Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 22

A Different Way to Scratch Your Liberty Itch

By
Damon Hayhow
-
2

Who is John Galt?

To those who know, this question is rhetorical. It is a secret ‘handshake’ among fans of Ayn Rand and her seminal work, Atlas Shrugged.

Reading Atlas Shrugged profoundly changed the way I viewed life, society and the world. It was like a stranger had tapped me on the shoulder, pointed out that I was sitting on a pile of jigsaw pieces, and helped me put the pieces together. Afterward, instead of being confused by the variety of pains in my ass, I was contentedly gazing at a beautiful picture of the world. It changed my life.

… the Covid sham of 2020 was Atlas Shrugging

The climax of Atlas Shrugged could be summarised as: civil society devolved because the government kept ratcheting up its abuse and extortion of the most productive and competent people in society, based on the socialist argument of “needing” to “help” the ever increasing “needs” of the “needy”. So the productive people left.

This is relevant today because the Covid sham of 2020 was Atlas Shrugging. We all felt the earth move. If you have read Atlas Shrugged then you know where the story goes, and you know what the smart people do. We leave.

So I left.

The obvious question, then, was where to go? Again, Atlas Shrugged proved instructional. The protagonist and her friends did not leave one declining socialist kleptocracy to go to another declining socialist kleptocracy. They built a new society from scratch. They did not run away; they ran toward opportunity.

Galt’s Gulch. A new society for the productive and competent

Fortunately, escaping government suffocation no longer requires living on an island like Robinson Crusoe. There are numerous countries where you might be surprised to find a superior quality of life to Australia, at a lower cost, with palpably more freedom.

Consider the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as an example. The UAE is a not a liberal democracy. It is run like a business. The rulers explicitly want successful, talented and wealthy people to move all of their wealth and business there. So they built cities with everything that their target market wants: zero tax, no crime, spotlessly clean, mind-boggling architecture and world class banks, hospitals, schools, facilities, activities, food etc. They then made immigration easy: register a company and self-sponsor your residency. It costs just a few thousand dollars.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

The UAE offers a unique solution to the libertarian dilemma of how to balance individual freedom with security and societal order. Instead of a contrived internal democratic process, living in the UAE is a voluntary transaction. You do not have a right to free speech, to protest or to vote. Your money and your feet are your voice and vote. Your rights are: take it, or leave it.

One of the most freeing factors in the UAE – especially for anyone who operated a business in Australia – is the absence of fear of Government extortion. The income tax rate is zero. No tax means no criminal tax avoidance. And that eliminates government treating tax residents like criminals.

Other countries have taken notice of the success of the UAE and Dubai, and are rolling out the red carpet to entrepreneurs. For example, the small nation of Georgia in eastern Europe offers an entrepreneur’s visa, with residency and a paltry 1% tax rate on earnings up to $AU375,000/year. The capital, Tbilisi, is a beautiful, classically European city. It is objectively safer than Australia, and with a cost of living around 1/3rd, or less.

Tbilisi, Georgia

Dubai and Georgia are just two examples among numerous countries that offer extraordinary advantages, along with a quality of life that belies their reputations of 10-20 years ago. Globalisation and the commoditisation of technology means that western nations no longer have a monopoly on modern living. Friendly people, sealed roads, modern homes, fast internet, good coffee and Gucci stores are everywhere, including most “emerging” or “developing” nations.

So I left.

The factor determining the viability of leaving Australia, for most people, is money. If you have no assets, no education, and expect $200,000/yr to hold a road sign, Australia is probably the only country that will work for you. But if you, like me, are able to generate an income from anywhere – or if you have made your money already – you have an array of options to increase your freedom, improve your lifestyle, eliminate or reduce taxes and escape Marxism. Just exclude Canada, the EU, UK, US and New Zealand from your shortlist.

Australia is an extraordinary country with extraordinary potential. But it is hard to argue that it is heading in the right direction politically or economically. The natural inclination is to want to fight for the rights and freedoms that the West has always been so justifiably proud of. But there is an alternative: you can leave. It is another way to scratch your Liberty itch.

Victoria: The Nanny State

By
Caroline White
-
0

*** Publisher’s Note: this article was written before the resignation of Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews ***

Victoria is a Nanny State on steroids. Dan Andrews’ Labor government’s shenanigans are impossible to avoid, beginning every morning when you get in the car to drive to work. It’s like living in a video game that you have no chance of winning, that purely serves their purpose of keeping us supposedly “safe” within the uncompromising confines of their matrix.

The biggest gripe I have at the moment is hidden speed cameras, particularly when they are on vehicles parked illegally (and dangerously – oh the irony). Apparently, I’m not the only one: last year three traffic camera cars were attacked within a 10-day time frame. Having recently received a fine for the victimless crime of travelling a whole 3km/hr over the speed limit, it’s only human nature to imagine the satisfaction felt from smashing those windows in.

The Victorian Police assistant commissioner claimed the actions were “cowardly” and “really, really harmful to the broader road safety program”. In reality, the statistics suggest quite the opposite and that the attacks could possibly be justified as saving lives.

Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

Over the border, when the New South Wales government removed the pre-warning signs for their camera cars during the pandemic, it doubled the revenue for the State. However, the death toll also increased tragically by 21. It is abundantly clear that hidden speed cameras have absolutely nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with government control through revenue raising that disproportionately punishes low-income earners.

So, while no-one could argue that the attacks on these cars align with the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP), US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

Barry Goldwater, philosophical libertarian

The New South Wales community took a different approach, responding peacefully by pushing back against the government. The public backlash forced pre-warning signs to be reintroduced.

The contrast with Victorians became particularly apparent during Covid, when a certain percentage of our population seem to blindly trust what they are told by authority without question, making life extremely difficult for the rest of us.

There’s an unhealthy dependency on the State here, as if a section of the population feels they’re incapable of making informed, adult decisions for their own health and safety and the health and safety of others around them because the government knows best and of course always has our best intentions at heart.

They’ve been made to fear their neighbour; they no longer believe that the majority of people are good and can be trusted to do the right thing, and do not realise that those who disagree cannot be deterred by a traffic camera and the threat of jail or a fine. They’ve also been made to fear death, the only certainty besides paying taxes. I’m unsure at what point Victorians felt the need to wrap themselves in cotton wool.

Hidden speed cameras are only one problem in an assortment of issues Victorian motorists have to contend with on a daily basis though. The number of speed humps and 40k zones in Melbourne makes me wonder whether there is any point having tarmac on the roads, because we might as well go back to travelling by horse and cart. Perhaps this reflects the real agenda, and why the government is making motor vehicle travel a warzone for commuters. My local council is currently pushing for bike riding to replace cars, an idealistic viewpoint to the single, soy latte sipping Labor and Greens affiliated councillors, but completely unrealistic and unattainable to a mother and small business owner like me and the majority of our community.

Then there’s the issue of the surveillance state where new and highly invasive cameras are now catching people on their phones, or not wearing a seatbelt at a stop light. Ladies, don’t forget to wear undies under your skirt, because these intrusive cameras can even detect what you ate for breakfast.

US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

There are licence plate recognition cameras on nearly every corner, ready at any second for our local “governments” to spring the 20-minute SMART cities nightmare on us. A similar concept to the 5k travel radius during Covid, except instead of being sold to the masses as a saving-granny exercise, we’ll be told we’re saving the planet from its impending doom.

Trialled in the UK, locals insisted that they actually made congestion in the city worse. People responded by removing bollards at the 15-minute borders or concreting them in, destroying the cameras and refusing to pay the fines. Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

Prison Break

By
Bob Day
-
3

In 1946, Viktor Frankl, Holocaust survivor and renowned author of the book Man’s Search for Meaning, proposed that the Statue of Liberty on the east coast of America be complemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the country’s west coast. He was later joined in this endeavour by Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The dream was to bookend the nation with two equally inspiring statues – one representing rights, the other responsibilities.

Both men have since passed on, but their dream is being kept alive by an organisation called Statue of Responsibility.

The dichotomy of rights and responsibilities is often raised during public policy debates.

Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, a key advocate for the Yes campaign, in discussing his work on rights and responsibilities in Cape York, has said:

Noel Pearson

“Until we take responsibility, there’ll be no turnaround in closing the gap.

“You think my mob like it when I talk about responsibilities?

“They love it when I talk about rights and how they’ve been victimised. They don’t like it, however, when I say take responsibility for your children – nobody’s going to save you until you get your family together.”

Can’t argue with that.

This is unquestionably an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violates a person’s right to earn a living and it violates their responsibility to provide for their families.

A core tenet of the Christian faith is that one day we all will stand before our Creator and give an account of our lives and be judged accordingly.

It must follow, therefore, that if people are going to be held responsible for their actions, they should have the right to decide how they live their life. Rights – responsibilities.

The first question I asked as a newly elected Senator in 2014 went something like this:

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz.

I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 28 May this year when he said, “People are more than capable of making decisions based on what is best for them”, and also to the statement by the Minister for Social Services when he said, “The best form of welfare is a job”.

If both those statements are true, why then can an 18 year old in my home State of South Australia

• get married

• have children

• drive a motor vehicle

• fly an aeroplane

• buy a house

• take out a mortgage

• enter into a mobile phone contract

• travel to some of the most dangerous places on earth

• smoke cigarettes

• drink alcohol

• enlist in the armed forces and shoot enemy combatants

• and, of course, vote

but NOT enter into an employment arrangement which, and I again quote the Prime Minister, “is best for them”?

Former Senator, Bob Day

It is customary for crossbenchers to send Ministers advance notice of questions they propose to ask during Question Time. I did so on this occasion. I also took the liberty of sending the Minister the preferred answer I would like to receive.

The Minister duly acknowledged my courtesy in sending him the question in advance and also informed the Senate that this was actually the first time he’d also received a suggested answer.

Humour aside, the answer I was looking for was, “Senator Day is quite right, this government is committed to putting in place employment arrangements which, as the Prime Minister has often said, ‘is best for the people making those decisions’. Accordingly, this government will, in due course, be tabling a simple, one sentence bill to be called the ‘Free to Work Bill’. The Free to Work Bill will state the following:

‘Notwithstanding the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, any contract of employment between a corporation and a natural person shall be lawful’.

That is all that is needed. Needless to say, that’s not the answer I got.

I have argued that a person could be unemployed, living at home rent-free, with no (or very low) cost of living and would be willing to work at a starting pay rate of say $20 an hour (which is a lot higher than they would be getting on Centrelink), but because penalty rates on weekends or public holidays are around $40 an hour they are not allowed to take these jobs. They stay unemployed, the business stays shut, and the customer doesn’t get what they want to buy.

It’s been said that any place you can’t leave is a prison. Australia’s present workplace regulation system is a prison, trapping a person in thousands of pages of regulations.  When I ask why we lock people up like this, I am told “Oh it’s for their own good – we don’t want them to be exploited.”

… if people are going to be held responsible for their actions, they should have the right to decide how they live their life. Rights – responsibilities.

But where’s the outrage when these same young people end up on drugs or get involved in crime or suffer poor health or become pregnant or become recruits for bikie gangs or even commit suicide?

If those claiming to protect the unemployed from exploitation really cared as much as they say, then why do they do not stop them from doing a hundred and one other things that have a far bigger and more permanent impact on their lives than getting a job – like smoking or drinking alcohol or getting covered in tattoos or getting married, or having children, or backpacking through South America. At least with a job you can quit any time.

This is unquestionably an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violates a person’s right to earn a living and it violates their responsibility to provide for their families.

Imprisoned With Zero Charges

By
Jaimie Stevenson
-
2

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the USA, Australia enacted a multitude of counter-terrorism laws ostensibly intended to bolster national security and deter acts of terrorism. However, the unintended consequences of those laws pose significant threats to fundamental legal rights, including the right to a fair trial and the protection of habeas corpus.

9/11 ushered in the US Patriot Act. Australia then slapped on 92 counter-terrorism statutes

From 2001 to 2021 a total of 92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament, many without proper debate or scrutiny. These laws threaten fundamental rights such as free speech and freedom from arbitrary detention, and have expanded in scope from targeting terrorism to targeting most serious criminal crimes. Their impact affects all Australians, not just suspected terrorists.

They include restrictions on freedom of speech through sedition offences; detention and questioning of Australians not suspected of any crime; control orders enabling house arrest for up to a year; extended periods of detention without charge; warrantless searches of private property by police; and secretive trials.

92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament

The absence of human rights safeguards such as a bill of rights might offer has provided fertile ground for the enactment of especially disproportionate laws in Australia. As a result, our ostensible “anti-terrorism” laws may present far greater threat to the civil liberties of Australians than anything Americans face from the USA’s infamous Patriot Act.

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful detention by the government. It is the right to challenge the legal justification of any detention before a court of law. If the judge finds the detention to be unlawful, the individual must be released.

The historical roots of habeas corpus can be traced back to 13th Century medieval England; a period where the Monarchy and Government had powers to detain individuals without clear legal justification, which predictably resulted in frequent arbitrary and indefinite detentions.

A shift in legal paradigm

The War on Terror marked a significant shift in the legal landscape. Traditional criminal law focused on punishing individuals for actual crimes, based on material evidence. The new focus is on preventing potential crimes, based on often undisclosed suspicions.

Preventative detention, for instance, allows the Australian Federal Police to question anybody without charge, simply by deeming the person a ‘terrorism suspect’. The practice of ‘preventative detention’ contravenes key principles of international law, including Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

So, while the principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.

So, how does this affect non-terrorists?

The Australian Government has armed itself with extraordinary powers that have reshaped the very essence of justice. The Government and its agents gave themselves the ability to search without warrant, detain without charge, and declare organisations as threats to national security without substantive proof. If that was not scary enough, what remains deeply concerning is the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘threat to national security’.

These laws threaten fundamental rights

Under the legislation, political labels can be applied to activities that, if genuinely criminal, would have fallen under the purview of existing criminal laws. These criminal laws come with vital safeguards that ensure individuals have the right to receive a fair trial and are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Counter-terrorism laws erode these fundamental legal protections, placing the burden of proof on the accused, effectively reversing the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

The principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.

Recent global events serve as clear reminders of the dangers associated with politicising alleged criminal activities. The Canadian trucker freedom convoy was portrayed by the media and the Canadian government as an occupation, despite it being a protest against Covid restrictions. The January 6th protests in the USA were labelled an insurrection, despite having few of the elements of a genuine insurrection. And Covid-related freedom protests in Australia were stigmatised as right-wing extremism. Such hasty and politically charged characterisations only underscore the perilous implications of these counter-terrorism laws and their potential misuse.

Canadian Truckie Convoy
Australian Freedom Rally
US January 6th

At the core of this issue lies the power vested in the government to declare individuals or groups as threats to national security, bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus, and unleashing an arsenal of undemocratic laws upon those who are accused. This unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.

bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus

It is worth considering the words of Lord Hoffman when he delivered his dissenting opinion on counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”

These words should resonate with every citizen, as they highlight the dire need for a careful and considered re-evaluation of the balance between national security and the preservation of our fundamental legal rights, ensuring that justice, transparency, and accountability are not casualties in the fight against terrorism.

Death, Taxes and … Death Taxes?

By
Max Payne
-
0

“We know that there is a growing pot of wealth, sitting in the hands of older Australians that will be passed on in coming decades.”

Gosh, that sounds juicy. What government could refuse the temptation to take a slice of that pie?  

However, that sentiment speaks to the fundamental flaw in the approach of our policy makers towards balancing our books – always trying to increase revenue without doing much to cut spending.

While it would take a brave government to set their sights on inheritance as a potential source of tax revenue, comments from incoming Productivity Commission boss, Danielle Wood, indicate the wrong question is being asked. 

Structural Budget Pressures

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who is arguably among Labor’s more agile and pragmatic front-benchers, has flagged the NDIS and aged care as key budgetary pressures going forward. While high commodity prices are currently keeping the wolves from the door, the rapidly rising cost of Government funded services and a forecast drop in revenue over time has even the typically Keynesian Labor camp concerned. 

Australian Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Are death taxes next on the agenda?

Although Labor has denied plans for an inheritance tax are on the agenda, Danielle Wood’s comments and the wider conversation nationally on debt and deficit are clearly not focussed on fixing the most glaring issue facing the budget – spending. 

Out of control spending    

For example, since its inception in 2013, the NDIS has grown astronomically and now accounts for the biggest cost of any social program the Federal Government runs – $30 billion last financial year. Originally designed to help those with genuine disabilities, the NDIS faces many unforeseen challenges. Its expansive criteria means that over 500,000 people now use the NDIS, participants don’t leave the program as quickly as first envisioned, and up to 20% of NDIS payments are estimated to be fraudulent! 

Aged care is not immune either – one of the key recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission was to establish a ‘blank cheque’ style funding model. This would ensure outcomes remained uncompromised by ‘fiscal challenges facing the government of the day’. With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder social programs are growing at such a speed and are open to rorts – the government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off! What message does that send to users or providers? Of course, the first proposed solution to the issue of funding was to slap a levy on taxpayers – in other words, more tax.

Cutting through 

Dramatically reducing the size and scope of all government programs would be a more ideal solution (Caroline White knows it!), but at the very least Chalmers and the relevant ministers could begin with more palatable reforms in the service sector. For example, a user-pays model for aged care services – reducing the share paid by the general tax-base and increasing accountability for providers. Meanwhile the NDIS could benefit greatly from increased scrutiny of payments made and more stringent eligibility criteria.

The government is being told the cash tap can never be turned off!

While governments fear the political ramifications of being seen as ‘gutting’ social services, perhaps the issue needs re-framing. The Australian Taxpayers Alliance found in 2021 that a Victorian worker earning an average salary costs about $73,000 to employ. Of that amount, 55% is taxed! Our lifestyles, our productivity, our time and our future are being gutted – and all for what? So that whatever we have left when we finally kick the bucket can be taxed one last time?

We can only hope that one day governments will attempt some introspection, but it doesn’t look likely just yet. Apart from talk of scrapping the Stage 3 tax-cuts, aged-care levies and death taxes, Jim Chalmers has also flagged that he expects future nation-building funding to fall at least partially on the super funds.

At what point will we finally see the leadership required to start treating the problem of spending rather than the symptom of revenue?   

The Murray Darling Basin Plan Nonsense

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
0

The Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, announced that the Murray Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) must be implemented “in full”, by which she means a further 450 GL of water will be sent down the river to South Australia.

This water will come from farmers and rural communities in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, much of it through buying water rights from farmers. There is currently a legislated limit on water buybacks, which the Minister plans to repeal.

The National Farmers Federation estimates it will cost $3 billion to buy the water and, by reducing irrigated agriculture, will deprive even more rural and regional communities of people and economic activity.  

The MDBP was established in 2012 in response to the Millennium Drought (1997–2010), when certain people in government believed it would never rain heavily again, leaving the environment permanently short of water and Adelaide’s water supply at risk.

The MDBP is perpetuating an artificial environment in SA at the expense of Australian farming and rural communities.

As wiser heads knew, the Millenium Drought was neither unique nor an indicator of the future. Nonetheless, it resulted in a plan to send a lot of water down the Murray and Darling rivers, notionally to benefit the environment but also to keep the mouth of the Murray open and guarantee water for Adelaide.

The MDBP calls for the ‘return’ of 2,750 GL of water to the environment, achieved via efficiency measures and purchasing water rights, with an additional 450 GL to be returned under certain conditions.

While more water for some wetlands and flood plains in Queensland, NSW and Victoria was probably needed, the numbers were never science-based. They were negotiated in 2012 by politicians for political reasons. In South Australia there are six marginal seats in which the Coalition and Labor compete on the basis of offering the most water. The additional 450 GL was only added at the last minute in order to get the South Australians to agree to the Plan.

Riverland crops rely on irrigation from the Murrary

Of the 2,750, SA is guaranteed a minimum of 1,850 GL a year. This is a lot more than it needs: according to the SA EPA, SA’s total water consumption is just 1,000 GL per year, of which agriculture consumes three-quarters. Households, manufacturing and mining account for the remainder.

Adelaide also has a desalination plant capable of producing half its household and industry requirements. The plant must only use renewable energy though, which means it is expensive and rarely operates.

Some of the recovered water is used for environmental purposes in the eastern states, but a lot travels down the Murray River to SA’s lower lakes, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. Until the 1930s these lakes were open to the sea, like every other river estuary in Australia, but then five barrages were erected. The barrages mean they are kept artificially fresh and, as a consequence, tidal flows are unable to keep the Murray mouth open, which is now silted and requires frequent dredging.

Also in SA, the South East drainage scheme has converted huge areas of SA wetlands into productive farmland, but this diverts large amounts of water and salt out to sea instead of into the Coorong, where it once flowed. The effect on the Coorong has been devastating.

Large amounts of water and salt diverts from the Coorong out to sea

On top of all that, around 900 GL of water simply evaporates in the lower lakes. That is obviously fresh water, mostly taken from the other states, with zero environmental benefit. Evaporation will always occur, but if the Murray mouth were open and the sea free to enter, it could be seawater (or at least a mixture of fresh and seawater) that evaporates.

Quite simply, the MDBP is perpetuating an artificial environment in SA at the expense of Australian farming and rural communities. The loss of water for irrigation in southern Queensland, NSW and Victoria in particular has devastated many regional communities.

Plibersek’s decision is based on the now ingrained assumption that sending more water down the Murray is good for the environment, will somehow keep the Murray mouth open, and restore health to the Coorong. It is wrong.

In South Australia there are six marginal seats in which the Coalition and Labor compete on the basis of offering the most water.

What ought to happen is for the SA government to demolish the barrages and remove Bird Island, a sand island that has formed in the mouth of the Murray as a result of the barrages. This would allow the Murray to run free.

It should also build a weir across the Murray near Wellington so, in dry years, seawater cannot move too far up and contaminate either Adelaide’s supply or that of SA irrigators, and redirect all SE drainage water into the Coorong.

Were these to occur, it would make sense to actually reduce the amount of water sent to SA, allowing Queensland, NSW and Victoria to retain more for both productive and environmental purposes.

But like everything else about the MDBP, the biggest barrier is political.

Anti-Nuclear Policy Is A Tax On The Poor

By
Meaghan Whyte
-
1

Some Facts

In 2022, the Brotherhood of St Laurence released “Power pain: An Investigation of Energy Stress in Australia”. It found:

  •  2006 to 2020: Approximately 20% of Australian households experienced energy stress.
  • Energy stress is much higher in specific groups such as people with a chronic health issue or disability, renters, low-income workers and people on unemployment benefits
  • In the lowest 20% income group, energy stress increased up to 8 percentage points, from 40% in 2008 to 48%, in 2017.

A study by the OECD in 2019 titled “Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class”, found:

  • 40% of Australia’s middle class are at financial risk.
  • Australia’s proportion of lower and poor households is higher than OECD average.

Day-ahead energy prices set records in Germany. Between June and August, next-year electricity rates doubled.

Australian energy prices have increased frequently over the past few years, outpacing inflation since the mid-2000s. Despite that, the middle class fears nuclear energy more than becoming poor. This apprehension is misplaced.

Due to uranium’s phenomenal energy density, nuclear energy provides unrivalled price affordability. A ton of coal is required to produce an equal amount of power to a gummy-bear-sized pellet of uranium.

Nuclear has the potential to alleviate financial burdens on the poor and struggling. Decreases in energy prices lead to lower prices on all goods and services.

Germany – A Cautionary Tale

In 2022, Germany’s government doubled-down on higher targets for the country’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG).

Renewable electricity generation in Germany increased by ~9% in 2022 compared to the previous year, reaching 256 terawatt hours (TWh), short of the 269 TWh target set by EEG.

Germany’s goal is 80% electricity from renewables by 2030. This requires an annual volume of approximately 600 TWh. To achieve this, they will need to double green electricity generation in eight years.

In 2022, this aspiration crashed headlong into the German energy crisis, a result of low output from wind and hydro and closing down nuclear power stations. Germany also bore consequences of sanctions levelled by both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

Record-breaking increases in energy prices drove inflation across Europe. Day-ahead energy prices set records in Germany. Between June and August, next-year electricity rates doubled.

Originally aiming to phase out coal by 2030, the country’s energy crisis urgently necessitated ramping up coal power generation. Previously closed coal plants were brought back online. Shutdown of lignite and hard coal power plants was postponed until March 2024.

German power output still lagged.

While the energy crisis rolled on, Germany closed its last three nuclear plants in April 2023. Germany’s nuclear era spanned 6 decades, without incident.

From 2023 onwards, Germany is expected to be a net importer of electricity from France, due to Germany’s increased reliance on renewable energy and France’s improved nuclear power availability.

Finland – A Powerful Lesson

Finland has the highest per capita energy consumption in the European Union; double the EU average in 2021. This is attributed to energy-intensive industries, a high standard of living, the cold climate and relatively large territory resulting in long distances travelled.

However, there are no fossil fuels. The energy industry has kept pace with consumption by utilising nuclear power. Nuclear has ensured energy efficiency, reliability and affordability.

A ton of coal is required to produce an equal amount of power to a gummy-bear-sized pellet of uranium.

Finland’s reactors are highly efficient, being some of the most productive on Earth. With an average lifetime capacity factor of over 90%, Finnish reactors have been upgraded significantly since construction. Olkiluoto 1 & 2 have undergone substantial upgrades, with plans to further increase their capacity.

In April 2023, the newest reactor Olkiluoto 3 was brought online. At 1600 megawatts capacity, it is the largest reactor in Europe. This single reactor produces 15% of Finland’s electricity. The three reactors at Olkiluoto now produce approximately 30% of Finland’s electricity.

Olkiluoto 3. This single reactor produces 15% of Finland’s electricity.

When Olkiluoto 3 came online, Finland’s electricity prices immediately fell by a staggering 75%. Jukka Ruusunen, CEO of Finnish grid operator Fingrid, said “We have more stability in the system because of Olkiluoto 3. It’s a giant nuclear reactor, one of the largest on earth, connected to a small system (Finland’s power grid).”

Australia

Interest in nuclear energy is fast-gaining political support in Australia. The Liberal Democrats / Libertarian Party and the Coalition have voiced support for an immediate repeal of Australia’s outdated moratorium on nuclear energy.

The World Nuclear Association stated “Australia has a significant infrastructure to support any future nuclear power program.”

Olympic Dam, South Australia

Australia has the most uranium of any country, totaling 28% of the earth’s ore. Olympic Dam in South Australia is the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world.

Conclusion

When unencumbered by government and its meddling red tape, the free market will determine the energy source which is safest, most reliable and can be readily provided at the lowest price. In May 2023, across the globe, there were 410 operable nuclear power reactors, 59 reactors under construction, 100 reactors planned and 325 reactors proposed. It is time for the Australian market to embrace nuclear energy.

5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 3)

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
6

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

Let’s recap.

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

This is:

  • Blind-Spot #1: Systemic Racism

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

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

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

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

*****

BLIND-SPOT #4: BUREAUCRATIC EXPANSION

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

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

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

1967 – Council of Aboriginal Affairs

1972 – National Aboriginal Consultative Committee

1973 – Department of Aboriginal Affairs

1977 – National Aboriginal Conference

1981 – Aboriginal Development Committee

1988 – Mabo (No. 2)

1990 – ATSIC

1991 – Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

1992 – Wik case

1993 – Native Title Act

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

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

1999 – Preamble Referendum

2006 – Reconciliation Action Plan

2008 – National Apology to Stolen Generation

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

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

2013 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island People Recognition Act

2014 – Act of Recognition Review Panel

2015 – Referendum Council

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

2023 – Voice Referendum

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

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

Libertarian satirist, P.J. O’Rourke

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

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

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

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

“Treaty” very clearly on the agenda. However, treaties are between countries. Yes camp separatists?

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

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

*****

BLIND-SPOT #5: GOVERNMENT IS HARMLESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 2)

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLIND-SPOT #2: CAN’T GET MUCH WORSE

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

Really?

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

Former ALP National President, Liberal candidate, businessman and leading ‘No’ camp advocate, Warren Mundine

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

Some facts might provide perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

Evonne Goolagong. World #1. 11 Grand Slam wins.
Ashleigh Barty. World #1. 4 Grand Slam wins. Olympic bronze.

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

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

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

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

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

BLIND-SPOT #3: CONCEDE OR ELSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Never buckle to fear.

So far, I’ve deal with:

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

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

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

5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1)

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
10


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

John Milton

Libertarians believe in free speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, the big one.

BLIND-SPOT #1: SYSTEMIC RACISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

man
Leading libertarian, Thomas Sowell

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertarian philosopher, Murray Rothbard

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

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

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

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

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

1...212223...38Page 22 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Being Libertarian About Abortion

David Leyonhjelm - 4
Libertarians are somewhat like socialists and communists:  while they agree on broad principles (such as low taxes and small government), they argue endlessly about...

Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas

Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

Soft Power Through The Arts

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv