Home Blog Page 34

Hayek Gives Liberal Democrats Its New Name

Word on the street is that the Liberal Democrats are searching for a new name.

Malcolm Turnbull and the Greens forced it upon them. It was his parting gift.

It is now the Eleventh Commandment.

“Thou shalt not use any English word of an older party’s name in your own.”

So, despite being named the Liberal Democrats for 21 years, the Liberal Party government took the Liberal Democrats to court and won. The Liberal Democrats challenged the decision in the High Court and lost.

And just like that, the Liberal Party owns a monopoly right to the word ‘liberal’ despite being one of the most illiberal governments in existence today.

Of course, this is old news.

The amazing development is that Friedrich Hayek himself has come back from the grave and offered a suggestion for a new name!

Hard to believe, right?

And yet, here he is in black and white pondering the very same question about an appropriate party name for classical liberals.

In his famous 1960 essay Why I Am Not A Conservative in which he affirms the clear differences between socialists, conservatives and liberals, he wrote:

“In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use ‘liberal’ in the sense in which I have used it, the term ‘libertarian’ has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavour of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favours free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.”

Having eschewed the word ‘libertarian’, he then strikes upon an idea.

“We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name.

It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.

Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.

The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals.

But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the over-rationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe.

The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig – with the stress on the ‘old.’ ”

And there you have it.

What do you think?

According to Friedrich Hayek, you are a Whig.

The long history of the Whigs is rich and worth exploring. The ‘Old Whig’ phrase was coined by Edmund Burke who best reflected its views. Famous Whigs have included or been influenced by John Locke, Adam Smith, former British Prime Minister William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, after whom the grand city of Melbourne is named, and most of the pre-revolutionary American patriots.

You adhere to the principles of Whiggism. You are Whiggish in your philosophical leanings.

Vote #1, the Whigs!

An Open Letter To Mr. Alexander Downer

This open letter assumes the reader has also read the Australian Financial Review column by Alexander Downer dated 4 Dec 2022 found here . Start there and follow with this Open Letter.


27 January 2023

Dear Mr. Downer,

I read your Australian Financial Review column dated 4 December 2022 with great interest.

As a former State and Federal Executive member of the Liberal Party, as a former Young Liberal of the Year and participant in 72 pre-selections, I agree with much of what you wrote.

The fact that the Liberal Party has lost its philosophical mooring and is now drifting wherever the political currents take it was the very reason I left and joined the Liberal Democrats in South Australia.

They stand for fiscal restraint, individual freedom, rule of law, freedom of speech, entrepreneurialism, freedom of worship, free trade, equality before the law, innovation and science, the very things the Liberal Party have abandoned and seem unable to clearly articulate.

As an example of just how unable even Liberal Party senators have become to hold true and firm to these beliefs, see here Senator Andrew Bragg from NSW on ABC’s Q&A:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q0g_GGq5cc4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

It’s not only the Liberal Democrats who provide fresh competition. There are good people in other parties who share these values but do not see the Liberal Party as their natural home any longer.

Nowhere was the Liberal Party’s drift more evident than during covid overreach. And it’s with that in mind that I turn to your column.

You wrote, “In South Australia, the public was on the whole supportive of the state government’s termination of traditional civil liberties.”

As you know, public opinion can be manufactured. When you say leadership was required rather than managerialism, nowhere was that needed more than during covid.

You wrote further, “The values of selfless individualism and individual freedom and responsibility are timeless. The Liberal Party shouldn’t allow them to be cast as anachronistic.”

You can see my emphasis in both these quotes.

I’d therefore like to ask you a simple question in an effort to reconcile those two quotes from your column:

Do you agree it was a mistake for the recent SA Liberal Government to have terminated traditional civil liberties at the expense of our timeless value of individual freedom?

This open letter is published on Liberty Itch, which boasts current and past MPs as well as current party leaders and activists as subscribers.

I and my readers await your reply.

Yours respectfully,

Kenelm Tonkin
Editor
Liberty Itch

22 Patriotic Things To Do On Australia Day

0

Here is your definitive list of Australia Day must-dos. Any one of these makes you a thoughtful Aussie. Do all 22 and you’ll end up with an Order of Australia.

Here we go …

  1. Start the day with Vegemite on damper and Weet Bix;
  2. Wear eucalypt silvery-green and deep gold clothing. Make an effort with the hues. Lime-green and canary yellow just won’t cut it;
  3. Fly a large Australian flag at home so your neighbours can see it. Bonus points for a huge flag flown proudly atop a permanent flagpole in your front yard;

Host an Australia Day BBQ at your place;

Decorate your entire house with dozens of miniature Blue Ensigns;

Give someone you love a bouquet of native flowers;

Sizzle all-Aussie beef steaks and burgers with a native bush tomato and mountain pepper berry rub;

Serve burgers with beetroot and an oversized Queensland pineapple ring. Bonus points for onion and a BBQ poached egg;

Make an Australian dessert like pavlova, lamingtons, Iced Vovo tart, vanilla slice or fairy bread;

Recite Mackellar’s My Country aloud before the family. Bonus points for Banjo Paterson’s The Geebung Polo Club done with rhythm and build-up;

Play a hotly-contested, raucous game of backyard cricket. Bonus points for loud, speculative appealing and protestations when turned down;

Do anything at the beach. Absolutely anything!

Tweet your unreserved appreciation and love for Australia;

Kenelm Tonkin @KenelmTonkin

I love Australia, its freedoms, its opportunities, its outdoorsmen. I love our individual flair, our explorers, our flinty pioneers & adventurers. That a mere 26 million in a mere 235 yrs have, with sweat, turned this wide, brown land into a beacon, a free & liberal home for all.

Image

12:04 AM ∙ Jan 26, 2023

Recite the Oath of Allegiance even as a lifelong citizen;

Share with family and friends what you love about Australia;

Play Slim Dusty, Midnight Oil or Percy Grainger, as your taste dictates. Just make sure the music is Australian;

Self-consciously use old Australian dialect words. Bonus points for,

“You’re bonzer, cobber. It’s the Pom who’s gone troppo, a fair dinkum drongo. What a galah!”

Fly the flag from your car and drive around your neighbourhood;

Photograph a beautiful Australian scene and share on social media;

Sing loudly and without any hint of self-consciousness any of the following: I Am Australian, I Still Call Australia Home, Waltzing Matilda or Advance Australia Fair. Bonus points for leading a group to sing all of them with you;

Debate who is Australia’s greatest author; and

Prepare and deliver a short summary of the life and adventures of an Australian explorer.

WA Liberal Leader Scurries Out The Back Exit

It’s Lunar New Year this week.

The term Lunar New Year is more accurate than Chinese New Year. The spring festival is not exclusively Chinese but celebrated throughout China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and, yes, here in Australia among communities sharing this heritage.

Liberty Itch strives for accuracy, an appreciation of all cultures which observe Lunar New Year festivities and, as you are well aware, we are not in the habit of bending to the Chinese Communist Party.

Let freedom ring!

So, terminology aside, it’s unfortunate then that the Chinese Communist Party infiltration operations within Australia are in full swing.

Liberty Itch has previously reported on the conviction in Sydney of a violent CCP thug. We’ve reported how Australia’s Taiwan visit sparked ugly CCP sabre-rattling. On these pages, you’ve even read a wincing first-hand account of Uyghur concentration camp torture. We’ve even shared how the CCP coerces Australian residents in our interview, Life as a Political Asylum Seeker in Australia.

Today, our focus is on Perth, Western Australia, and how the CCP is wooing major party politicians there.

Soft-power, you understand.

The Perth Chinese Consulate invited key Western Australian legislators and Commonwealth bureaucrats to their Lunar New Year function. Attendees included the Hon. Sue Ellery MLC, Minister for Finance, Commerce and Women’s Interests from the Australian Labor Party, and the Western Australian Liberal Leader Dr David Honey MLA.

Pro-Beijing, United Front Work Department affiliated organisations – reminder, the UFWD is the Chinese Communist Party’s official propaganda arm – were also present at the function, including the executives and founders from the Chung Wah Association Inc, the CCP Media Perth Post and Australian Chinese Times, the WA Beijing Association, and the Australian Peaceful Unification Association.

Unsurprisingly, given the Chinese regime’s constant civil liberty infractions and growing interference here in Australia, there was a human rights protest self-described as “End CCP” out the front of the consulate.

Political Itch has spoken to a key figure of that protest, Richard Lue. His account is that, at the end of the function, Minister Ellery and Dr Honey sought to avoid the peaceful protesters at the front by taking the back exit. Then, surprised the protesters were documenting the comings and goings from the consulate, Dr Honey ‘ran away quickly’ when he spotted their camera.

WA Leader of the Opposition, Liberal’s Dr Honey takes the back exit

This is not the behaviour of MPs confident of their actions.

Why scurry through the back exit? Why run to avoid the camera?

Would it not have been better for a Minister and a Liberal Leader to boldly walk out the front door and talk with the protesters about their grievances?

Both the Minister and the Liberal Leader were given a red bag by the consulate on departing. Given the CCP has embroiled other politicians in career-ending activities, we thought this at the very least worth questioning.

Political Itch reached out to Labor’s Sue Ellery to ask what was in the red bag and to find out why she took the back exit rather than just hear the protesters’ complaints. Sue Ellery’s office did not respond.

Dr Honey’s office did respond, as follows:

Please give me a call just so I can clarify a few things.

But basically, Dr Honey left via the front door, not via a back or side door and walked directly to his car which was parked on Royal Street.

The red bag he was holding was a party gift bag that was given to all attendees – it contained some low value trinkets etc… (it was a cap, a fan and a poetry book). 

The function was held by the Chinese Embassy to celebrate the Chinese Lunar New Year.

Political Itch has subsequently received photos from an eyewitness that the Liberal Leader exited the Chinese Communist Party’s Perth Consulate from the back door on Royal Street. The front gate of the Consulate is on Brown Street, not Royal Street, according to the Consulate’s official address.

Whether these politicians exit from the front or back, or whether they receive minor trinkets in a gift bag is not the point, of course.

What is relevant is that our politicians prefer to immerse themselves in the hospitality of an abhorrent regime which regularly abuses human rights, rather than listen to the victims of that regime.

There were so many questions we wanted to ask. One which came to mind was the persecution of Christians in China.

Political Itch took up Dr Honey’s invitation to call multiple times over a two day period. In the absence of a call back, we then wrote the following email to his office:

Dear Sir,

We are unable to get hold of you on the phone.

The answer as to which exit Dr Honey used is in dispute by eyewitnesses.

A follow up question for Dr Honey –

According to ChinaAid’s 2021 Annual Persecution Report, more than 50,000 Christians were arrested in China in the Shanxi Province alone. Will Dr Honey be willing to speak up on behalf of Christians within and outside the Liberal Party and talk to the Perth CCP Consulate about the persecution of Christians in China?

On this more serious question, Dr Honey’s office did not respond.

It would be generous for you, the reader, to conclude that they are all too busy to respond. These are serious issues.

It is more than disappointing that Labor and Liberal politicians in Western Australia hob-nob with the communist elite, operatives who are actively undermining our democracy, but not able to advocate for victims of human rights abuses and persecuted Christians.

Take note. Chinese Communist Party infiltration is deep. Worryingly, WA Labor and Liberal are lulled into forgetting who they represent and are not acting like the principled democratic leaders they should.

A Centre-Right National Strategy

In The Shrinking Forest, I outlined the problem, the cause of the problem and denounced the rent-seekers who cash-in on the problem. Then in ‘All Great Change Begins at the Dinner Table’, I emphasized the role of family, faith and free speech, and in How Christianity Informs Classical Liberalism, the connection between Christianity and liberty.

This fourth and concluding instalment is a solution.

The great author and philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, then becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’

Feeding, clothing and educating children are some of the key necessities a family provides. But we don’t tax people in order to set up government supermarkets to feed our children or government clothing stores to clothe them. Walk into any supermarket and see the incredible range of food and other essential goods available. Same with clothing … and motor cars.

So why do we do it for other services like education?

It costs Australian taxpayers approximately $20,000 pa to educate a student in a government school and $12,000 pa to educate a student in a non-government school.

With around four million school students in Australia, that adds up to nearly $70 billion pa. A big investment.

Considering the cost differential, and the fact non-government schools consistently outperform government schools in overall student performance, why doesn’t the government do more to encourage parents to send their children to non-government schools? It would allow parents to choose what is best for their children and at the same time reinforce the primacy of parents in the education of their children.

The same would apply to housing, public transport and many other services. Quality and range would improve.

This goes to the heart of what centre-right (CR) parties generally agree on – the primacy of the individual and the family over the government. CR parties believe governments are there to serve the people, not the other way around. They take the side of the people; the Left believes in the power of the state.

And while the Left has a global playbook to draw on – themes, tactics, language – the right does not.

Apart from a unique confluence of events and conservative leaders in the 1980s – Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – the conservative Right is, globally, quite fragmented.

In Australia, the Left – Labor, Greens and Teals – are a lot more organised than the Right.

We need to get our act together.

Now it’s one thing to identify a list of structural problems, fixing them is a different matter.

To counter this ever-increasing influence of the Left over public policy, a Centre-Right National Strategy is sorely needed.

If the CR minor parties which, by and large, do genuinely believe in ‘family, faith and freedom’, are to counter the major parties, the Greens, left-of-centre minor parties and pseudo-independents, then they need to work more closely together.

At the last Federal election, the total CR vote in each state (NSW 12.3%, Vic 11.5%, Qld 15.6%, WA 11.5%, SA 10.8%, Tas 9.8%) would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state, yet only two out of six were elected – Queensland (One Nation) and Victoria (UAP).

One can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts and Ralph Babet watching the Federal Parliament destroy society and the economy before their very eyes.

Standing at polling booths alongside other like-minded, CR parties made me think back to the 2013 Federal election.

The Coalition went to the 2013 election promising to abolish the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and stop the boats. Upon election, seven (CR) Senate crossbenchers voted in support of these three key election pledges giving the Government the numbers it needed (33 + 7) to get its legislation passed. More about those numbers (33 + 7) shortly.

Following this successful endeavour, I met with then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and put to him what I called a 40–40–40 game plan – ‘40 votes (a Senate majority) to fix 40 years of unfinished business and set the nation up for the next 40 years.’ 40–40–40.

It had been 40 years since a Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser had a majority in the Senate and squandered the opportunity.

Enlisting the support of Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, I tried to convince the Prime Minister and Senate Leader Mathias Cormann, as well as anyone who would listen, that the best way to get the Coalition’s policies through the parliament was to have more senators like us.

Needless to say, my suggestion was not taken up.

In fact, the exact opposite happened. The Coalition teamed up with the Greens (who voted against abolishing the carbon tax, mining tax and stopping the boats) and changed the Senate voting laws to get rid of those senators who had just supported them! As a result, and as predicted by John Howard, the Greens increased their number of Senate seats from 10 to 12, Labor increased its number of seats from 25 to 26, centre-left parties increased from 1 to 3, the Coalition lost a seat and the CR parties dropped from 7 seats to 3. From 33 + 7 (a CR majority) to 32 + 3 (a CR minority). A loss of 5 Senate seats.

If anyone out there can explain why the Coalition would do that, I’d love to hear from them.

On the policy front, as it now stands, we are faced with the following reality:

• Facts and figures no longer matter. The clearer the facts, the more they are ignored. Arithmetic, engineering, economics and, of course, common sense are out the window.

• Forums, podcasts and other intelligent conversations with world-leading authorities also no longer have any political effect. Again, logic and reason no longer matter.

To stop further descent into economic and social chaos, substantial political power is required.

As discussed last week, I would argue it is not possible to ‘break through’ all this. We have to ‘break with’. Forget facts and figures, logic and reason, we have to force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

Substantial political power could be achieved if the CR parties formed a single party bloc, namely a:

LIB-DEM ONE-NATION UNITED-AUST FAMILY PARTY Coalition.

As discussed above, at the last Federal election, the total CR vote would have been enough to get a senator elected in every state. That equates to 12 senators elected over the two-election Senate cycle.

Based on current levels of the primary vote, One Nation and UAP would have 4 of the 12 seats in the parliament, Libertarians 2, 1 seat for a Christian Family Party and 1 for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

Having even one Senate seat gives a party a platform, a status, and a portal into the Federal Parliament for its members.

Working together, a twelve-seat Senate bloc would be a formidable political force.

Know Thy Opponent

John Stuart Mill, in his 100 page essay On Liberty, offered this advice:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

John Stuart Mill

In other words, get inside the head of the major parties and the Greens. Understand their arguments, their frequent counter-arguments against our own points and subject yourself to their point of view in its most practised form.

Why?

Well, if you know our opponents inside out, you’ll be able to out debate and out reason them. You’ll strengthen your own ability to advocate our classical liberal cause.

“They don’t engage in reasoned debate”, you retort.

I understand. I hear you. If you watch a lot of YouTube, it can feel that way.

Yet, some of them do engage in reasoned debate and we should never give up on them. Many have converted. Think about those who’ve left the majors, even the Greens!

More to the point, the true audience for our reasoned debate is not our unmovable opponents. The audience for our reasoned debate is the thinking citizens who have never heard us in full flight before. They compare and contrast before making a decision.

By doing what John Stuart Mill recommends, we shine with the independent, middle and swing voter. And that’s how electoral success is achieved.

Know thy opponent.

FREEDOM! The Daughter of Davos Resigns.

Two extraordinary things happened yesterday.

First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)

Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!

You have to ask ‘WHY?’

https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1615875921638219778?s=20

Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.

Of course, neither of these have anything to do with political achievement.

To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.

Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.

I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.

Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.

Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.

Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:

  • Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
  • A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status. See the video tweet above;
  • Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
  • Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
  • Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
  • Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
  • Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
  • A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?;
  • For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
  • Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
  • A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
  • Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
  • Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
  • She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer. Don’t believe me? Watch this …

    https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1616211090882592768?s=20


  • More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
  • Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
  • Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is.

The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.

With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.

I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.

The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.

I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.

And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.

Pardon me if I shed not a solitary tear.

BREAKING: Violent CCP thug convicted in NSW

This week, a pro-Beijing self-described ‘spontaneous patriot’ was successfully convicted in a Sydney court of criminal intimidation.

Last August 2022, prominent pro-democracy activist and former Hong-Kong Legislative Councillor, Ted Hui, suffered a politically driven assault and intimidation in Sydney.

Chinese Communist Party supporter, Billy Kwok, influenced by the Chinese government’s propagandist apps WeChat and Weibo, was not happy with Mr. Hui’s pro-democracy advocacy. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands and used violence to handle a political difference of opinion.

The police officially charged Mr. Kwok in September 2022, but the case was delayed due to ‘mental health’ grounds.

These delays were overcome and, this week, a Sydney court found him guilty on two counts of criminal intimidation, handing-down both a community service order of 12 months and a $500 fine.

On hearing the verdict, Mr. Hui said, “This successful prosecution sends two important messages to the community. Firstly, all people in Australia have the right to express their political views freely. This must be respected.”

“Secondly, pro-Beijing people need to understand that they cannot use violence against any person, just because they have a different political persuasion. The rule of law underpins the way Australian society is governed”, he continued.

Liberty Itch praises Mr. Hui for his courage and tenacity in defending Australian free speech and fighting for democracy in Hong Kong.

How Christianity Informs Classical Liberalism

0

In my last two articles, I showed how George Orwell’s 1984 seems to be coming true, how the size of government grows ever larger and how rent-seekers are not only doing what they’ve always done but are getting much better at it. How this happens without sparking a popular uprising, I invoke the fable of ‘the shrinking forest’. I also explained why our fellow citizens are so disengaged from politics and what they can do to start the fightback.

I’d now like to discuss how we’ve reached this position – specifically how our opponents have attacked classical liberalism and libertarianism by first undermining Christianity. You may be sceptical of this. You make not even see a link. But history reveals all and lessons from the past illuminate what our opponents are doing today.

Modern Western democracy was founded in Christianity and in the family. It’s why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the co-authors of The Communist Manifesto, were determined to undermine both. Marx and Engels knew faith and family were the enemy. They did not like what families and people of faith talked about around the dinner table.

In his brilliant book, The Subversive Family, British writer Ferdinand Mount argued that marriage and the family, far from being oppressed by the ruling class, were in fact the chief bulwarks against authoritarianism. Family, faith and freedom are without doubt the best bulwarks against division and authoritarianism.

As for faith, removing Christians from the public square seems to be the unstated aim. ‘Net zero Christians by 2050’, quipped by Rebecca Weisser.

“Every citizen is equal before the law.”

I would argue that the Christian is the model libertarian.

Knowing that one day they will stand before their Creator and give an account of themselves, Christians aim to be the personification of personal responsibility. Endowed with a free will to choose right or wrong, Christians cannot blame anyone else for their actions. It follows therefore, that if God is going to hold people responsible for their actions, then God would give them the right to decide how they conduct their lives.

For example, taking away from someone the right to decide for themselves how much they are willing to work for, is to deny them a God-given right to work. People do things for their reasons, not yours, and people constantly make trade-offs depending on a range of factors known best only to themselves and their families.

It is also why the Bible tells us not once, but twice, “Do not favour the poor in court”. This is real justice, not ‘social justice’.

Favouring one group of citizens over another based on socio-economic or racial grounds is not only immoral, it also foolish. It always ends badly – especially for the favoured group.

Note, this is not to be confused with obligations we have towards each other in a personal capacity. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus was asked, in the famous ‘good Samaritan’ parable.

In this, the Christian has no difficulty with public policy, that is ‘what is sinful vs what should be unlawful’. Sin is personal, the law for everyone.

And then there’s family. There has been a relentless push to replace father and mother, male and female, with something else. A village perhaps? There was that leftist trope – ‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ As one wag responded, ‘Yes, and it takes a village idiot to believe that.’

More troubling is the breadth of the battleground.

Just look at the global coordination achieved by the Left with respect to Black Lives Matter, Roe v Wade, transgenderism, climate and Covid. Notice the activists all seem to read from the same script. It’s formulaic for sure and almost robotically applied globally regardless of where the original issue occurred.

The Covid response was near uniform globally and we are only now seeing the effects with little to no accountability. There were protests in Adelaide with pictures of George Floyd – a police excessive-use-of-force issue in faraway Minneapolis USA. The US Supreme Court then ruled that abortion should be a state matter and, out of nowhere, the rapid response pro-abortion rallies were rolled-out city by city in Australia, each jurisdiction of which had abortion laws already in place. Go figure.

Whatever you think of these issues, my point is that the global coordination is chilling.

There is no doubt Australia has economic and social problems that it is going to have to solve – inflation, rising interest rates, high mortgages (forcing both parents out to work), high cost of living (educating and raising children, power prices, water prices) – and social ills caused by the rupturing of family relationships due to mental health and addictions of various kinds.

Our nation also has economic and social goals it wants to achieve – increased productivity, affordable housing, lower crime rates. However, looking to politicians, bureaucrats and regulators to solve these problems and achieve these goals seems to be a lost cause.

As for free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law, and smaller government, these have all but been abandoned.

Major party MPs seem more interested in making friends across the aisle than looking for ways ‘to improve the life of the ordinary citizen’ as described by Charles Taylor in his book, The Affirmation of the Ordinary Life.

Once elected, MPs are easily captured. They like being Members of Parliament and they like being liked – including by members of other parties. They also love socialising; they don’t want to be ostracised or booed on the ABC for making a stand or championing a cause. On issue after issue, they seem weak. They have lost both their philosophical bearings and religious convictions.

Take away religious conviction and classical liberalism becomes less grounded.

One flows from the other.

I would argue it is not possible to ‘break through’ all this. We have to ‘break with’. We have to force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.

Next week I would like to flag a ground-breaking idea for change. Something practical. An innovation which I trust will bring hope and optimism.

So please keep reading Liberty Itch ….!

The Tree of Liberty

0

If you look at the evolution of the political landscape over the last few decades, you’ll notice some things just don’t seem to add up.

Not that long ago, populism was at the heartland of left-wing ideology. Occupy Wall Street, fighting ‘big pharma’ and ending the military-industrial complex were the biggest political and social movements of the 2010s – all of them were considered left-wing.

Now even the slightest criticism of Pfizer will have you labelled a ‘RWNJ’ and shadow banned on most social media networks.

But something changed, or has it?

The reality is that nothing has changed, you have just been viewing the political landscape from the wrong direction. Left versus right; conservative versus progressive; Labor versus Liberal. These are meaningless terms and wasted battles. What exactly does it mean to be left-wing in modern society? What exactly are conservatives conserving? And what values do either the Labor or Liberal parties stand for, exactly?

We have been programed to view politics through a false dichotomy of ‘left’ and ‘right’, yet very few can accurately define those terms. Fascism is often considered as the extremity of the right-wing, yet many right-wingers would consider small governments and free markets integral to right-wing ideology. This plainly cannot gel with fascism.


SHIFT YOUR PERSPECTIVE

Instead of viewing politics through a left-right dichotomy, let’s add another axis: libertarian versus authoritarian. While some may be familiar with the political compass consisting of authoritarian-left, authoritarian-right, libertarian-left and libertarian-right, this too does not quite cut it.

The extremities of each quadrant are simply not possible. How could you sit in the extreme bottom right-hand corner? Drug-law reform and extreme right-wing ideology is a circle that cannot be squared. The same applies to all corners. Instead, let us rotate the compass 45 degrees and change some titles.


NOT ANOTHER LIBERTARIAN PURITY TEST

Now this makes sense: to fully pursue liberty, you must trade your conservative or liberal tenets. This does not mean you cannot sit somewhere between conservative and libertarian. However, it does mean you cannot simultaneously be a radical libertarian and an extreme conservative.

I am not saying all of this to prove just how libertarian I am and prohibit libertarian-leaning people from unifying under the banner of liberty, precisely the opposite. We must know the true battleplanes in order to know where our friends and enemies are coming from.


WE HAVE FRIENDS ON THE LEFT

There seems to be a growing narrative that libertarianism is a right-wing ideology. I detest this narrative. It is plainly untrue. I, myself, came to libertarianism from the left. Growing up, the concept of criminalising victimless crimes never made sense to me. So, naturally, I considered myself to be left-wing.

When I was old enough to realise the importance of the economy, I applied the same philosophy: people should be free to direct their capital however they see fit, so long as they are not hurting anyone else, with minimal government interference. If we should not govern people based on subjective morals, then we should not be looting and pillaging people’s resources via taxation.

As it turns out, I was not left-wing.

So where have all the left-libertarians been hiding for the past three years?

During the height of COVID restrictions, governments heavily interfered with markets: shuttering businesses, slashing interest rates, employing quantitative easing and deploying abundant welfare. Yet we did not see a more egalitarian outcome, as many on the (authoritarian) left so often claim.

In fact, instead of wealth inequality easing, we saw the largest redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest people. Rich, laptop-elites with large property and share portfolios saw their net worth skyrocket, while middle- and working-class people were given scraps and are currently seeing their purchasing power plummet.

So where were all the socialists decrying this?

‘The left’ was long ago infiltrated and annexed by authoritarians. Socialists are not true socialists; progressives are not truly progressive; and liberals are far from liberal. ‘The left’ wants nothing more than government to grow and dissidents to be quashed – a far cry from the socialism of decades gone. There are countless examples of left-wing castaways who are now often called ‘right-wing’ or even ‘far-right.’

Joe Rogan is a man who campaigned with a self-described democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders. He is now considered far-right. Russell Brand, who publicly advocated for socialism, has been exiled from his left-wing home since he started criticising the COVID response. Even self-avowed British socialist Jeremy Corbyn expressed some criticism of vaccine mandates. Somehow, he managed to escape much of the backlash.

The libertarian-left hasn’t been hiding for the past three years, they have been un-personed. Castaway from their ideological home and called ‘far-right extremists’ – just like the rest of us.

They are not our enemies; they are our friends.

It is incumbent upon us to welcome them under the tree of liberty.


WE HAVE ENEMIES ON THE RIGHT

We are nearing the peak of woke leftism’s cultural hegemony. But as all pendulums swing, it will come back the other way – and hard. Despite my veneer of youth, I am old enough to remember the days of conservatives demanding an end to Marilyn Manson and ‘violent’ videogames. It may seem foreign to some, but the right-wing can just as easily prosecute free speech and advocate censorship.

The trappings of a return to morality-based governance are already there. It is not a stretch to see how the pendulum returns to hard-line drug laws and a ‘war against degeneracy.’ It is imperative we do not allow this to happen.

While the political right does seem to be largely on the correct side of the culture war (for now), it is important we do not simply add to the choir of conservative voices.

Provide nuance and always advocate the values of liberty.

There is plenty of room under the tree.

Popular Posts

My Favorites

How The ATO Undermines ‘Creative Destruction’

0
Libertarians hate to pay tax, especially at current rates. Many subscribe to the view that “taxation is theft”, although most also acknowledge the government...

Phillip Adams Must Go

University River