to look at how aggrieved activists, most notably the “rainbow” lobby, have weaponised the existing “human rights” infrastructure to threaten critics and impose a chilly pall of silence on matters of essential public debate.

    Join Mailing List

    While it may be bad enough that Australia lacks any formal Bill of Rights, the threat of an ill-intentioned, badly framed one is infinitely worse.

    It all comes down, in the end, to what Tony Abbott so famously asked during Australia’s last referendum campaign: do you really trust politicians?

    Anyone who still does, clearly spent the last five years either in a deep coma, or developing a slavish taste for boot leather.

    Assange’s Last Appeal

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    1

    Last week, Australian journalist Julian Assange’s legal team sought permission from the High Court of the United Kingdom to appeal his extradition to the United States, where he could potentially face severe penalties. This appeal represents Assange’s final opportunity to challenge his extradition within the UK’s legal system. 

    Assange has become a symbol of injustice, political persecution, and the fight for freedom of speech and press freedom. Behind the symbolic figure lies a human being languishing in the high-security prison.

    The same week witnessed international outcry over the death of Alexei Navalny, who died in a Siberian prison. World leaders, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and U.S. President Joe Biden, condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for Navalny’s imprisonment, a man they consider a journalist who spoke out against the Russian President. They asserted that he was murdered, although they had no evidence to support this claim. 

    The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case.

    Assange has been indicted under the Espionage Act 1917, his alleged crime being publication of classified documents that exposed corruption, government misconduct, surveillance, and war crimes. The US government has focused on the publication of the documents, which it says exposed sources and personnel to danger. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures. 

    Supporters argue the documents were divulged by Chelsea Manning (who was convicted and then pardoned), and that Assange’s prosecution threatens freedom of the press. They contend that his actions as the founder of WikiLeaks were acts of journalism protected by free speech and the principles of press freedom. They insist he is being selectively targeted for political reasons rather than legitimate legal concerns, highlighting the discrepancy in treatment compared to other journalists and media organisations.

    Granting leave to appeal would prolong Assange’s pre-trial detention, further deteriorating his health. Holding him in a maximum-security prison is normally reserved for those convicted of serious crimes, yet he has not been convicted of anything. There are no reasons why alternatives such as house arrest could not be employed. 

    Assange’s prosecution in the US raises concerns about government overreach, the chilling effect on free speech and journalism, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. The High Court must carefully consider the potential human rights implications of extradition, including the risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Assange’s status as a non-U.S. citizen complicates matters, as he lacks the same legal standing to claim First Amendment protections in U.S. courts, despite the global implications of his case for press freedom and whistleblowing activities.

    Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures. 

    The prolonged pre-trial detention of Julian Assange while awaiting an appeal also poses concerns for the rule of law and due process. In contravention of the presumption of innocence, Assange’s extended confinement undermines fundamental legal principles, casting doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings against him. 

    The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case. The U.S. government’s pursuit of Assange undermines its commitment to press freedom and freedom of expression, both domestically and internationally. While condemning other countries for similar actions, the U.S. government fails to uphold these fundamental principles when it comes to Assange. By continuing to prosecute Assange and seeking his extradition, the U.S. undermines its own credibility as a champion of human rights and democratic values. The initiative by Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Junior to petition for Assange’s release and pledge a pardon on the first day of his presidency serves as a compelling argument for his immediate release.

    Join Mailing List

    At this critical juncture in Julian Assange’s legal battle, mere appeals for justice fall short of addressing the urgent humanitarian issue. Assange’s deteriorating health underscores the immediate need for his release. The prolonged legal proceedings have taken a severe toll on his physical and mental well-being, making his continued detention untenable. It is evident that Assange’s health is rapidly deteriorating, and every passing day in detention further exacerbates his condition.  The time for legal manoeuvring has passed; what is needed now is decisive action to rectify the grave injustice inflicted upon Assange and ensure his right to life, freedom, and dignity. 

    As we await the outcome of the High Court’s decision, we must remember that true justice can only be realised through the immediate abandonment of the extradition request and the immediate release of Assange.

    The Arguments and Rebuttals for Government Maintenance of Competition

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    This week the US Federal Court handed-down its decision in the United States of America et al v Google LLC, in which the US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access to distribution channels provided by Apple and Samsung. Google lost but may appeal.

    Formidable, straight-shooting American libertarian, Hannah Cox, raised some interesting points in her Newsweek opinion piece Google Is No Monopoly. It’s Widely Used Because It’s The Best about competition law – what Americans call anti-trust law. 

    This is the area of law which deals with maintaining competition by determining whether companies wield monopolistic-like behaviour to inhibit competition, as well as protecting consumers.

    Knowing whether a policy is inside or outside the world of libertarianism can be a close fought thing at the best of times. As Justin Amash, a prominent American libertarian who just lost his bid for the US Senate in Michigan, said “Libertarians spend so much time arguing over who is the purest libertarian that they forget to work together to advance liberty.” 

    But define the very edges of libertarianism we must, and competition law seemed ready for a battle.

    Hannah took the corporation’s side of the debate, as the purist, to argue ‘market forces should maintain competition not government.’ Sounds libertarian, right? 

    But nagging doubt afflicted me. So, this article is me nailing my colours to the mast in countering “sometimes, rarely, market forces create monopolies which bring competition to a halt. When this happens, government must act as referee and deal with the monopoly to reinstate the free market.”

    So here are her arguments and my rebuttals.

    ARGUMENT #1 “MONOPOLY MEANS ONE”

    Hannah challenges any assertion that Google is a monopoly. She says, “In fact, there are over 30 other search engines in the world that are dedicated solely to search functionality, including Yahoo!, Bing and Duck, Duck, Go.” If there are many search engines, even just two, Google can’t be a monopoly. The ‘mono’ in monopoly means one.

    The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. 

    REBUTTAL #1 “MONOPOLY IS CONTEXTUAL”

    My understanding of the US Sherman Act is that it focuses on “monopoly-like behaviour”, not whether a company is strictly speaking a monopoly. So, whether Google is a monopoly is irrelevant.

    Second, “monopoly” is defined in OxfordReference.com as “The situation where one company controls all or a substantial majority of a market.” 

    That is, substantial majority, not 100%.

    In the US search engine market, Google has 88.14% of annual searches. In the court case, they said 90%. Bing is #2 with 6.79%. Yahoo! And DuckDuckGo come in at #3 and #4 with 2.63% and 2.55% respectively. 

    All other players have less than 1% including Baidu, a Chinese search engine, and Yandex, a Russian rival. 

    88.14% is clearly a “substantial majority of the market. 

    So my rebuttal is that a monopoly doesn’t have to be present, just monopoly-like behaviour.

    If Google had 99.99999% of the market and there was one other player at 0.00001%, Cox would continue to argue Google is not a monopoly. That makes no sense. 

    ARGUMENT #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS NOT MONOPOLISTIC”

    Hannah then argues that Google has just provided more convenience than its rivals, or better access, implying distribution channels aren’t a seismic advantage. She’s essentially saying securing exclusive access is not monopolistic.

    REBUTTAL #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS MONOPOLISTIC”

    When you break down what she’s saying, it’s that Google is just more convenient to access. But the converse must also be true: that Google’s competitors Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo are more inconvenient to access. In commerce, convenience matters. There are thousands of markets where convenience is the deciding factor in commercial success. 

    Imagine two identical retailers, one with parking and one without. The one with parking will outcompete the other because customers have more access to it. Or think of marketing channel access like a waterpipe: if there are two pipes into town, one owned by Apple and the other Samsung, and Google pumps its water through those two pipes, Hannah would have you believe that it is no big deal for DuckDuckGo water to be accessed by walking 10 km and carrying it in a bucket on your head.

    Convenience matters. Access matters. Securing exclusive access at the expense of your rivals is monopolistic. 

    ARGUMENT #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF SUPERIOR NEGOTIATION AND INTELLIGENCE”

    Then Cox continues with the following: “Being smart enough to negotiate such deals simply makes Google better at its job.”

    REBUTTAL #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF MORE MONEY”

    Maybe.

    Is this Hannah inadvertently arguing that Google has a monopoly of high IQ negotiators?

    Putting that aside, what Hannah omits from her article is that Google had to pay Apple and Samsung billions for the rights to those distribution channels. So, Google spent billions to deny their competitors access. These billions are war-chests their rivals don’t have due to exclusive dealing.

    There’s a timeline of cause and effect to consider in the industry. Here’s a list of search engines and the year they were founded:

    1994 WebCrawler

    1994 Lycos

    1994 Infoseek

    1995 Yahoo! with AltaVista

    1998 Google

    2008 DuckDuckGo

    2009 Bing

    So Google joined the market after Yahoo!. 

    By 2002, it overtook Yahoo! for searches per annum and has been in the #1 position since.

    Perhaps its search algorithms were superior. No problems there; that’s competition.

    But since then Google has locked in agreements with Apple that Google be the default search engine on its devices. 

    When Samsung took up Android, Google repeated the process.

    Here are the real figures. Google pays Apple between $8 billion and $12 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Apple devices, including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

    Google reportedly is paying Samsung $8 billion over 4 years for similar access.

    Let’s call that $20 billion in total, and recurring over various intervals.

    Can Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo afford this?

    Yahoo! is owned by Verizon which, as at Q2 FY2024, had $17.2 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

    Bing is owned by Microsoft which, as at Q3 FY2024, had $130 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

    DuckDuckGo is a private company with speculated cash of $100 million in 2021.

    Therefore, Google has effectively shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo, the #2 and #4 in the market. Exclusionary actions like this emphasise the monopolistic nature of Google’s claim in search.

    ARGUMENT #4 “NO HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

    Cox further argues that “The company has in no way harmed consumers, defrauded anyone, or even acted in an unfair way toward their competition.” 

    REBUTTAL #4 “HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

    I’m surprised any libertarian would argue Big Tech has harmed no-one.

    I’ve just been through how Google uses exclusionary channel agreements to shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo. This seems unfair at first instance.

    Does Google defraud or misinform? Yes. 

    Douglas Murray famously challenged John Anderson to type “white couple” into Google and see the results. Google have since changed the bias in their algorithm so it’s not so obvious, but the following results demonstrate the bias still lingers.

    As at 7 August 2024, when you query Google images for “black heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

    • Black heterosexual couple: 17
    • Black homosexual couple: 2
    • Mixed heterosexual couple: 1

    And when you query Google images for “white heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

    • White heterosexual couple: 13
    • Why Google Images searches aren’t racist: 2
    • Mixed heterosexual couple: 5

    Santa Clara University reported that typing “Asian girls” resulted in Google’s algorithm yielding pornographic and highly sexualised results.

    In 2018, NBC reported that typing “black girls” would yield similar results.

    Much has been reported about political bias as well.

    US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access

    Is that harm, or misinformation or fraud?

    ARGUMENT #5 “BIG ONLY MEANS POPULARITY”

    Hannah then backgrounds us about the ‘consumer welfare standard’, Robert Bork and political factional differences between Republicans and Democrats. 

    She goes on to criticise those who think ‘big is bad’ and that “Becoming big merely means it is popular and offers a product or service consumers quite like.” 

    REBUTTAL #5 “BIG CAN MEAN POPULARITY WITH COERCION TO FOLLOW”

    The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. I’d argue, unlike Hannah, to start with any big organisation. Big brings power and economic clout, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be from government. 

    Hannah is partially right when she asserts becoming big merely means it offers good products. That’s how their ascendency begins. But what happen thereafter? They become smug in their economic security, their innovation ossifies and they tend to monopolistic behaviour designed to protect their fortress. This is a process from birth to death, from innovation to stagnation, that applies to individuals, businesses, churches, political parties, charities and even nation states.

    Libertarians must think clearly about what they want government to provide and not provide. We are clear that we want government in defence, police and the courts. I would add it has a role to ensure monopolistically behaving companies, in the rare times that occurs, are checked. There is a role for government to ensure competition is maintained. 

    But I’ll leave the last say to a couple of libertarian greats:

    On the issue of capitalism leading to monopoly, classical liberal Milton Friedman wrote: “There is a widespread belief that free markets tend to lead to excessive concentration of economic power. This belief is not without justification. There are important cases where free markets themselves tend to produce a monopoly.”

    Join Mailing List

    And the great Thomas Sowell went straight to activity which impedes competition, saying “There is a legitimate concern about businesses using their market power to stifle competition. Antitrust laws should be enforced to ensure that competition remains vigorous.”

    Caution is required applying competition law. But if rivals are being denied valuable consumer access by the #1 player sitting on 88% of the market share, I think the government referee can blow the whistle.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    “Fight!”

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, mainstream media urged us all to “cool the temperature” of political discourse. 

    While I am all for a more civil political discourse, forgive me if I find it a bit rich coming from the same media that has spent the best part of a decade calling the man “literally Hitler” and “the greatest threat to democracy”.

    COOLER HEADS

    The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position, because any call to “cool the temperature” amounts to a tacit admission regarding the unending hyperbole they have been spewing since Trump rode down that escalator in 2015. Because if Trump is “literally Hitler” then his assassination should be the ethical duty of any good citizen who wishes to prevent tyranny. If Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy”, the only reason we should all be upset is because the would-be assassin missed.

    Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature

    The logically consistent position of the left can only be one of dismay and frustration at the inaccuracy of the shot. In fact, the other guy (not Jack Black) from the washed-up 90s novelty band, Tenacious D, made exactly those remarks. Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, better known by his online handle Destiny, went even further: going out of his way to appear on any platform that would have him to not only bemoan the inaccuracy of the shot, but proudly proclaim that he did not even care that Corey Comperatore, the innocent man shot by the assailant while protecting his family, lost his life.

    As horrid as those remarks are, and they rightfully received their backlash, they are the logically consistent position of the bullshit the US establishment – aided by left-wing activists – has been actively pushing. I mean who cares if a Nazi gets shot at a Nazi rally, right?

    WORDS

    Words have meaning, and as Jordan Peterson warns: “be precise in your speech”. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the murder of at least 17 million people. As at the time of writing, Trump is responsible for zero murders.

    And after a very brief pause, both the Democrats and mainstream media are right back to calling Trump “the existential threat to democracy”. Going through the legal process to challenge election results apparently amounts to an “existential threat”. It is honestly a surprise that more people haven’t been motivated to shoot him after being blasted with lie after lie after lie, non-stop propaganda, for nine years.

    Don’t get me started on making a criminal out of your political opponent for incorrectly filling out a campaign finance declaration form. Given how the media has presented that case, one would be mistaken for thinking non-disclosure agreements (i.e. “hush money”) were illegal.

    So if you can’t beat him in the polls and you can’t throw him in jail, what’s the next logical step? You’ve spent almost a decade laying out the justification.

    The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position

    ACTIONS

    But if the media is actually genuine in its calls to “cool the temperature” and “return to civil political discourse”, cheap throwaway lines aren’t going to cut it. Lecturing others to be nicer when talking politics might not have the desired effect. To truly cool political temperatures we need to stop talking past each other and actually address the legitimate grievances of all sides.

    Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature by calling any politician or political candidate who isn’t an outright establishment hack “dangerous”? How about the endless climate fearmongering? Or cheerleading the greatest assault on liberty for over three years? Radio silence.

    Join Mailing List

    But don’t even think about sharing a meme about the stupidity of the world we currently find ourselves in, because that is what’s dangerous. Unauthorised speech, or “misinformation” according to the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary, is the true danger according to the media. It is dangerous because it is a gate they cannot keep.

    While more civility in politics would certainly be refreshingly welcome, maybe it’s time for the media and establishment politicians to lead by example and take some accountability for their own (massive) roles in turning up the dial. Maybe then I’ll be willing to take the call a little more seriously.

    The Liberty Coalition is Finally (T)Here

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    In my first article, I discussed the disunity among the ‘freedom movement’ and the loosely aligned ‘freedom’ parties. This sparked further discussion, culminating in the beginning of a potential coalition for federal elections. While that seems to have fizzled out for now, political coalition-building and alliance-forming is gaining traction across the Pacific.

    COLOARDO FOR LIBERTY

    In the US state of Colorado, two unlikely bedfellows have decided that one-party Democratic rule over the State needs to end. The Colorado Libertarian Party and the Republican Party have brokered an historic agreement regarding local, state and congressional elections.

    Without getting into the complexities of US electoral systems, the Libertarians have agreed not to run ‘spoiler candidates’ in many districts provided the Republicans nominate genuine “liberty-focused” candidates. Think more Ron Pauls and fewer Mitt Romneys.

    This has attracted the ire of Democrat Governor Jared Polis. Following the announcement, Polis spent the next few days quoting Rothbard and Hayek, pretending to be a libertarian and obviously hoping Coloradans would have forgotten about his draconian Covid restrictions and subversive property tax increases.

    Regardless of the political outcome of this alliance, the fact it has forced the establishment to compete on the principles of liberty is already a huge win.

    BRINGING IT HOME

    How a liberty coalition might operate in Australia has already been aptly outlined by none other than a former Senator. And unlike the US, Australia has the massive triple benefits of preferential voting, proportional voting and formal coalition tickets.

    Preferential voting means there is no such thing as ‘spoiler candidates’ in our federal electoral system. Proportional voting, which is relevant in the Senate and most state-level upper houses, means the quotas required to get elected are far lower than those in the US. A formal coalition ticket is the mechanism used by the Liberal and National parties to run Senate candidates from both parties in a combined group.

    party

    Australia also does not have the same difficulties with ballot access for minor parties that are found in the US. In many congressional districts you will only be presented with Republican and Democrat candidates on the ballot, as they often team up to ensure few, if any, alternative candidates can even nominate.

    EYES ON THE PRIZE

    Of course, the Colorado announcement has not exactly gone down swimmingly with everyone. Libertarians, infamous for their hatred of each other above all else, are unsurprisingly splintered. Many are, understandably, quite hesitant about getting into bed with the ‘Diet Democrats’.

    However, over time the benefits of this arrangement are becoming too hard to ignore. Principles are winning over partisanship, and now murmurs of Libertarian-Republican alliances are being heard across the US, with Minnesota apparently next in line.

    The cultural shift is an even bigger win than any political outcome that might stem from this deal. The 2024 Colorado election has now turned into a referendum on who has the most libertarian values. Even more than that, liberty-minded members of both the GOP and Democrats now have the impetus to demand change within their respective parties.

    The battle for liberty must be fought on all fronts, and requires the support of those working to change from within.

    PRINCIPLES OVER PARTY

    A lot can be learned from Colorado, and I hope others within the ‘freedom movement’ are watching this arrangement closely. Australia’s unique electoral system is the perfect opportunity to implement an even better alliance, without even needing to rely on a major party.

    Not only does having the balance of power in the Senate and state upper houses provide an anchor of liberty, just as the Greens provide an anchor of socialism, but like the cultural influence from our friends in Colorado, it provides an impetus for others to begin discussing liberty in political party rooms, executive meetings and membership conferences – as well as around the dinner table.

    And, as has happened in the Centennial State, perhaps all political candidates will soon be competing over who cares most about liberty.

    12Page 1 of 2

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    SNAP POLL: Voice To Parliament. Yes or No?

    Kenelm Tonkin - 0
    POLL Do you support the referendum on Voice To Parliament? Yes 1% No 99% 93 VOTES · POLL CLOSED When you’ve finished voting, read this for fun!

    (Don’t) Be Your Own Boss

    The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

    A Reply to “Centre-Right National Strategy”

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv