Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him. I can’t get involved! I’ve got work to do! It’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but there’s nothing I can do about it right now. It’s such a long way from here. I call it luck. You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him. I can’t get involved! I’ve got work to do! It’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but there’s nothing I can do about it right now. It’s such a long way from here. I call it luck. You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him. I can’t get involved! I’ve got work to do! It’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but there’s nothing I can do about it right now. It’s such a long way from here. I call it luck. You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him. I can’t get involved! I’ve got work to do! It’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but there’s nothing I can do about it right now. It’s such a long way from here. I call it luck. You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him. I can’t get involved! I’ve got work to do! It’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but there’s nothing I can do about it right now. It’s such a long way from here. I call it luck. You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
As I write, the American Left’s echo chamber is strangely silent, no doubt stunned at the announcement.
Let’s set the scene: Across the swampy stench of Washington D.C., where the only things typically ‘efficient’ are the lobbyists’ ability to secure pork barrel projects, comes a revivifying breeze. It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket. Here’s Elon, not content with electric cars, interplanetary colonisation, and brain chips, deciding to take a crack at what might be his most Sisyphean task yet: making the government efficient.
Now, imagine the reactions. The Left, already on edge from Milei’s ‘Afuera!’ chants across the pond, are positively quivering. ‘Elon’s gone too far this time!’ and ‘Ron Paul will be the end of us!’ they’ll wail, as if expecting the sky to fall because someone dared to challenge the Deep State. They see visions of chainsaws to the bureaucratic red tape, of waste being not just reduced but annihilated. To them, it’s as if Musk has invited a von Mises vampire into the house of government – not because he’s inherently evil, but because he’s going to drain it of all its toxic, contagious blood.
This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government.
And you can understand why Elon might want to spice things up. He’s a libertarian now in all but having ‘I Love Hayek’ tattooed on his forehead. Consider his recent revelations. The government fined Space X $140,000 for the crime of spraying fresh water on his launching pad to cool the rockets on take-off. We’re talking Brownsville, Texas, which annually receives 700+ mm of fresh water just in rain alone but, no, Elon’s fresh water is an environmental disaster.
Then there was the ensnaring Catch-22 by the Kafkaesque bureaucracy. One law forced him into DEI hires of illegal immigrants while the other law bound him to only employ US citizens for defence security reasons. Cop that! Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. No wonder Elon’s now a libertarian and turned to the Grand-Poo-Bah of freedom fighters in the good doctor from Texas.
And why not? If you’ve ever tried to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth of even Australian federal departments, you’ll understand why this might just be the revolution Americans need. Here’s Ron Paul, the man who once asked, ‘Where in the Constitution is there any authority for Congress to fund education?’, now potentially wielding the scalpel to slice through the Gordian Knot of government department duplication.
Consider this: the US has departments that could be triplets in their redundancy. There’s the Federal Department of Education, the State departments of education, and the local government school district departments. What the first two do, apart from employing teacher union reps, no one knows. And then there’s the US Department of Energy, which might as well be named the Department of Irony given its track record on energy efficiency. Both could do with a severe diet and who better than Dr Ron Paul, the perennial advocate for limited government, to serve up the meal plan?
It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket.
This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government. Elon Musk, with his penchant for first-principles thinking, might just be the catalyst needed to ask: Why do we have all these agencies? What are they actually achieving? And most importantly, do we need them at all?
Hell, government might get a new three-letter agency: KPI.
Oh, the fear and loathing this move will garner from the financially-affected Left. They will see this as the first domino leading to the end of civilisation as we know it, the sky will fall and we must warn the king and the rest of the town! They’re terrified of the idea that government might actually serve the people, not the bureaucrats. They envision a world where their pet projects might get the axe, where the gravy train of government waste might finally derail.
Gone, the mercantilism causing democratic drift. Gone the corporatism and consultants with their snouts in the troughs.
Yet, for those of us who dream of a government that functions with the precision of a Tesla assembly line, this is a moment of hope. If Ron Paul and Elon Musk can bring to the government the same disruptive innovation seen in SpaceX or Tesla, we might just see the start of a Great Revolution in America, resulting in a government that’s lean and, mostly, out of our lives.
All hinges on a Trumpian victory.
As we Australians watch the greatest spectacle on Earth, mindful of our observer-status but somehow still drawn like a moth to flame, let’s raise a glass to the potential end of American decline. And here’s to Elon, who operates by first principles, and Ron, as principled as they come and possibly entering his last act of public service. May these tenacious two be poised to make the Department of Government Efficiency not just a dream, but a reality.
Afuera!
This article first appeared in the Spectator Australia.
NIMBYism, building costs, consumer tastes, regulation and taxation will keep Victoria’s housing supply low, despite efforts from the Allan Government to power ahead with new developments.
Despite the best efforts of the Victorian Liberal Party, the political winds are indeed changing in Victoria, and Jacinta Allan has laid out her plan to rise from the ashes of a heavily indebted and incompetent government. The plan is currently three-fold:
Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers.
We aren’t talking about large-scale social housing construction by government. The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria. However, those key groups are not really interested in building or buying affordable, high-density housing, no matter how good the location.
The Covid 19 pandemic, along with the work from home arrangements prompted by it, created a wave of demand for housing in regional/rural areas with larger blocks and dwellings, given the reduced value of city amenity while locked at home. As both the public and private sector attempt to re-establish on-site work, Allan hopes to revitalise Melbourne by concentrating new housing around transportation and employment hubs.
But the fact is, Australians don’t really like living in apartments or units. Indeed, if recent demonstrations in Brighton are anything to go by, we don’t like living anywhere near them! For years now, unit prices in cities such as Melbourne have virtually flatlined as supply has increased but demand has tapered off. The price of free-standing houses, on the other hand, has skyrocketed.
The cultural attitude towards apartments in general is one of suspicion. While houses and residential land are revered as sound investments, apartments are known to attract less capital growth, are expensive to own (strata fees, etc), and prone to defects. No matter how many trains go past a day, Australians will happily pay a premium for a detached house.
The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria.
But what really brings Labor’s proposal to its knees is the economics of building high density housing. Developers are facing increased material and labour costs due to inflation and competition from major government infrastructure projects, while also navigating a myriad of regulations and taxes. As a result, apartment blocks are typically developed for the boutique and high-end market. Affordable high-density housing simply isn’t worth it in the current economic environment.
As for greenfield sites, they have issues of their own – not least that Allan’s proposal will see many future sites not delivered for another decade. Basic road, water and sewerage infrastructure costs are higher, and increasingly Melbourne is eating into its nearby food bowl and placing new residents at the mercy of increased fire and flood risk at the urban fringe.
Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers. This approach will allow for controlled infill – not flooding existing suburbs with hordes of new residents but still making better use of existing infrastructure and space.
Allan’s government and other Labor divisions have sensed the need to differentiate themselves as the party which will genuinely increase housing supply, whilst labelling any opposition from the Greens and Liberals as ‘blocking’. If the recent Queensland election results are anything to go by, the strategy might be a cunning one in metropolitan seats.
However, if Allan is serious about adding new supply to Melbourne’s housing stock, she ought to ask herself why she has made Victoria the most unattractive state for housing and business investment in the country. Only by removing onerous property, land, and windfall gains taxes, easing the regulatory burden on new builds and slowing their bungled infrastructure program, could she hope to actually stimulate new home building.
As 5 November fast approaches, anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching nauseating levels.
Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself – have made the central focus of their 2024 campaign about how Donald Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy” in history. They claim the 45th President is a tyrannical dictator-in-waiting, but forget one thing: he was the 45th President.
During Trump’s presidency, he had ample opportunity to become the totalitarian dictator the left so badly wants him to be, yet his record was exactly the opposite.
TRUMP THE PEACEMAKER
While Trump often claims he is the only President in the last 72 years not to be involved in war, this is not exactly true. However, he did not meaningfully engage in military conflict during his term.
The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them.
Technically, the power for the US to declare war rests solely with Congress. A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force. This is how “conflicts” such as the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars occurred without proper, constitutionally required, authorisation – even though they were full-scale wars and are always referred to as wars.
Other presidents have also been heavily involved in the escalation of foreign conflicts, the current Administration’s heavy financing of Ukraine being one such example. Trump, on the other hand, used the military sparingly but effectively and demanded other countries pay for US protection – creating a financial disincentive for war. Trump’s only real use of the military was quickly cleaning up the ISIS conflict he inherited.
While Trump may have been involved in military engagements, he certainly tops the list as the most peaceful US President since World War II.
TRUMP THE DEMOCRAT
A common theme among dictators is the centralisation and concentration of power. Trump has been an advocate of states’ rights, pledging “to make states the laboratories of democracy once again” during his 2017 inauguration speech. During his Administration’s Covid response, he largely allowed the states to handle their own policies. During a time when most political leaders looked to seize power, he sought to relinquish it.
But where Trump advanced states’ rights most was in his many judicial appointments: appointing judges and justices who recognised the policy-making power that resided in the hands of the states. One consequence of this was in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned the faulty premise that prevented states from regulating abortion.
Contrary to popular belief, Roe v Wade had little to do with abortion and everything to do with states’ rights. No matter your view on abortion, if the Constitution says it is subject to state regulation, that’s what the Supreme Court should confirm.
When it comes to executive orders, Trump averaged 55 per year, far more than the one or less per year of the first six presidents but a lot less than the 307 per year that Franklin D. Roosevelt – who is an often-highly regarded President – averaged. Even the much-beloved John F. Kennedy averaged 75 executive orders per year. Neither of those men are referred to as dictators.
In fact, Trump’s use of executive orders sits almost exactly on the average of all presidents combined, which includes the early presidents who signed almost none. That’s nowhere near the level you would expect of someone with dictatorial tendencies.
2020 HINDSIGHT
But what about the 2020 Election? That is where Trump showed his true colours, according to his haters. And while Trump certainly is not the most gracious loser, he was completely within his rights to question and contest the legitimacy of the results: it is the right of all political participants. Hilary Clinton did it in 2016 and Al Gore did it in 2000 – both Democrats.
The difference between Hilary Clinton’s denial of the 2016 results and Donald Trump’s denial of the 2020 results is that Trump was right: the 2020 election was rigged.
The traditional media, social media and the FBI teamed up to ensure the Hunter Biden laptop story never saw the light of day before the election. Had that story been given its proper coverage, or even just not suppressed – people were literally prevented from posting about it on Twitter and other social media platforms – we would have likely seen a different result. If that isn’t rigging an election, someone tell me what is. Let’s not even get into the fact that several states used widespread mail-in ballot voting without the proper legislative approval to do so.
FELONY OUTRAGE
But Donald Trump is a convicted felon! How could anyone support that, the indoctrinated say, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is out to imprison his political opponents without a shred of irony.
Trump was not convicted of paying “hush money” to a pornstar, there is no crime in a non-disclosure agreement. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of incorrectly filling out business documents, a misdemeanour offence in New York meriting a similar punishment to a speeding fine or other trivial traffic offence.
The New York District Attorney (NYDA) managed to convince 12 New York progressives that it was a felony by nebulously claiming that Trump incorrectly completed the business forms in order to commit another crime; it was not necessary for the NYDA to actually indicate what that other crime was, nor for the jurors agree on that other crime. Not to mention, the NYDA relied solely on the evidence of Michael Cohen, a disgruntled former Trump employee with an axe to grind.
A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force.
Had it been any other person, the NYDA would have settled for a misdemeanour offence, if they had even bothered to prosecute it at all.
FACISMO AMERICANO
Finally, the pièce de resistance of the anti-Trump rhetoric: he is a Nazi. The kind of opposition that, if repeated often enough, might just lead someone to be justified in taking a shot at him. I mean, we’d all kill Hitler, right?
I don’t have enough words to debunk every single instance where Democrats, or their media allies, have called Trump a Nazi, so I will focus on the most recent: Trump held a rally at Madison Square Garden. So what is the connection? Well, in 1939, a group of American Nazis also held a rally there and, well, that’s it. What’s more, Madison Square Garden actually moved location in 1968, so Trump’s rally was not even at the same location as the 1939 Nazi rally.
Even before the rally had begun, mainstream media pundits were flapping their jowls with disgust, drawing comparisons between the 1939 rally. I wonder if these same propagandists are as concerned that Andrea Bocelli is scheduled to hold Nazi concerts there in just over a month. And these propagandists must be shocked to learn that the New York Knicks plan to host 38 Nazi games there over the upcoming NBA season; maybe they should rename them the Nazi Knicks.
VOTE TRUMP
The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them. Looking back on pre-politics Trump, who was often portrayed in a positive light, seems like another time completely. And there will be a time when propagandists will point to Trump as being “not so bad after all”, like they do with George W. Bush now – even though they said similar things about him during his presidency.
Given the Libertarian Party has failed to nominate a libertarian candidate and Robert F. Kennedy Jr has dropped out of the race (although he will still appear on the ballot in many states, including the key states of Michigan and Wisconsin), I urge all American readers to vote Trump this Tuesday. Don’t stay home: vote.
Over 40,000 Australian children are currently in government-sponsored care. Approximately 30,000 have been there for more than 2 years. Less than 200 were adopted.
The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’
Compared with similar countries Australia has very low rates of adoption.
It seems the chief barrier to increasing the rate of adoptions in Australia are state and territory government child protection authorities. In South Australia, for example, the inquest into the death of toddler Chloe Valentine revealed the abject squalor of the environment the child was forced to endure – an environment authorities were well aware of.
The best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems
An anti-adoption culture appears to be ingrained in state and territory child protection authorities.
Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, has written extensively on this issue*. He summarises the situation as follows:
“Australia’s child-protection system keeps applying the same, flawed strategies which basically means children are harmed by the very system that’s meant to protect them. It puts an over-emphasis on family preservation prolonging the time children are kept with highly dysfunctional families. When, as a last resort, they are finally removed they are churned through unstable foster care and returned to their families where the reunification is likely to break down. For many children, they spend almost all of their childhood and adolescence in care and never get a permanent and safe family for life. Many of these children could have, should have, been adopted.”
19th Century English philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill was one of the first to declare that “Children have independent rights as future citizens. If parents fail in their obligations to fulfil those rights, then the State should step in.”
Regrettably, the rights of abusive parents seem to outweigh the rights of abused children.
It has been 50 years since the introduction of the single mother’s pension by the Whitlam Government. This policy helped end the practice of forced adoption as the provision of taxpayer-funded income support gave women who became pregnant out of wedlock the option of keeping their children.
The unintended consequence, however, is that welfare for single mothers has led to the very social problems forced adoptions were designed to prevent – the inability of many single mothers to properly care for their children.
The right to welfare became a pathway to welfare dependency which has contributed significantly to the scale of the child protection crisis confronting Australia today.
In South Australia last month, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks not euthanize the child and induce it stillborn, but deliver it alive.
After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.
The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy after 28 weeks, the baby must be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.
The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’
Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.
The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.
As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me.
In 2019, the Federal Government’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report, ‘Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children’, stated that the best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems.
Five years later, little has changed.
For children who are unable to live with their biological parents, adoption has been internationally proven as the best way to provide a safe, stable and loving family life.
While it has been argued that adoption robs children of their identity, modern ‘open adoption’ models which are specifically designed to maintain children’s connections to their cultural heritage and birth families disprove such claims.
It has also been claimed that adoption will steal children all over again. Again, NSW adoption reforms disprove such claims.
The perception that adoption is a socially unacceptable and illegitimate practice based on past practices such as forced adoptions and indigenous experiences must end. There can be no meaningful change or end to the cycle of intergenerational dysfunction until that taboo is broken.
*Dr Jeremy Sammut is the author of several research papers and the book, ‘The Madness of Australian Child Protection: Why Adoption will Rescue Australia’s Underclass Children’. His research influenced reforms which were passed in 2018 by the NSW Parliament.
Virtually all political persuasions agree on the need for police. For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government.
The first modern and professional police force was the London Metropolitan Police Service, established in 1829. At the time there was substantial public opposition to a large and possibly armed police force, based on fears it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule. The example of France, which had secret police at the time, was significant.
The Met was established by Robert Peel, Britain’s Home Secretary, who set out to address these concerns via his nine principles of policing. These principles are now famous and remain the gold standard for police everywhere.
Peel believed that the power of the police was dependent on public approval and derived from public cooperation rather than fear. Also known as policing by consent, his key principle was that “the police are the public and the public are the police”.
Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited
He ensured police uniforms were different from the military, avoided military ranks, and only armed officers with a wooden truncheon and rattle (later a whistle) to signal the need for assistance. Every officer was issued a warrant card with a unique identification number to assure accountability for his actions, and Londoners were expected to give assistance, including loaning their revolvers to officers in pursuit of armed felons. Many did exactly that.
Peel was also clear about the primary role of the police – to prevent crime. Police effectiveness is not measured by the number of arrests, he said, but by the absence of crime and disorder.
Almost two hundred years later, police in many locations could benefit from a reminder of Peel’s principles.
One issue is the steady militarisation of the police. This ranges from references to the public as civilians and assertions that the police place their lives on the line every day (which is obvious garbage) to black uniforms, military assault rifles and ex-military equipment such as armoured personnel carriers.
When they see themselves as soldiers in a war, it is not surprising that some police have no regard for public welfare. The result is the abuse of civil rights and the unnecessary use of tasers and firearms, with deaths in police custody.
Peel’s principles also stipulate that police should only use physical force when persuasion, advice and warning are insufficient, to use only the minimum force necessary, and that the cooperation of the public diminishes proportionately with the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion.
For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government.
Yet how often do we see police resort to violence when making an arrest? People are tackled, forced to the ground with knees on their back and neck amid blows, kicks and the vindictive use of Tasers, simply to apply handcuffs. Being ‘non-compliant’ or raising verbal objections is enough to prompt this.
Moreover, such rough handling amounts to a form of punishment. That is also in conflict with Peel’s Principles, which require the police to avoid usurping the powers of the judiciary by authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
Enforcement of the Covid rules, including the authoritarian decrees and fines imposed by state premiers, provided multiple examples of poor policing: the petty closing of cafes, prosecutions for reading in a park, chasing individuals along a closed beach, stopping fishing from a pier the day after 10,000 gathered in a demonstration, and even a Police Commissioner who denounces the cruise industry as criminal, are among them.
We now see the police routinely looking the other way when demonstrators spew their hateful antisemitism and calls for genocide against the Jews, even arresting a solitary Jewish observer. The Australian public are never likely to accept the police as one of them while those sorts of things occur.
Change is necessary. Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited. Victimless crimes should never be given priority and arresting people should be the last resort for problems that originate in drug use, alcoholism, mental illness and poverty.
The fundamental responsibility of governments is to protect life, liberty and property. If the police were to focus on these while upholding Peel’s Principles, Australians might even respect them enough to come to their aid. As it stands, many would refuse.
