Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 25

Golden Years?

By
Max Payne
-
4

The combination of an ageing population, lack of children being born and an unquenchable thirst for public spending on ever-expanding social services has the potential to wring the tax-base dry as a chronic demographic distortion unfolds.

Although the mainstream media and most of the public are concerned about increasing population levels, an emerging demographic threat concerning the composition of the population should be attracting much more attention.

Simply put, the world is ageing. Much of the world is experiencing birth rates below replacement levels. If it continues, this could have devastating cultural, societal and economic impact on Australia and the rest of the world. 

The aged care royal commission’s final report was handed down in early 2021. Despite a 200% increase in the sector’s budget allocation from a decade ago, the report claims even more funding is needed to deliver higher standards and more personalised care. Furthermore, it claims such funding should be insulated from the broad fiscal and budgetary challenges the Federal Government faces.

Yet as Centre for Independent Studies head of research Simon Cowen notes, the NDIS and childcare sectors are already subject to the same blank cheque-type model – one that supposedly increases the quality of care but in practice only maximises the cost.*

An ageing population is not unique to Australia. But when coupled with lower birth rates and the impact of a subsequently smaller tax-base, it raises the question as to how a higher standard of aged care could possibly be funded.

If self-funded retirement is to be a solution, superfunds and retail investors need to navigate the issue of liquidity with the funds being withdrawn by retirees not being replaced by new capital.

In essence, our superannuation system is built on the concept of new money replacing the old – yet without population and productivity growth, this new money simply will not be coming in. So how will the superfunds maintain valuations? How will people fund their retirements?

What is most alarming is that there is no obvious solution to this challenge. As we live longer, the cost of managing chronic disease and unhealthy lifestyle factors are growing steadily across the developed world, placing greater pressure on government-funded health services. With inflation sticky, generational wealth gaps expanding, the size of government increasing and a rising cost of living, young people are choosing not to have children.

Economists, politicians, and young people need to begin seriously thinking (and talking) about this issue.

Policymakers risk burdening young Australians with a lifetime of servitude to generations before them that enjoyed more freedom, prosperity, and quality of life.

Moreover, by the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.

In a current climate of simmering unease at the fault lines between younger and older generations of Australians, these concerns risk pushing society into an even more fractured state. But it is no use merely complaining. Rather than call for more socialism, taxation and ‘social justice’, young people need to claim back their liberty and financial future from the politicians that are pandering to an ageing voter base.

Young people today are concerned about their future in the context of climate change, but the threat of an ageing population and low birth rates should be a more pressing concern. If our youth don’t consider this, they risk losing their own ‘golden years’ after having spent their working lives funding the golden years of their parents and grandparents.

* Aged care cost blow-out won’t be solved by higher taxes, S. Cowan, 17 June 2023, Centre for Independent Studies

The Danger To Society of the Public Health Industry

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
6

The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.

It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.

The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.

The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.

In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.

Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.
Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.
Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.
Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.

CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.

Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both. 

It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.

Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now?  It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.  

Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.

In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it.  Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.

Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?   

From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much.  Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.

Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.

South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier

The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.

Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.   

It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.

The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.

The Consequences of Rent Control

By
Meaghan Whyte
-
1

As Australia faces a rental crisis, the Greens are agitating for rent control. Chief among their voices is Adam Bandt, whose clarion call is: “Unlimited rent increases should be illegal.”

The Greens and their cheer squad claim rent control protects tenants from excessive rent increases and provides affordable housing options. Such policies would be implemented in response to affordability concerns, shortages, and displacement risks in gentrifying areas. Advocates assert rent control maintains community diversity, prevents homelessness, promotes tenant stability, and offers security against sudden and drastic rent hikes.

Introducing rent control scores politicians quick points. However, the policies are vociferously opposed by the majority of economists.

Mr Assar Lindbeck was a Swedish professor of economics, a contributor to a Nobel Prize for Economics, and a socialist. Sweden also has the most restrictive rent controls of all OECD countries. Lindbeck wrote:

Assar Lindbeck

“In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

Lindbeck’s quip on rent control highlights a rare consensus among economists. Across all persuasions (neo-classicals, Keynesians, Austrians and socialists), economists agree that rent control is a proven failure.

This is shown by the “Rent Control Survey” 2012 conducted by IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum. To the question: “Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them” – 81% of economists decisively answered ‘Disagree’.

Rent control manipulates supply and demand dynamics, corrupting markets and causing inefficiencies.

It has a blighted history of unintended, negative consequences and can permanently affect rental housing markets. Contrary to the intended purpose as an anti-poverty strategy, poor families suffer worst of all.

As housing quality and availability declines, the middle class can often find alternatives. Poor families cannot. Higher-income households can also benefit under rent control, by receiving greater subsidies. In 2018, San Francisco city staff presented their first ‘Housing Needs and Trends Report’ and ‘Housing Affordability Strategy’ to a meeting of the city’s Planning Commission. A few notable admissions included:

  • Households that moved into rent controlled units are much more likely to be higher income than in the past.
  • Housing cost burdens worsened for all but the highest income households.
  • The city struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low and moderate‐income households, and does not have a comprehensive picture of how various policies and resources work together to achieve affordability outcomes.

Decreased profit margins incentivise landlords to prejudice tenant selection based on income and credit history. This disadvantages young, low-income families, especially single-parent households. It also impedes racial and economic integration by discouraging tenant mobility. In his study ‘Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits’ 2002, Dirk Early states “If landlords believe that larger households headed by young persons lead to quicker depreciation of their units, the rationing of units by landlords would lower the probability of larger and younger households finding rent regulated units.”

Rent control unfairly burdens housing providers, by forcing below-market rates of return. This effectively transfers income from property owners to occupants of rentals. Understandably, landlords and investors are reluctant to accept this. In his study “Rent Control Effects through the Lens of Empirical Research” 2022, Konstantin A. Kholodilin reviewed 60 studies from 18 countries. Over 50% demonstrate rent control’s negative effects on new residential construction. All the studies confirm rent control policies adversely affect quality of housing as decreasing rent revenue diminishes funds for maintenance and refurbishment.

Such proven, unintended consequences of rent control policies highlight the need for communities to explore alternative solutions for poor and middle-class housing. The libertarian solution to housing affordability and availability is elegant in its simplicity. Enable the free market to increase housing supply.

In 2011, councils across Perth, Western Australia were given individual infill development targets by the state government. By 2016, 94% failed to achieve their targets. More than half had not reached 50% of their goal.

Belmont, ‘City of Opportunity’, was one of the success stories. The city was proactively open and receptive to the market for over a decade. This encouraged robust investment. Belmont has maintained its infill development and continues to attract a wide range of families and businesses to live, work and invest in the city.

When considering rent control, it is worth reflecting on the adage attributed to Mark Twain “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Government enforced rent control predictably delivers negative outcomes.

The free market is the only proven means by which to solve Australia’s rental crisis.

The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

By
Jaimie Stevenson
-
0

In a democratic society, freedom of speech is an essential human right that enables the contest of ideas, intellectual debate, and societal progress. However, recent years have revealed a disturbing trend: those in power view free speech as a threat to their control and a hindrance to their plans.

Nowhere is this more apparent than on social media platforms, where the censorship of free speech has become alarmingly prevalent. This encroachment upon a fundamental right poses a significant danger to democracy itself.

Limitations on free speech should, at a minimum, be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They must be applied impartially and without discrimination. While certain grounds for restricting speech, such as threats of harm or incitement to violence may be justified, they must be carefully balanced to safeguard individual rights.

However, we find ourselves now in a climate of confusion regarding what constitutes harm or violence. Certain speech, labelled as hate speech or even violence, has become subject to arbitrary interpretation.

As a consequence, freedom of expression is stifled as people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The broadening of definitions and the ensuing uncertainty lead to self-censorship, allowing governments to exploit this confusion and control the speech of those with differing opinions, thereby eroding the very foundations of democracy.

In addition to limiting freedom of expression, certain ideologies go even further, seeking to compel speech. The transgender movement and debates over the definition of womanhood exemplify this. Individuals are pressured to use specific pronouns chosen by others, forced to disregard their own reality and life experiences. Threats of de-platforming, de-monetisation, or denial of basic services like banking contribute to an environment of fear and self-censorship. Prominent figures including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jordan Peterson, and Nigel Farage, have faced punitive measures for expressing the wrong opinions. These examples serve as a warning to anyone who dares challenge the government narrative.

Western societies currently grapple with censorship on social media platforms. Elon Musk’s advocacy for free speech on Twitter has faced intense backlash, prompting governments to enact legislation aimed at curtailing it. The Online Safety Act 2021 in Australia and the Digital Service Act in the European Union, for example, threaten fines of up to 6 percent of annual revenue. The USA’s Restrict Act threatens imprisonment for up to 20 years. These laws exemplify an authoritarian approach to controlling information and stifling public discourse. In contrast, Mark Zuckerberg’s launch of Threads, a platform designed to restore online censorship, has received biased media coverage, painting it as a positive move. This skewed portrayal, labelling free speech as a right-wing ideology rather than a fundamental human right, highlights the distorted narrative being propagated.

Renowned leftist Russell Brand has emerged as a champion for the restoration of free speech. Brand’s realisation that free speech transcends political ideologies and is a fundamental right offers a glimmer of hope. He, along with other content creators, has had to resort to self-censorship on platforms like YouTube to avoid de-platforming or demonetisation. They have sought refuge on platforms such as Rumble, the “Home of Free Speech,” where open discussion on previously taboo topics is encouraged. Such a shift to alternative platforms demonstrates the need for a free market in spaces that prioritise and protect free speech.

A recent event, the Censorship Industrial Complex, hosted by Brand, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger, shed light on the issue of censorship on social media platforms. The deliberate practice of self-censorship, designed to pre-empt dangerous thoughts, has been exposed. Stanford University’s involvement in guiding social media platforms on COVID-19 further reveals the collusion between governments and tech companies in silencing dissenting voices, undermining democratic principles, and hindering informed decision-making.

The actions taken by governments, social media platforms, and the media to stifle dissent and impose censorship present an imminent threat to democracy.

Transparent, reasonable and impartial laws are needed to safeguard our fundamental rights. It is imperative that governments respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions, irrespective of whether they challenge prevailing narratives.

In addition, individuals and content creators should actively support and embrace alternative platforms that prioritise free speech, such as Rumble. By rejecting self-censorship and promoting platforms that uphold the principles of free speech, we can reclaim our right to express ourselves without fear of retribution. Together, we must stand united to protect the values that underpin our society and ensure that freedom of speech remains a pillar of our democracy.

The New Gulag

By
Bob Day
-
0

In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

Divide and conquer

As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

“Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“

For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.”  So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.  

So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

Thank you for your support.

Welcome To Warburton, Where Yes Is A Death Sentence

By
Gary Johns
-
3

Shareholders are being taken for a ride, as are donors, trade unionists, sports fans and taxpayers. The relatively few high-profile CEOs, charity leaders, trade union leaders, sports administrators and politicians foolish enough to forsake their duty and send other people’s money to the referendum Yes case are doing harm. Many of their supporters and funders, and possibly a majority, are against the proposition. They are not as foolish as their leaders.

Corporate
Trade Union
Sport

Leaders who think that a solution to Aboriginal despair lies in permanent government intervention in the lives of those few Aborigines who are failing in this modern society should think again. It is not all about government. Changing the Constitution does not change behaviour. Changing the Constitution will not get children to attend school. Changing the Constitution will not stop the grog, or the abuse, or the awful habits that cause early death.

This week, Aboriginal children will walk into the store at Warburton in Western Australia and purchase the typical fare of an Aboriginal diet. On the same latitude as the border of Northern Territory and South Australia, Warburton is as remote as it gets. But cake, Coca-Cola, and energy bars are all available, and expensive. For adults, throw in smokes. These are typical purchases. Week in and week out. Eating and drinking junk foods, not working, and having no purpose in life other than consumption, is a death sentence. No amount of government intervention can save this. No Voice, no committee, no treaty, no ‘truth-telling’, no Makarrata can save these people.

Warburton Art Gallery

Aboriginal people are a modern people. In Warburton, mobile phones are commonplace. Electricity keeps the food and drink cool. Without the paraphernalia of the modern world there would be no Warburton, it would have closed decades ago. Aboriginal people rely on modern means to survive. Most have no idea how it is made. This is cruel. 

The task of leaders is to have every child understand how it is that the mobile phone and electricity that makes their food and shelter available comes in to being. Government may be the provider, but it is not the maker.

Government makes nothing, it merely covers the indignity of woeful ignorance.

Why do governments refuse to teach their citizens how their lives have been degraded to the point of begging? This is no gracious gift; it is stealing the future of these people. It is an abandonment of leadership. Recognition is not the same as reconciliation.

Kids enjoying the Warburton Swimming Pool. Picture: Steve Girschik

Aboriginal parents face an awful choice. To keep children ‘safe’ on country, away from the worst of modern life, grog and drugs, or in doing so, condemn their children to live restricted lives, with poor education, few prospects and a poor diet. The great lie of this referendum is that choices can be avoided. Somehow, 24 select delegates in Canberra will solve the parents’ dilemma. They will not; they will continue to mask the choice and, in default, make the choice for them. A slow death on country, rather than to break free, with the help of their families and guidance from outsiders on how to handle the wider world.

There is no love for Aborigines in this referendum proposal, just ego.

The Aboriginal people at Warburton are radically disabled. They are self-determining alright, sitting on country, speaking language, and dying early. And CEOs and the Prime Minister think that this is a good idea.

They must, because their solution is to change nothing. Not to learn how to create value, not to adapt, but to wait. Government monies as a permanent way of life are poison.

Gary Johns is President of Recognise a Better Way

Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
0

Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

Ted Hui
Kevin Yam

The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

If you don’t, who will support yours?

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

By
Dimitri Burshtein
-
1

Although commonly attributed to Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” long predated him.

In fact, it described the practice of saloons (bars) offering a “free” lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The luncheon was generally high in salt (cheese, salted crackers, nuts), enticing patrons to purchase generous volumes of high-priced beer.  If you weren’t paying attention, and fell for the trap, you wound up paying much more for the “free lunch”.  The exploitation of a cognitive bias leads to over consumption (eg cheap and poor quality food) and over payment (eg through purchase of excess beer). 

Which brings us to Australia – the land of the free and home of the expensive.  Not free as in freedom, but free as in government delivered services including healthcare and education that are perceived to be free.  And as with the salty food, there is over consumption and excessive cost.  Like the free lunch, Australians do not get free healthcare or education.  Every single one of us pays; just in a different way.

Healthcare is funded through the Medicare levy and general taxes at the State and Commonwealth level, including income tax and GST.  So, whether you are a billionaire or on welfare, you are paying taxes that fund healthcare. And because healthcare is presented as “free”, there is inevitable overconsumption and waste.

Prof. Milton Friedman

Referencing Milton Friedman again, he observed that there are essentially four ways to spend money:

  • You can spend your own money on yourself.
  • You can spend your own money on someone else.
  • You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
  • You can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

When you spend your own money on yourself, you are very careful because you are looking for value. You won’t be as careful when you spend your own money on someone else, but you will look for value.

When you spend somebody else’s money on yourself, you are more interested in making your life comfortable than achieving value, but you will at least expect to gain a benefit.

Healthcare falls into the fourth category, of spending other people’s money on somebody else. There is no incentive to pursue value at all.

While we pretend healthcare is free, in reality it is bureaucrats in offices spending other people’s money on others. That includes finding new ways to expand their domain. 

Consider the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.  According to its 2021-22 annual report, at 30 June 2022

  • It employed 5,154 persons – up from 4,450 the year prior,
  • These staff cost $697 million – up from $559 million the year prior, and
  • Its operating expenses were $1.3 billion – up from $1.1 billion the year prior.

All this and yet the department did not operate a single hospital or aged care facility.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (a government body), in 2020-21, total health spending in Australia was over $220 billion of which over 70% was government (Commonwealth, State, and Territory).  That does not sound very free. 

A government commissioned review also found that perhaps 10% of the Medicare program was subject to waste and fraud. Why?  Perhaps because governments are spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

This is not to suggest that there would be no government health expenditure if this charade of free healthcare was ended.  It might however lead to a much more responsive and cost-efficient system.  Consider how much lower taxes could be, or how much higher pensions might be, but for the inefficiency and waste of Australia’s “free” healthcare system.

We are told by Professor Duncan Maskell, the Vice-Chancellor (CEO) of the University of Melbourne,  that “one of the most important radical changes that could be made to facilitate this would be once more to make education free to the Australian domestic student”.  Australia already has an over-production problem of university graduates, and Maskell’s proposal would make it even worse.  Why?  Because universities would be spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

To make university education “free to the Australian domestic student” would require someone else to pay for it, including those who do not and will never attend university.  It wouldn’t be free; it would just be paid for by someone else.

If Professor Maskell, who is reported to be on an annual salary package of $1.5 million, really wants to make university cheaper and/or free for students, he should first look in his back yard.  According to the Melbourne University annual report, in 2022 it had approximately 53,000 students and employee related expenses of $1.6 billion. That’s approximately $31,000 per student.  It would certainly make the cost of education much lower if Professor Maskell and all his staff worked for free.

The Right To Keep and Bear Cash

By
Nicholas Samios
-
2

A libertarian friend called me at 6.30am last Tuesday whist I was riding the train to work. “How do you start a community bank?” he asked. My friend lives in rural NSW and as they say in the country, he is “jack” of the major banks. 

“The banks are closing one after the other and the ATMs are disappearing too. Which means cash is disappearing. We need to get our own bank around here”. 

This issue is fast becoming mainstream, reported in media outlets including the ABC, News, and Sky in the past seven days alone. 

Rural folk love their cash for practical reasons. Libertarians love it for ideological ones, which some might find ironic given many libertarians also advocate the end of fiat currency and its replacement with gold or crypto. 

But here is why libertarians hold cash dear: 

1. Financial Privacy
Cash transactions provide anonymity and privacy. You can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move. Electronic payments can be tracked and monitored by banks, governments, or other third parties, potentially compromising your financial privacy. 

2. Vulnerability To Surveillance
Electronic payment systems create a digital trail of transactions, creating an incentive for governments and corporations to collect vast amounts of data on your purchasing habits, preferences, and of course personal information. 

Cash means you can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move.

3. Government Tyranny
A shift toward electronic payments can give governments greater control over our financial activities. They can potentially freeze or confiscate funds, impose restrictions on transactions, or even manipulate the monetary system to suit their own interests. This would never happen, right? Ask the Canadian truckers or Nigel Farage. 

4. Vulnerability To Cyber Threats
Relying solely on electronic payments increases the risk of cyber attacks and fraud. Carrying cash comes with its own risks, sure, but cash can’t be hacked. Major corporations are getting hacked left and right. Who is safe? 

5. Exclusion of Marginalised Communities
Not everyone has access to electronic payment methods. Not all communities have the same infrastructure as large cities. Denying communities which rely on cash for their daily transactions is surely discriminatory. 


6. Dependency On Intermediaries
My economics professor used to say, “the more you cut up the cake, the more of it sticks to the knife”. Electronic payments typically require intermediaries, none of which provide their service for free. And for every intermediary in the transaction chain, there is another point of control and vulnerability as users become subject to the policies and regulations set by these intermediaries. Look what happened when Israel Folau tried to raise a ‘Go Fund Me’ for his legal fees. 

7. Limitations On Personal Choice
Cash provides individuals with a tangible and universally accepted form of payment that can be used freely and without restrictions. 

8. Infringement On Property Rights
Cash represents physical ownership. You hold it in your hand.  It’s yours. Property rights are infringed when you are forced to rely on electronic representations of money stored at the pleasure of others. 

9. Impact On Small Businesses
Cash transactions offer certain advantages to small businesses, reduced transaction costs and the ability to avoid credit card processing fees for a start. Denying small businesses the opportunity to trade in cash makes it harder for them to compete with their corporate counterparts. Libertarians believe in free markets, not markets distorted in this way.

Are ‘Community Banks’ the answer? Stay tuned.

The Liberty Coalition is Finally (T)Here

By
James Hol
-
1

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

COLOARDO FOR LIBERTY

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

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

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

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

BRINGING IT HOME

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

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

party

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

EYES ON THE PRIZE

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

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

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

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

PRINCIPLES OVER PARTY

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

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

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

1...242526...38Page 25 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

FLASH POLL: Do You Support The United States-Australian Military Alliance?

Kenelm Tonkin - 0
There’s been a lot of talk about the US-Australian alliance, especially with AUKUS nuclear submarines attracting bi-partisan support in Australia. Libertarians typically split on the...

Lifting government’s foot off Aussie throats

Eye-Opening Dispatches From Vietnam

Soft Power Through The Arts

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv