Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 15

E-Scooters: A Two Wheeled Burden?

By
Meaghan Whyte
-
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severe Injuries, Lack of Helmets

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

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

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

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

Economic Burden

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

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

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

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

Solution

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

Part II:Programmable Money

By
Simon Anderson
-
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

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

Forum Shopping for Native Title rights

By
Gary Johns
-
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research

China’s Priority Next: Faith or Freedom?

By
Warren Wang
-
3

In my previous article “China 2024 and Beyond“, I argued that China, amid its troubles, is in desperate need of a visionary leader akin to Deng Xiaoping. Such a leader could rejuvenate China’s economy through policies that prioritise freedom. 

The esteemed former senator, Bob Day, responded by emphasising the power of the Gospel when contemplating China’s future trajectory. It’s a common assertion among Christians, particularly those with libertarian leanings, that the importance of Christianity, along with economic and political freedom, could herald comprehensive benefits for the nation. This article explores these considerations while also engaging in a broader discussion on the interplay between freedom and (Christian) faith.

The Spiritual Evolution in China

In my opinion China’s spiritual landscape has evolved through four distinct stages: the early spirituality may be characterised by nature and ancestor worship, and a worship of “Shang Di” (Heavenly Lord), who is believed to be the creator of heaven and earth, similar to the Christian God but far less personal. This belief is still prevalent among the general public. 

The second stage is philosophical spirituality with the emergence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. However, arguably, none of these are religions per se: Confucianism is a set of philosophies clearly based on the teachings of Confucius without any deity; Taoism, with Laozi as its founder, who many regard as the first libertarian philosopher in human history, later developed into a polytheistic religion; while Buddhism similarly shared a path from being a philosophy into a religion. 

Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial.

The third stage began with the Chinese Communist Party’s control of China since 1949, leading to a brutal suppression of spiritual beliefs, especially during the Cultural Revolution. 

The fourth stage, following China’s reopening in the late 1970s, has seen a remarkable revival of spirituality, reflecting a collective search for meaning and identity amidst rapid modernisation.

The Role of Faith in Individual and Societal Morality

Fundamentally, faith acts as a guiding light for personal conduct and a moral compass for believers. It endows life with purpose, peace, and direction for believers, while non-believers might find similar guidance in their conscience. 

On a societal level, faith possesses transformative power. Traditions like Buddhism and Taoism encourage introspection, whereas Christianity and Islam advocate for outward societal influence which has the potential to prompt change, for better or for worse. Despite the general hostility of modern authoritarian regimes towards religion, often under Marxist influences, their tolerance varies across faiths. 

In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance, with only state-approved churches operating openly (and still cautiously) and underground churches enduring constant harassment.

Understanding Faith Correctly

Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial. Using Christianity as an illustration, it’s evident how misconceptions can distort its teachings for harmful ends—endorsing slavery through misinterpretations of the Old Testament, justifying support for Hitler with references to Romans, and aligning it with Communism by pointing to Acts. 

In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance

A proper understanding of Christianity revisits foundational principles: God’s creation of Adam with free will and accountability, the Ten Commandments’ assertion of the rights to life, liberty, and property, and Jesus’ teaching of the Golden Rule to treat others as one wishes to be treated, without advocating coercion to impose personal beliefs on others. 

Consider the concept of a “Christian society” as a further example. Despite their differences, both Western nations like the UK, the US, and Australia and those caught in the “Latin American Trap”, including Argentina and Brazil, share a profound commonality: they are deeply influenced by Christianity and have substantial Christian populations. While the former group has achieved peace and prosperity, the latter has experienced considerable chaos and distress. This division illustrates that while the path to freedom has been closely linked with Christian teachings historically, the presence of Christian faith alone does not ensure a nation’s success. Faith, undoubtedly beneficial for inner peace, moral guidance, or spiritual salvation, falls short as a reliable predictor of a country’s future prosperity.

Freedom: The Foundation of Prosperity

Freedom, on the other hand, is the cornerstone of a country’s prosperity. Under Deng Xiaoping, China made significant progress in economic freedom from the late 1970s, seeing major advancements through the 1990s and stability into the early 2010s. This progress has significantly reversed under Xi Jinping’s rule. Meanwhile, the brief hope for political freedom in the 1980s was crushed by the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the absence of political freedom has further undermined economic liberties, eventually culminating in constitutional changes that could extend Xi’s presidency indefinitely. 

Join Mailing List

In the end, I believe faith is akin to the heart, guiding individuals and societies with its moral compass and providing the ultimate meaning of life. Freedom, on the other hand, is akin to the mind, steering societal direction, with economic freedom protecting property rights and political freedom guarding individual sovereignty. 

I endorse the words of Argentine President Javier Milei from his Davos speech: “Long live freedom, dammit!”

Brave New World Wide Web

By
Max Payne
-
1

The reverse correlation between the internet’s growing accessibility and its diminishing freedom can only be arrested by changes in user habits

Much has been made of the ACMA ‘misinformation bill’ and its potential impact on free speech online in Australia. But the internet hasn’t been a bastion of free expression for quite some time now, and like always, it ultimately comes down to choice and the power of the consumer. 

Prior to the rise of social media giants such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter/X, the internet was largely a decentralised hub of independent content, websites, blogs and message boards. It was something of a wild west – not as easy to navigate or as accessible as it is today. 

The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.

Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience. Google search functioned properly, as your search terms would deliver you to websites or listings which were actually relevant. Anonymity online was a key tenet of staying safe – people were actually encouraged to separate their online and offline lives. 

This has now been replaced or superseded. Mostly gone are the volunteer admins of message boards – automated or paid moderation teams on large sites such as YouTube now ban users with no remit and apply terms and conditions selectively. Google search has descended into a bidding war for top place between AI-generated SEO-optimised junk listicles that attract clicks but ultimately waste your time (hint – use Reddit instead). 

As for anonymity, KYC (know your customer), verification ticks and ID verification on account of frauds and criminals have largely taken care of that. Even Bitcoin, created to store wealth and transact outside the traditional finance system, has instead limped into Wall St via ETFs as dreams of mass adoption turned to mass investment by the very institutions it sought to subvert. 

Alternatives exist, of course: you can source your news and editorials from independent publications like this one, or via Substack and other such platforms. You can even support creators directly who can no longer exist on YouTube or Facebook via platforms such as Rumble or Locals.

But we often don’t – it takes extra time, extra money, extra effort. Just like acting to protect our freedoms offline – we could use cash more, we could avoid supermarkets and shop local, we could live off-grid. 

Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience.

Ultimately, our collective need for security and convenience has allowed larger players to create monopolies in online spaces. As the internet has become more centralised and increased traffic (ie revenue) flows to the major players, we have subsequently seen an alarming but unsurprising partnership between ‘big tech’ and government develop. One that has sought to suppress free expression and crush competition.    

We have largely allowed the same offline of course. It’s not just government either – consider the extra restrictions and occasional obstacles we face when transferring money from bank accounts for certain purposes. This is at least in part due to the collective risk of scams and fraud that is being passed on as a reduction in the ability to transact freely.   

Achieving political, cultural or economic change which protects or expands freedom requires you to act, not just to think, not just to post online. 

Join Mailing List

The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online. 

As with the internet, when demand for security and convenience grew, the market adjusted. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World perfectly described a society that had sleep-walked willingly into dystopia by simply having their base needs and comforts met conveniently. 

We mustn’t follow a similar pattern.  So don’t just demand freedom — create demand for freedom!       

The New UAE Corporate Tax

By
Damon Hayhow
-
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

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

The Misguided Quest for “Fair Share”

By
Nicholas Samios
-
0

“Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts.  And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief. 

In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks. 

Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.

Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).

Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold. 

Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity. 

As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.

But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation. 

Join Mailing List

In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.

Lawfare

By
Jaimie Stevenson
-
1

“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” is the famous statement attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief. This is an example of lawfare: the manipulation of legal processes, civil or criminal, to serve political, ideological, or personal interests rather than upholding justice. 

Lawfare involves the misuse of the law by various means including selective enforcement, biased prosecutions, and politically motivated judgments for reasons unrelated to justice. It targets individuals or groups based on their political beliefs, policies or affiliations, and uses the law as a weapon to suppress dissent.

Civil Law

Civil law is traditionally employed to resolve disputes between private individuals or entities. However, it has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of powerful interests to silence critics. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused. These lawsuits are often filed with the primary aim of intimidating, censoring, or bankrupting individuals or organisations critical of those in power.

Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech.

SLAPP suits typically lack merit but serve as a tool to burden defendants with legal expenses and time-consuming litigation. The fear of financial ruin can force individuals or groups to retract their statements, cease their activities, or settle out of court. 

Criminal law

Governments and powerful organisations have increasingly turned to criminal law to suppress dissenting voices. Laws that criminalise defamation, sedition, or spreading false information can be exploited to target political opponents, journalists, activists, or any individual expressing dissenting views.

Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech. Ostensibly drafted to address the dissemination of false information, the legislation raises concerns due to its broad scope, leaving individuals uncertain about what constitutes a violation. Such ambiguity can be exploited to selectively enforce the law, enabling those in power to target specific individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the alleged offense.

The absence of precise definitions allows for the manipulation of the law to serve political interests, allowing authorities to interpret and apply it selectively. This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, as those in authority exploit legal measures to silence opposition and stifle public discourse.

One of the key concerns in the misuse of civil and criminal law is the selective prosecution of individuals or groups based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Authorities may use their power to target specific dissenting voices, leaving others untouched, thereby creating a chilling effect on those who oppose the status quo. 

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused.

An example of this is the prosecution of Donald Trump, who many people believe is being persecuted rather than prosecuted to defeat him as a presidential candidate. Many believe Joe Biden has weaponised the Department of Justice to go after his political opponent, contrasting its treatment of Trump to that of Joe Biden in spite of widespread allegations of Biden’s corruption.

The repeated prosecution of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, is another example. The Pakistan military has used the country’s courts to impose jail sentences that ensure he and his party are unable to participate in forthcoming elections. 

When legal actions are driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it erodes the credibility of the legal system. The rule of law is founded on the principles of fairness, due process, and the objective application of legal standards, not on the whims of those in power.

Frivolous civil lawsuits targeting individuals or groups and selective prosecution in criminal law depart significantly from a rule of law approach. In a rule of law framework, legal processes are expected to be impartial, fair, and based on established principles rather than arbitrary decisions or personal biases. Frivolous civil lawsuits, often driven by ulterior motives such as harassment or silencing dissent, abuse the legal system by burdening individuals with unnecessary litigation, straying from the principle of justice and fairness.

Join Mailing List

Similarly, selective prosecution in criminal law undermines the rule of law by targeting individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the merits of the case. A rule of law system requires equal application of the law, ensuring that legal actions are not used as tools for persecution or favouritism. When prosecution becomes selective, it compromises the foundational principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law. In essence, both frivolous civil lawsuits and selective criminal prosecution deviate from the rule of law by introducing bias, subjectivity, and personal motivations into legal processes.

Utilitarianism and the Omnipotence of Government

By
Gerardine Hoogland
-
1

Welcome to the Inspection House, known as the Panopticon.

Jeremy Bentham, eighteenth century political thinker, was one of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which he considered to be a fundamental principle of morality.

Managing societies is no easy task, hence, as first principles go, it seems reasonable. But what of the outsiders, those who prefer to live life as they see best for themselves? Well, Bentham’s take was more simplistic. He argued that human beings are ruled by two things only – pleasure and pain.

“All men are under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

The bolded words are my emphasis for the purpose of showing that three centuries do not bring about change in how people think and act – I refer to the past few years of bending to the will of government edicts. I would like to think that most people knew what they “ought” to do in relation to government coercion around Covid vaccines and staying under house arrest, but fear determined what they “shall” do, and they did so in large numbers. 

Today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about. 

Some would consider Bentham’s view crude and base. After all, surely, we are more than the sum of two conflicting emotions. However, he considered this the most effective means of making laws to ensure that people’s actions amounted to the greatest happiness for all. 

To ensure stability of the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham saw the need for a solution that would act to deter those seeking to disrupt the status quo, so he developed the concept of an institutional system where prisoners would be observed without their knowing. 

Jeremy Bentham

Very 1984!

Today, surveillance is now part and parcel of our lives. We moderns tend to think that what we are encountering with the plethora of misinformation laws and censorship to within an inch of our lives, is new, be that good or bad, depending on what side of the fence one sits on with the issue.

But today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about. 

The early 1780s saw the Inspection House proposal hatched, known as the Panopticon. Its primary purpose was to house prisoners based on the idea of the best design to produce the best outcomes – the Utility principle at work. 

However, a closer look at Bentham’s personal letters reveals more than just a desire to incarcerate criminals. 

In a series of letters written in 1787 concerning a Plan of Management for a House of Corrections, he wrote:

No matter how different, or even opposite the purpose: whether it be that of punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education: in a word, whether it be applied to the purposes of perpetual prisons in the room of death, or prisons for confinement before trial, or penitentiary-houses, or houses of correction, or work-houses, or manufactories, or mad-houses, or hospitals, or schools. 

One of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Of all the bolded phrases (mine for emphasis), the “training the rising race in the path of education” is the most alarming. We are already witnessing the outcomes of progressive education. Imagine what humanity will look like if we cannot pull it back from the brink.

There is not, and never has been, a shortage of individuals hellbent on shaping the world by their own means. Three centuries have passed since Jeremy Bentham concocted an idea to easily coerce people to the whims of intellectual prowess, and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.

The Utility principle is akin to the concept of the “greater good.” It has always been at the core of public planning for the mere reason that most people prefer others to make the hard decisions, even when it comes to their own personal lives. But Utility is not for everyone. Some of us prefer to live our lives by the “do no harm” principle,” otherwise known as living by one’s own code and doing no harm to anyone else in the process.

Join Mailing List

Should we be alarmed at the rise of these new old concepts?

Are we on the precipice of the collapse of humanity as we have known it? 

Is the old Panopticon the new 15 Minute City, designed to enslave us? 

Probably, is my answer. And that doesn’t mean we stop resisting its implementation through peaceful non-compliance. If history shows us one thing only, it is that pride comes before a fall, and the globalist agenda is big, bold, and ugly. We owe it to our families, friends and all who believe in freedom to continue to defend humanity at all costs.

The Nation State

By
James Hol
-
0

As another Australia Day passes, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on our national identity and what it truly means to be Australian with the number purporting to opt out of celebrating our national day increasing.

CHANGE THE DATE

26 January 1788 marks the landing of the First Fleet and raising of the Union Jack in Sydney Harbour. While it is true it has only been granted public-holiday status since 1994, the term “Australia Day” has been used to celebrate 26 January in all states and territories since 1935. In New South Wales, 26 January celebrations date back to 1808.

While changing the date may sound like a way of keeping more people happy, in fact complaints about the date are nothing more than a facade for the true anti-Australian and anti-Western motivations behind the movement.

History is replete with actions that we would find abhorrent in modern society – and some of the actions of Australia’s first settlers are no exception. Regardless of what new date we may find, the grievance industry would have absolutely no hesitation finding some historical injustice on that new date to complain about. Which is precisely the point.

Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny.

The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety. In fact, these grievance professionals do not believe Australia, or its culture, is worth celebrating. They are the Australian subsidiary of the global grievance industry’s efforts to prevent the celebration of any aspect of Western culture, despite it being responsible for the most free and equitable societies in human history.

A BROKEN CLOCK

But what if they’re right? What if these grievance professionals have stumbled onto something, inadvertently of course? The irony is that Australia is the wet dream of the very authoritarians who attempt to suppress the celebration of any of its achievements.

Contrary to the popular narrative of the laid-back Aussie, we are an incredibly orderly and compliant bunch. If Shakespeare was right and all the world is indeed a stage, Australia is the usher, dutifully ensuring the audience is seated correctly and quickly shushing those who dare exceed the permitted level of fun.

And what do we have to be proud of? Let’s look to modern times. Having the world’s longest and harshest lockdowns? Excessive levels of taxation? Forced participation in the political system? A disarmed populace?

“But we were once a great nation” all the boomers will cry! Perhaps we were; I was not alive to see, but I suspect that is nothing more than a nice comfort to cling to.

THE LUCKY COUNTRY

Our history suggests we were always orderly and compliant, inheriting our love for order from Mother Britian and never seeking independence from her. Like an overly dependent child and a helicopter mother: the mother fearful of the harms that freedom may entail, and the child comforted by a familiar dependence.

The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety.

Australian liberty is no better summarised than by our closest encounter with homegrown rebellion: the Eureaka Stockade. It lasted a grand total of 15 minutes before the rebels were overrun by security forces.

While the founding documents of the rebel miners proclaims that “taxation without representation is tyranny”, echoing the language of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Eureka flag now hangs in the offices of tyrants across the country.

The symbol of our failed rebellion is captured by the tax collectors and tyrants it once opposed. All to the rapturous applause and adulation of the captive populace.

GOLDEN SOIL

Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny. American gun-grabbers point to “the Australian model” to disarm their populace. Global health bureaucrats gushed over “the Australian approach” to Covid tyranny. Regulators worldwide were inspired by Australia’s plain-package cigarettes and sky-high tobacco excise.

Join Mailing List

While the Australian economy was once described as “a farm on top of a mine”, it should now be updated to “an unrelenting bureaucracy on top of a mine”. By revenue, state government administration is now the biggest industry in Australia. And tyranny is our biggest export.
And even though I celebrated Australia Day the most Aussie way I know how, in front of a barbeque, with a beer in hand and the cricket on TV, as the state-mandated bedtime approached, I couldn’t help but wonder: am I truly proud to be Australian?

1...141516...38Page 15 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

The Rise of Citizen Journalism and Independent Media

Simon Anderson - 0
Shortly after 4pm on the 27th of March, the X account @churPanic commenced a live broadcast on a mobile phone from the streets of...

The Missing Ingredient – Assimilation

Libertarians And Conservatives: Similar But Different

Short Imagined Conversation with a Voice To Parliament Advocate

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv