Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 8

Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

By
Jonathan Cole
-
0

Libertarianism is an ideology, but not a world view, according to a distinction offered by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. A world view, Mises explains, is “an interpretation of all things,” “an explanation of all phenomena.” In short, world views “interpret the universe.” Ideology, by contrast, is a narrower concept comprising “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations.” Ideologies are concerned solely with human action as it manifests in social cooperation. Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

Mises observes that world views and ideologies both share a normative outlook. They do not purport merely to describe the way things are, but offer a perspective on the way things ought to be. What distinguishes a world view from an ideology is scope. Where world views have broad and diverse, even cosmic, interests and concerns, ideologies have limited interests and concerns, specifically centred around the nature, shape and fate of society. This narrower focus on society naturally lends ideologies to political action, whether in the form of party organisation, reform, lobbying, protest or rebellion, because political power is a significant lever for affecting the shape of society.

As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism

World views, on the other hand, because of the breadth of their concern and the extent of the phenomena they purport to explain, encompass wholistic outlooks on life. They can encompass anything from stories about the creation of the universe to dietary habits, as many religions do. Their breadth of perspective is such that they can and do incorporate and integrate views about society and politics. However, this breadth does not necessitate the action-oriented social focus of ideologies. The religious ascetic is a case in point. The ascetic withdraws entirely from society as a means of dedicating themselves completely to their world view. 

Because ideologies, on Mises’s account, are only concerned with human action and social cooperation, they tend to “disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences and the technologies derived from them.” This seems to overlook the capacity of at least some religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to involve themselves with social and political concerns. It also overlooks, or perhaps underestimated (Mises was born in 1881 and died in 1973), the way that science has more recently proved itself capable of morphing into political ideology. Still, it is undeniable that all three Abrahamic faiths constitute world views on the Misesian definition. Each has generated traditions and practices that avoid, shun or repudiate political action, proving that they are capable of existing as non-ideological world views. In the case of libertarianism, on the other hand, the Misesian distinction between world view and ideology is helpful in clarifying that it is very much an ideology, as distinct from a world view. 

Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion. Libertarians can, of course, mirror some of the attributes of religious adherents in their zeal, proselytising and uncompromising commitment to dogma. However, this does not make libertarianism a world view per se, nor the most ardent libertarian fanatic the adherent of a libertarian world view. 

The truth of the matter is that libertarianism is agnostic on the fundamental questions of existence that animate religions and philosophies, and which are therefore essential to world views. These are questions best left to the conscience of individuals, as far as libertarians are concerned. Moreover, the libertarian program does not hinge on any particular answer to them. Mises, an agnostic Jew, exemplified this principle in his own life. He thought it was futile to speculate about the given facts of the universe. Instead, he was interested in analysing and understanding human action within the given parameters of existence: the means individuals employ to attain their chosen ends. He thought there was no point evaluating the ends as these were inherently a matter of subjective choice.

Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

Means, on the other hand, could be analysed objectively and evaluated concretely in terms of success and failure, i.e., an assessment of whether the chosen means realised the ends they were employed to attain. He thought the majority of political ideologies ultimately aspired to the same ends, including liberalism and socialism, namely human prosperity and wellbeing. Where they differed, and in very consequential ways, was means. Mises took little issue with the aspirational ends of socialism. He simply, and accurately, predicted that the means employed—common ownership over the means of production—would lead to the opposite outcome from that intended. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the 19th century classical European sense of the term, was in Mises’s view the only objective means of attaining the ends of human prosperity and wellbeing. By liberalism, Mises meant a social organisation that maximised individual freedom to purse personally chosen ends and means, with a minimal government in the background protecting individuals from aggression, fraud and infringement against their property rights. 

Mises typified the world view agnosticism that is characteristic of libertarianism today. He was as uncompromising a defender of individual freedoms, private property and free markets as anyone (famously so). But he was genuinely open and agnostic on the great existential questions that occupy the human mind and heart. The stridency of his views about social and political means was matched by a tolerance for all manner of diverse world views, at least as their teaching pertained to the origin and nature of the universe, and the myriad ends that humans are free to pursue. 

Join Mailing List

The world view flexibility of libertarianism is evident today in the way that it is embraced by religious believers and atheists alike, not to mention agnostics like Mises. As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism. It is possible for individuals with clashing and mutually incompatible world views (Christians and atheists, for example) to unite around the cause of a libertarian ideology. World view pluralism is simply the by-product of the libertarian ideological commitment to a social order that permits individuals to pursue their own diverse ends. The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Welcome to Borroloola Land

By
Gary Johns
-
0

Every failure in Aboriginal affairs creates an opportunity to offer a shiny new bauble to public servants and the journalistic cheer squad. Last weekend, in light of the failure of the Voice referendum, there were three baubles – naming an Indigenous state, renewable self-determination, and a new economic development plan. 

The cost of the baubles is to put off the day of reckoning for the children in hundreds of remote communities in northern Australia who fail to learn to read, write and speak English well enough to get a job. Until they do, nothing good will happen. Any plan that begins without these needs fulfilled is doomed.

Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, is from Borroloola in Arnhem land, south of the site of the Garma festival. That small community has three preschool centres: one run by a charity, one by an Aboriginal corporation, and another by the education department, competing for a handful of children. And yet, too many children still fail to move through sufficient years of school. Perhaps Senator McCarthy could explain how she made it when others could not.

Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers

Bernard Salt, the demographer, suggested that one of the Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name. Perhaps he was inspired by Naarm, an Aboriginal state in miniature. I recently travelled into that city, formerly known as Melbourne, on the Skybus and was regaled by the welcome and acknowledgment and sovereignty-never-ceded meme. My fellow travellers were Asian and Indian, all with earpieces and mobile devices, blissfully unaware of the Victorian disease of hating progress – welcome to the state of grunge.

If not Victoria, how about granting the Northern Territory statehood and naming it Borroloola land?

One big man would get all the money and hand it out in envelopes in order of family preferment, the big man’s family first and so on. It sounds perfect, very post-colonial, and very Papua New Guinea.

When he arrived at the Garma festival, the Prime Minister was undoubtedly busting to announce his brilliant initiative. Having disappointed the great and the good at Garma last time with a resounding loss in the 2023 referendum, he combined two precious icons of the left: saving the world with renewables, and Aboriginal collectivisation. 

The Prime Minister’s renewables plan is for solar panel and wind turbine-led ‘self determination’. Gas would be better; the Northern Territory is floating on it, but that seems to disturb the green spirits. Imagine shiny rows of solar panels on ‘country’ and turbines on ‘sea’ as far as the eye can see. I guess Albo had to bung something in the speech.

However, for the sake of his adoring audience and faithful journalists, here is what it takes to make a solar panel. Manufacturing is really about silicon production. Most of the energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. Silicon is produced from high-purity quartz, which is exceedingly rare. It has to be chemically reduced.

Solar panels can only be produced with coal, oil, gas and hardwood. Coal is required as a reducing agent for making silicon and as a source of heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels. These processes need a continuous supply of electricity, which renewables cannot provide.

Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name

The Prime Minister might also like to brief the First Minister of Borroloola land that the vast array of renewables must be decommissioned and disposed of. Fortunately, there is plenty of space in Arnhem Land for solar panel dumps. Wind turbines at sea can just be left to join the underwater songlines. But the average lifespan of the newest utility-scale solar panels is a fraction of the 25 years marketed. It is more like 15 years. Older solar panels used to ‘live’ longer but newer ones are optimised for the lowest raw materials and energy use so that after about 10 years, serious failures occur. Renewables are not renewable.

Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers even though every skerrick of land outside the major settlements is owned or controlled by Aboriginal interests under various Land Acts or related agreements. To this ‘vast terrestrial estate’ and the Prime Minister’s renewables power delusion may be added Australian National University’s Professor Peter Yu’s dream of economic empowerment.

Let me explain the Peter Yu economic development plan. There is no economics. The ‘plan’ is based on human rights rent-seeking. It recommends public servants be indoctrinated in the ways of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It promotes ‘cultural mapping’, presumably writing what Aborigines have carried in their heads for thousands of years. The reason is simple: to monetise that ‘knowledge’.

Join Mailing List

They plan to get their hands on ‘sea and water interests’ by extending the native title regime to get a bigger slice of what others produce. They recommend the same with ‘intellectual property’. They recommend ratifying the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The upshot would be that if access is sought to genetic resources on Aboriginal land, which is almost the entire state of Borroloola land, the terms of access would be negotiated with the big men. Any benefits from the subsequent use go to the community ‘according to the mutually agreed terms’ – rent-seeking.

These wonderous rent-seeking developments in Borroloola land come wrapped in a nice bow with treaties supervised by, according to Peter Yu, the Makarrata Commission. McCarthy succeeded without these baubles. She should tell the children.

Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

This article was first published in The Spectator.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

A Nation of Takers

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
1

One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all. 

In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension. 

It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest. 

Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.  

There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure. 

This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it. 

Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it. 

There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. 

There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes. 

The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent. 

It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it. 

Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves. 

Join Mailing List

Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 

Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last. 

What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

The Arguments and Rebuttals for Government Maintenance of Competition

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
0

This week the US Federal Court handed-down its decision in the United States of America et al v Google LLC, in which the US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access to distribution channels provided by Apple and Samsung. Google lost but may appeal.

Formidable, straight-shooting American libertarian, Hannah Cox, raised some interesting points in her Newsweek opinion piece Google Is No Monopoly. It’s Widely Used Because It’s The Best about competition law – what Americans call anti-trust law. 

This is the area of law which deals with maintaining competition by determining whether companies wield monopolistic-like behaviour to inhibit competition, as well as protecting consumers.

Knowing whether a policy is inside or outside the world of libertarianism can be a close fought thing at the best of times. As Justin Amash, a prominent American libertarian who just lost his bid for the US Senate in Michigan, said “Libertarians spend so much time arguing over who is the purest libertarian that they forget to work together to advance liberty.” 

But define the very edges of libertarianism we must, and competition law seemed ready for a battle.

Hannah took the corporation’s side of the debate, as the purist, to argue ‘market forces should maintain competition not government.’ Sounds libertarian, right? 

But nagging doubt afflicted me. So, this article is me nailing my colours to the mast in countering “sometimes, rarely, market forces create monopolies which bring competition to a halt. When this happens, government must act as referee and deal with the monopoly to reinstate the free market.”

So here are her arguments and my rebuttals.

ARGUMENT #1 “MONOPOLY MEANS ONE”

Hannah challenges any assertion that Google is a monopoly. She says, “In fact, there are over 30 other search engines in the world that are dedicated solely to search functionality, including Yahoo!, Bing and Duck, Duck, Go.” If there are many search engines, even just two, Google can’t be a monopoly. The ‘mono’ in monopoly means one.

The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. 

REBUTTAL #1 “MONOPOLY IS CONTEXTUAL”

My understanding of the US Sherman Act is that it focuses on “monopoly-like behaviour”, not whether a company is strictly speaking a monopoly. So, whether Google is a monopoly is irrelevant.

Second, “monopoly” is defined in OxfordReference.com as “The situation where one company controls all or a substantial majority of a market.” 

That is, substantial majority, not 100%.

In the US search engine market, Google has 88.14% of annual searches. In the court case, they said 90%. Bing is #2 with 6.79%. Yahoo! And DuckDuckGo come in at #3 and #4 with 2.63% and 2.55% respectively. 

All other players have less than 1% including Baidu, a Chinese search engine, and Yandex, a Russian rival. 

88.14% is clearly a “substantial majority of the market. 

So my rebuttal is that a monopoly doesn’t have to be present, just monopoly-like behaviour.

If Google had 99.99999% of the market and there was one other player at 0.00001%, Cox would continue to argue Google is not a monopoly. That makes no sense. 

ARGUMENT #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS NOT MONOPOLISTIC”

Hannah then argues that Google has just provided more convenience than its rivals, or better access, implying distribution channels aren’t a seismic advantage. She’s essentially saying securing exclusive access is not monopolistic.

REBUTTAL #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS MONOPOLISTIC”

When you break down what she’s saying, it’s that Google is just more convenient to access. But the converse must also be true: that Google’s competitors Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo are more inconvenient to access. In commerce, convenience matters. There are thousands of markets where convenience is the deciding factor in commercial success. 

Imagine two identical retailers, one with parking and one without. The one with parking will outcompete the other because customers have more access to it. Or think of marketing channel access like a waterpipe: if there are two pipes into town, one owned by Apple and the other Samsung, and Google pumps its water through those two pipes, Hannah would have you believe that it is no big deal for DuckDuckGo water to be accessed by walking 10 km and carrying it in a bucket on your head.

Convenience matters. Access matters. Securing exclusive access at the expense of your rivals is monopolistic. 

ARGUMENT #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF SUPERIOR NEGOTIATION AND INTELLIGENCE”

Then Cox continues with the following: “Being smart enough to negotiate such deals simply makes Google better at its job.”

REBUTTAL #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF MORE MONEY”

Maybe.

Is this Hannah inadvertently arguing that Google has a monopoly of high IQ negotiators?

Putting that aside, what Hannah omits from her article is that Google had to pay Apple and Samsung billions for the rights to those distribution channels. So, Google spent billions to deny their competitors access. These billions are war-chests their rivals don’t have due to exclusive dealing.

There’s a timeline of cause and effect to consider in the industry. Here’s a list of search engines and the year they were founded:

1994 WebCrawler

1994 Lycos

1994 Infoseek

1995 Yahoo! with AltaVista

1998 Google

2008 DuckDuckGo

2009 Bing

So Google joined the market after Yahoo!. 

By 2002, it overtook Yahoo! for searches per annum and has been in the #1 position since.

Perhaps its search algorithms were superior. No problems there; that’s competition.

But since then Google has locked in agreements with Apple that Google be the default search engine on its devices. 

When Samsung took up Android, Google repeated the process.

Here are the real figures. Google pays Apple between $8 billion and $12 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Apple devices, including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

Google reportedly is paying Samsung $8 billion over 4 years for similar access.

Let’s call that $20 billion in total, and recurring over various intervals.

Can Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo afford this?

Yahoo! is owned by Verizon which, as at Q2 FY2024, had $17.2 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

Bing is owned by Microsoft which, as at Q3 FY2024, had $130 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

DuckDuckGo is a private company with speculated cash of $100 million in 2021.

Therefore, Google has effectively shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo, the #2 and #4 in the market. Exclusionary actions like this emphasise the monopolistic nature of Google’s claim in search.

ARGUMENT #4 “NO HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

Cox further argues that “The company has in no way harmed consumers, defrauded anyone, or even acted in an unfair way toward their competition.” 

REBUTTAL #4 “HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

I’m surprised any libertarian would argue Big Tech has harmed no-one.

I’ve just been through how Google uses exclusionary channel agreements to shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo. This seems unfair at first instance.

Does Google defraud or misinform? Yes. 

Douglas Murray famously challenged John Anderson to type “white couple” into Google and see the results. Google have since changed the bias in their algorithm so it’s not so obvious, but the following results demonstrate the bias still lingers.

As at 7 August 2024, when you query Google images for “black heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

  • Black heterosexual couple: 17
  • Black homosexual couple: 2
  • Mixed heterosexual couple: 1

And when you query Google images for “white heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

  • White heterosexual couple: 13
  • Why Google Images searches aren’t racist: 2
  • Mixed heterosexual couple: 5

Santa Clara University reported that typing “Asian girls” resulted in Google’s algorithm yielding pornographic and highly sexualised results.

In 2018, NBC reported that typing “black girls” would yield similar results.

Much has been reported about political bias as well.

US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access

Is that harm, or misinformation or fraud?

ARGUMENT #5 “BIG ONLY MEANS POPULARITY”

Hannah then backgrounds us about the ‘consumer welfare standard’, Robert Bork and political factional differences between Republicans and Democrats. 

She goes on to criticise those who think ‘big is bad’ and that “Becoming big merely means it is popular and offers a product or service consumers quite like.” 

REBUTTAL #5 “BIG CAN MEAN POPULARITY WITH COERCION TO FOLLOW”

The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. I’d argue, unlike Hannah, to start with any big organisation. Big brings power and economic clout, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be from government. 

Hannah is partially right when she asserts becoming big merely means it offers good products. That’s how their ascendency begins. But what happen thereafter? They become smug in their economic security, their innovation ossifies and they tend to monopolistic behaviour designed to protect their fortress. This is a process from birth to death, from innovation to stagnation, that applies to individuals, businesses, churches, political parties, charities and even nation states.

Libertarians must think clearly about what they want government to provide and not provide. We are clear that we want government in defence, police and the courts. I would add it has a role to ensure monopolistically behaving companies, in the rare times that occurs, are checked. There is a role for government to ensure competition is maintained. 

But I’ll leave the last say to a couple of libertarian greats:

On the issue of capitalism leading to monopoly, classical liberal Milton Friedman wrote: “There is a widespread belief that free markets tend to lead to excessive concentration of economic power. This belief is not without justification. There are important cases where free markets themselves tend to produce a monopoly.”

Join Mailing List

And the great Thomas Sowell went straight to activity which impedes competition, saying “There is a legitimate concern about businesses using their market power to stifle competition. Antitrust laws should be enforced to ensure that competition remains vigorous.”

Caution is required applying competition law. But if rivals are being denied valuable consumer access by the #1 player sitting on 88% of the market share, I think the government referee can blow the whistle.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Olympic Dam’s Gold Medal Performance

By
Bob Day
-
0

It is exactly 50 years since Western Mining first discovered the massive gold, silver, copper and uranium ore body at the aptly-named Olympic Dam in South Australia. A golden anniversary indeed!

But discovering the ore was just the beginning. 

The fight to allow uranium mining at Olympic Dam was brutal. 

The ruling Labor Party, under then Premier Don Dunstan, was vehemently opposed to uranium mining and particularly opposed to uranium mining at Olympic Dam.

One of the key opponents of Olympic Dam, calling it a ‘a mirage in the desert’, was one Mike Rann, an anti-uranium campaigner from New Zealand who had come to South Australia to work for Dunstan. Rann eventually became Premier of South Australia in 2002.

The Liberal Party, led by David Tonkin and his deputy Roger Goldsworthy, won the next election and in 1980 set about implementing their proposed ‘Olympic Dam Indenture Agreement’, building both the mine and nearby township of Roxby Downs.

Its final passage, through the SA parliament’s Upper House in 1982, came down to a single vote – Labor’s Norm Foster. A former wharf worker, Foster had sat on the select committee into Olympic Dam and did not agree with Labor’s position that uranium mining was an environmental or ethical scourge. 

On the day before the final vote on the project Foster resigned from the Labor Party and, the following day, crossed the floor of parliament to give his vote to the Tonkin government thereby clearing the way for the new mine.

For years following his actions, Foster was vilified by the ALP. However, his role in establishing one of South Australia’s most successful projects (and biggest earners!) was later acknowledged by the Labor Party and his membership restored.

Fast forward to 2024, and Australia is experiencing a similar political challenge closely related to uranium mining – nuclear energy.

The case for nuclear power has been well argued, but there are more than just economic and energy reliability reasons for embracing nuclear power. There could also be significant strategic benefits.

First, if there’s one thing we learned from the pandemic, it’s the importance of self-reliance. 

Australia has for too long been dependent on overseas supply chains – fuel and energy being no exception.

Australia’s future energy needs are currently being assessed against three criteria – reliability, affordability, and emissions intensity. 

Unfortunately, the laws of physics and economics do not allow all three. Two out of three yes, three out of three no. 

As emissions intensity has pretty much been mandated, this leaves only reliability and affordability to choose from. Clearly, reliability has to win.

No form of renewable energy generation yet invented or discovered is reliable enough to meet Australia’s base-load demand.

Nuclear power is both reliable and emissions-free. 

It is, however, expensive to build. Again, two out of three.  

In addition, there is a fourth aspect worthy of consideration – regional security.  

South Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan all have nuclear power. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines are looking to develop it. 

All have, or will have, spent nuclear fuel.  

As Australia engages more with Asia, we bring a unique perspective and relationship devoid of the centuries-old enmities and history that exists between some of these countries.  

We could be the Switzerland of the South.

Australia could establish an Asia-Pacific office for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.  

We could bring together expertise on the ways in which other nations are storing their spent nuclear fuel.  We could, as the 2015 SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission heard, store that fuel in South Australia, and not have it stored within the borders of nations with fractious relations and/or unstable geology.  

Join Mailing List

“The International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) could establish an Asia-Pacific office in Australia. We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.”

The countries whose spent fuel was stored here would have an interest in our security.

And as well as the multi-billion-dollar economic benefits – abolishing Stamp Duty, Payroll Tax, Occupational Licencing charges and many other taxes, charges and levies – with the latest technology we may even be able to extract more recycled power from the spent fuel in the future.  

The more we engage with the nuclear question, the more positive the opportunities arise.  

But first we must remove the regulatory obstacles and legislated bans blocking Australia’s economic and energy independence. 

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

More Political Competition

By
Dimitri Burshtein
-
0

According to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, increasing competition among supermarket giants will help deliver lower grocery prices: “If it is more competitive, more transparent and people are getting a fair go, better outcomes will be seen at the supermarket checkout“.  

The ACCC also notes that competition encourages innovation.  

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes: the former through lower prices and better quality, and the latter through lower taxes and better services.

And just as those in the commercial sector prefer less competition, so too do the players in the political sector; the dominant political parties frequently colluding to modify electoral laws to defend their incumbency.  

The Albanese government, while pursuing a business competition reform agenda, is also surreptitiously running an electoral reform agenda which will have the opposite effect, reducing political competition.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”

In his 1776 magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

This quote is often used to describe the potential for anti-competitive behaviour within business.  However, with politics now more of a trade than a calling, Smith’s description equally applies to our elected class—a group that regularly meets, often for merriment, in a well-appointed building, to conspire against the Australian public.

While Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh pursue new competition law amendments claimed to “make our economy more productive, more dynamic, and more competitive”, Special Minister of State Don Farrell is developing plans to make it more difficult for small parties and independent candidates to compete in the political marketplace.  Farrell even recently stated that “the Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.”  A duopoly that is.

Recently also South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas proposed to ban electoral donations.  Were such a reform implemented, it would further privilege and embed the major parties by making it exceptionally difficult for new parties to emerge.  Raised barriers to entry lead to reduced competition.

Political parties are exempted from many important laws including privacy and the proposed mis- and dis- information laws.  This makes their perpetual assault on political competition and concentration of political power even more nefarious.

At a time of declining support for the major parties as measured by first preference voting and polling, the major parties continue to work together to maintain their political duopoly.

Although the latest electoral proposals are being driven by a Labor Government, the Coalition also has dirty hands.  In 2021, the Coalition government passed laws, with Labor’s support, to shorten pre-polling periods and force the deregistration of some minor parties.  As part of this the major parties confiscated the words “liberal” and “labor” from the political lexicon, perpetually vesting these terms in themselves.

Even Gough Whitlam’s grand dream of fixed four-year electoral terms has received bipartisan support with both John Howard and Peter Dutton offering endorsement. Extended terms transfer power from the people to the elected with no recourse, such as binding citizen-initiated referenda (as occur in Switzerland) or recall elections (as occur in the US).

It was not always thus.  Over recent years, our neo-professional political class has increasingly and incrementally colluded to raise the barriers to entry for alternative parties and candidates.  This has contributed to a homogenization of personnel and policy, making the differences between the average Labor and Coalition candidate barely discernible to the average voter.

For all the talk of diversity, this homogenization has led to much reduced experiential, cognitive and policy differentiation among politicians.  Many members of our parliaments, irrespective of party, gender, race, sexual preference or religion, follow similar educational and pre-parliamentary career paths.  While elected governments may change, there is a consistent trajectory of permanent government expansion and price rises through ever higher taxes.

Since the turn of the millennium, it has been bipartisan policy and practice to increase spending, taxes, and the volume of regulations to ever greater levels.  The assaults on civil liberties and the crowding out of civil society similarly continue unabated.

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes

It is not just a reduction of competition at the political level.  There has been a long-term de-federalisation project to aggregate power in Canberra; a manifestation of the French “disease” described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the tendency to concentrate authority in central government; something Tocqueville believed to be detrimental to political and social health.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”, a term coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  Death duties in Australia were abolished not through some fiat from Canberra but because of competition between the states and territories.

However, today some 81 percent of total tax revenue is collected by the Commonwealth, leading to policy centralisation and standardisation.  Matters constitutionally the provenance of the states, such as health and education, are now increasingly directed out of Canberra; fidelity to the intent of the Australian constitution and of tax and policy competition be damned.  

Join Mailing List

Just recently, the United States celebrated 248 years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, it included this famous sentence: “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

Just as politics is downstream from culture, policy is downstream from politics.  It’s time to change the way politics is done in Australia.

“Fight!”

By
James Hol
-
0

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, mainstream media urged us all to “cool the temperature” of political discourse. 

While I am all for a more civil political discourse, forgive me if I find it a bit rich coming from the same media that has spent the best part of a decade calling the man “literally Hitler” and “the greatest threat to democracy”.

COOLER HEADS

The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position, because any call to “cool the temperature” amounts to a tacit admission regarding the unending hyperbole they have been spewing since Trump rode down that escalator in 2015. Because if Trump is “literally Hitler” then his assassination should be the ethical duty of any good citizen who wishes to prevent tyranny. If Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy”, the only reason we should all be upset is because the would-be assassin missed.

Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature

The logically consistent position of the left can only be one of dismay and frustration at the inaccuracy of the shot. In fact, the other guy (not Jack Black) from the washed-up 90s novelty band, Tenacious D, made exactly those remarks. Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, better known by his online handle Destiny, went even further: going out of his way to appear on any platform that would have him to not only bemoan the inaccuracy of the shot, but proudly proclaim that he did not even care that Corey Comperatore, the innocent man shot by the assailant while protecting his family, lost his life.

As horrid as those remarks are, and they rightfully received their backlash, they are the logically consistent position of the bullshit the US establishment – aided by left-wing activists – has been actively pushing. I mean who cares if a Nazi gets shot at a Nazi rally, right?

WORDS

Words have meaning, and as Jordan Peterson warns: “be precise in your speech”. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the murder of at least 17 million people. As at the time of writing, Trump is responsible for zero murders.

And after a very brief pause, both the Democrats and mainstream media are right back to calling Trump “the existential threat to democracy”. Going through the legal process to challenge election results apparently amounts to an “existential threat”. It is honestly a surprise that more people haven’t been motivated to shoot him after being blasted with lie after lie after lie, non-stop propaganda, for nine years.

Don’t get me started on making a criminal out of your political opponent for incorrectly filling out a campaign finance declaration form. Given how the media has presented that case, one would be mistaken for thinking non-disclosure agreements (i.e. “hush money”) were illegal.

So if you can’t beat him in the polls and you can’t throw him in jail, what’s the next logical step? You’ve spent almost a decade laying out the justification.

The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position

ACTIONS

But if the media is actually genuine in its calls to “cool the temperature” and “return to civil political discourse”, cheap throwaway lines aren’t going to cut it. Lecturing others to be nicer when talking politics might not have the desired effect. To truly cool political temperatures we need to stop talking past each other and actually address the legitimate grievances of all sides.

Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature by calling any politician or political candidate who isn’t an outright establishment hack “dangerous”? How about the endless climate fearmongering? Or cheerleading the greatest assault on liberty for over three years? Radio silence.

Join Mailing List

But don’t even think about sharing a meme about the stupidity of the world we currently find ourselves in, because that is what’s dangerous. Unauthorised speech, or “misinformation” according to the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary, is the true danger according to the media. It is dangerous because it is a gate they cannot keep.

While more civility in politics would certainly be refreshingly welcome, maybe it’s time for the media and establishment politicians to lead by example and take some accountability for their own (massive) roles in turning up the dial. Maybe then I’ll be willing to take the call a little more seriously.

How Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

By
Jess Colby
-
0

Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of people to stick with a decision or course of action that isn’t having a positive result because the person has invested time, money and/or resources that cannot be recovered and do not want to feel that they have wasted them. In many cases, sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

Here are two real life examples of how people can be affected by sunk cost fallacy.

Example 1: 

Amy buys a ticket to see a movie and goes into the cinema to watch it. After about 30 minutes she concludes the movie is not very good but watches it to the end because she doesn’t want to feel she has wasted her money on the ticket nor her time watching it.

Example 2: 

Kiara has gambled away thousands of dollars hoping one day to win big. Kiara does not want to stop gambling because she thinks she will win big one day and doesn’t want to think her ‘investment’ was a waste. She continues to double down and gamble away even more money in the hope it will one day pay off.

What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

Authoritarian public policy restricts the choices of individuals or violates recognised civil rights and liberties. It is typically driven either by a desire to control others or to solve a problem or perceived problem within society. 

Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

It can be driven by malevolent forces, such as a group or individual wanting to increase their power or cause harm to a person or group they don’t like, or by benevolent forces wanting to solve a problem or make society a better place in the belief that the end justifies the means.

How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

The imposition of any policy requires time, money and resources. Authoritarian policies also involve sacrificing rights and liberties, often even including those of the people supporting and perpetuating the policy.

Most people like to think they are decent and not causing harm to others and society. We each want to be the hero of our own story. Those who support and perpetuate authoritarian policies often have good intentions. But good intentions do not alter the harm they cause to individuals and society. To these people, any so called ‘sacrifices’ are a means to an end, and the erosion of civil liberties and human suffering are an investment. Any attempt to reverse such investment is considered an attempt to turn an investment into waste. 

Some real-life examples of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

I will use two real life authoritarian policies as examples of sunk cost fallacy: the War on Drugs, and the Authoritarian Covid Response. Both came with significant social and economic costs, leading to major restrictions on individual freedom and causing significant suffering within society.

The War on Drugs:

The war on drugs has been waged for over half a century. Although there were laws that restricted and criminalised drugs in various countries, in the early 70s US President Richard Nixon found a way to criminalise groups that he did not like such as hippies and black people. 

He knew that he couldn’t directly criminalise people for being hippies or black, but he also knew that drug use, in particular marijuana, was popular in both communities. From this, he enacted a policy in 1971 called the War on Drugs and created a government agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) using the excuse of public safety. 

And in a fashion typical of the US government, the policy began to be promoted to other countries, with many falling into line.

The War on Drugs has proven to be incredibly destructive, with billions spent on enforcement around the world. Arresting people and putting them in jail uses a lot of resources and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

The criminalisation of drug use has also had many negative social effects such as making criminals of those who were otherwise causing no harm to others, and being used an excuse to introduce policies such as civil asset forfeiture. 

On top of this, the War on Drugs has been a failure:  drugs have won the war. People still use drugs. Yet governments around the world remain determined to make the policy work. New excuses are offered to justify the policy, such as public health and the cost to taxpayers in countries with socialised healthcare. Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

Sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

Authoritarian Covid Response:

The authoritarian Covid response (ACR) is a set of government responses to the Covid-19 virus which originated in China in late 2019 and proceeded to spread throughout the world. Although some people such the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions can get very sick, most people have mild symptoms and many don’t even know they have it.

In reaction to the virus, governments threw out their prepared pandemic plans and implemented extreme restrictions on everyday life that severely curtailed civil liberties and derailed the lives of millions of people all over the world. 

People were subjected to rules that were overly restrictive, made no scientific sense and were counterproductive. The rules were constantly changing, often confusing and practically impossible to follow even for those who wanted to follow them.

The first two weeks and maybe even the first two months could have been forgiven but once it become obvious the rules were excessive and needless, they continued with significant societal support. The perpetuation of the policy had significant social and economic costs, has permanently eroded civil liberties, and has permanently and negatively altered the trajectory of the lives of many people including myself.

Whenever the excessive nature of the ACR was mentioned, those who support it wouldn’t just disagree but would respond in a manner that can be best described as emotional and angry. I noticed many Gen Z peers to be very supportive of the ACR policy despite our age group disproportionately experiencing many of its negative effects.

Join Mailing List

The longer a person supported the ACR, the less likely they were to stop supporting it, with their support becoming more aggressive over time, even to the point of cutting off close friends and family. Given the extensive personal and societal ‘sacrifices’ created by ACR policies, many who supported the ACR came to view the ‘sacrifices’ caused by the policy to be an investment. 

Ending the ACR policy would mean that the ‘sacrifices’ were a pointless sunk cost and a loss of their investment, and that they had needlessly harmed society. This desire to avoid losing out on their investment helped perpetuate the ACR policy and continue its existence.

The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

Knowing that sunk cost fallacy drives authoritarian policy emphasises the importance of working to stop authoritarian policies before they even take hold. Once they do take hold, people become invested in their continuation which makes it more difficult to eliminate them. 

Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

By
Bob Day
-
0

John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) is a clever guy. 

As Robert McCall (aka Denzel Washington) says in the movie Equalizer 2 to Miles, a troubled teenager: ‘It takes talent to make money, Miles, but it takes brains to keep it’. 

Regardless of one’s taste in music, there’s no doubting John Lydon had talent – and brains.

‘Imperfection is at the heart of life’, Lydon once said. ‘Imperfection is the greatest gift of all.’

‘Arabic rug makers will make their work perfect except for one tiny stitch, because nothing is perfect in the eyes of God. Only God is perfect. I think that is magnificently intelligent’.

Before the 2022 federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to overhaul religious protection laws in Australia. 

Under existing law, when hiring teachers or workers, faith-based organisations are able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity via an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) now says that exemption should be scrapped. No legislation has yet been introduced.

Not content to wait for the Federal Government to act, activists have shifted to the old ‘State by State’ stalking horse approach – find the most amenable State, introduce the law there and then get other States to adopt it one by one. Once a few States have adopted the new law, the Federal Government is then pressured into doing the same. It’s a tried-and-tested model of creeping change.

Former SA Greens Senator and now Greens SA Upper House member Robert Simms is proposing to introduce legislation into the SA Parliament next month which would remove all exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

Robert Simms

There are some things people will not be dictated to or lectured about. One of those is their faith or their morals – particularly what they teach their children. They will certainly not be brow-beaten or cowed into submission by being called bigots or homophobes.

The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those. It is about discrimination against religious people. The Left may call for tolerance but what they really want is for everyone to agree with and endorse – even celebrate – their view of the world. They are not interested in debate or argument; they simply want the legislative power of the state to force everyone to comply.

If being free means anything, it means citizens having the right to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their own convictions – as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. 

It means having freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe and practice the core tenets and values of a person’s faith. It is the state’s role to protect those rights.

There’s no doubt that the Left is out to undermine our freedoms. They’re coming for our churches, our schools, our faith-based organisations, our farms, our mines, our cars and, most of all, our children. They’re also coming for our old people with their euthanasia packs, for our about-to-be-born babies with their grotesque abortion laws, and they’re coming to indoctrinate our primary school children. They’re also coming for Christmas Day and Australia Day and Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These people mean business.

People and faith-based organisations – schools, hospitals, aged care providers and charities – should not have to rely on exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to function in accordance with their faith. 

The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those.

They should, by right, have the freedom to select people as they see fit. 

Political parties grant that right to themselves because they believe, quite rightly, that the political allegiance of a job applicant matters. 

In environmental groups, views about climate change are relevant; in women’s shelters, gender is very important. 

Saying you can only become a member of a chess club if you play chess is not discriminating against people who don’t play chess! 

In ethnic clubs and institutions, ethnicity is sensible and practical. 

We accept all these differences. 

And in faith-based organisations, faith matters. 

Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational. After all, no-one is forced to work for a faith-based organisation or send their children to a faith-based school where all the staff follow that particular faith.

Expressions of faith by a person or faith-based organisations must be declared lawful. Statutory exemptions are totally inadequate. Exemptions granted can just as easily be withdrawn – as is now being proposed.

Join Mailing List

The right to religious freedom must be treated as a pre-eminent right and be recognised and protected. Human Rights Commissions should have no role to play. 

A Commonwealth law, by reference to its Objects clauses, must recognise religious freedom as pre-eminent and override all state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

To paraphrase John Lydon, while such a law may be imperfect, it would be a magnificent gift.

CFMEU Should NOT Exist in the First Place

By
Warren Wang
-
0

In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.

Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.

Distortion of Labour Markets

Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.

Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

Infringement on Individual Liberty

Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.

Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency

The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.

The Case for Abolishing Unions

Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.

Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.

Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.

Join Mailing List

Conclusion

In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.

1...789...38Page 8 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

My Favourite Books

admin - 0
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...

No, Men are not OK

4 Free Enterprise Policies Guaranteed To Make The Economy Roar!

FREE! The Kerry Packer Classical Liberal Masterclass

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv