Thoughts on Freedom

… for gun-owners (and others, too).

This is the first I’ve heard of this idea, and it’s got me well stumped.

There’s been a bit of to and fro over the LDP’s 30/30 policy at Catallaxy, Skepticlawyer and Club Troppo. Ken Parish has now written the mother of all critiques over at Troppo. I think he’s underestimated some of the research that John put into developing the policy, but not being John, I don’t have all that info at my fingertips. Moral of the story: get over there and discuss the policy, people - what do you make of Ken’s arguments?

After faithful service to the Catallaxy Corporation, I’ve decided to pair up with Legal Eagle, another lawblogger of note, and try to do something both interesting and profitable. Our new blog is skepticlawyer.com; I explain happenings in a bit more detail over at Catallaxy. There’s plenty of stuff up already, although of interest to libertarians is this piece on Rawls and Hayek.

Enjoy.

Well done, Pommy, you’ve sent the blog stats into overdrive… I even took a screenshot of the WordPress home page for keepsies. Classic stuff… not sure how it happened, but our most popular post yet. BTW, you can watch (and download) Fitna here.

UPDATE: I should probably also mention that I’ve blogged this over at Catallaxy, in part because I have Dutch relatives and find the whole issue interesting from their perspective.

No, not coming off hiatus, but curious what readers think of Cossie’s spend-up. It strikes me that raising thresholds is a good thing, and he’s dipped his toe into the water on vouchers and performance pay… but my there’s a lot of pork, too.

And is it enough to save Howard’s bacon come election-time?

Until someone like John H or Jason gets into the nitty-gritty, a penny for your thoughts, Aussie Libertarians and friends.

ADMIN UPDATE 8/5/07: The Budget can be read in full at www.budget.gov.au, or you can read the overview or check the media coverage (Australian, SMH).

I’ve cross-posted this both here and at Catallaxy. It’s important because it has the potential to influence the way advertising and marketing is perceived in all sorts of ways. I’m interested to see what libertarian parents think of the issues raised…

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke:

In what is believed to be a world first, David Jones begins a legal case tomorrow in which it is suing the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute and its executive director, Clive Hamilton, over claims the giant retailer’s advertising eroticised and sexually exploited children

The case, in the Federal Court in Sydney, is thought to be the first time a court will consider the sexualisation of children in advertising.

The retailer is suing under the Trade Practices Act, claiming the institute engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The avenue of suing for defamation was closed to big companies after the introduction of uniform defamation laws in January 2006.

The case stems from a media release in October titled “Corporate paedophilia - sexualising children by advertising and marketing”, which announced the launching of a discussion paper. The release named retail chains such as David Jones and Myer as having “jumped on the bandwagon” in eroticising children in the interests of the bottom line.

It’s about time we had this conversation. A forensic analysis of just what advertising can and can’t do is sorely needed, and if ever a case is destined to be a ‘battle of the experts’, it’s this one. Oliver James, Clive Hamilton and others like them have made large claims about the capacity of advertising to achieve non-sales outcomes (and, by extension, negative consequences). However, various small studies seem to indicate that advertising is good at raising product profile and sales, but doesn’t actually do much else. Cultural studies theorist Greg Dening had this to say about one particularly well known advertising campaign:

Some years ago, the Commonwealth Government tried to educate the Australian public to the dangers of AIDS by creating some theatre in a television clip. Death, the Grim Reaper, was shown as a figure playing ten-pin bowling. The bowling pins were men, women and children. They bounced and clattered away randomly as death scored. There was some alarm expressed at the time at the brutal starkness of the advertisement. Many felt it was too shocking. It was overkill, some said. Then we learned in the weeks that followed that the chief effect of the advertisement was a sharp drop in the membership of ten-pin bowling clubs. It is a depressing story for anyone who thinks that writing history is theatre. How does one produce the effects one wants in one’s stories? Presumably, if one knew that, one could rule the world or at least sell a lot of something. Maybe the answer is that one can never be sure of producing the effects one wants.

Interestingly, David Jones have wheeled out section 52. This is the classic ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ provision, and is more typically deployed by weaker parties against those in stronger bargaining positions. It has come to operate as a stand-in for contractual misrepresentation at common law, mainly because the remedies available for breach (under sections 80, 82 and 87 of the act) are more wide-ranging and better able to be tailored to individual litigants’ requirements. It is a major part of Australia’s consumer protection law, and has been effective in a Hayekian jurisprudential sense because it mimics the abstract, end-independent qualities of the common law.

Of course, the usual lawyerly caveats about ‘giving them oxygen’ apply. If the Australia Institute report in question was well known before the suit, it is exceptionally well-known now. However, as someone with a long-term interest in the capacity - first articulated in Plato - of visual stimuli to shape peoples’ minds (and particularly those of children) more generally, I know that much of the debate around censorship turns on a detailed understanding of just what things like advertisements can do.

Now all parties are put to the proof. It should be interesting.

I’m just about to embark on reading von Mises’ Human Action, a project that will no doubt occupy me for some time. And I keep seeing the words ‘praxis’ and ‘praxaeology’ used to describe said ‘human action’. Now this looks awfully like a wank word to me (something I dislike postmodernists and lawyers doing, let alone anyone else). Because I don’t like wank words, and because the only God I worship is one called ‘clear and simple expression’, I’d like some explanation.

I’m not an economist - as Mr Tex pointed out in his debut post, I too just have a pretty fair idea of what works - but I’m willing to learn. This post is a call to all you economists out there (and there are a lot of them on this blog) to educate this libertarian lawyer.

What the Hell is Mises on about?

I noticed while reading the Free Speech and Music thread that there was considerable confusion about the nature of remedies available in defamation cases. This post should be read as an adjunct to my comment on that thread, and - it is hoped - it should make arguments about reputation, rights and compensation a little clearer.

Equity is that body of rules developed by the Court of Chancery before the Judicature Acts and since then in courts exercising equitable jurisdiction. It first emerged from under the common law due to inadequacies in the latter. By the late Middle Ages, the common law had become rigid, particularly in its procedure. Justice was not available to a petitioner whose grievance fell outside the established system of writs, or who sought to bring a claim against a locally powerful defendant. Importantly, in a time when common law judges supposedly ‘declared’ the law, equity openly admitted its judges made law. At least initially, it was unencumbered by precedent and decided cases according to ‘rules of equity and good conscience’, leading to Seldon’s jest that ‘equity is a roguish thing […] they should make the standard for its measure the chancellor’s foot’.

Read more »

It’s become fairly well known that security for the first test is very tight. Most people would argue that this is fair enough, but I’m wondering if tight security is covering for a multitude of other sins. People were not allowed to take any bags into the Gabba - and anything left outside in what amounted to ‘lockers’ cost you $5.00 before you could retrieve it. Fans were also shelling out $5.50 for mid-strength beers and paying a fortune for pretty ordinary food from vendors in the ground.

I’m not as sanguine about the War on Terror as John Humphreys, but after this little exercise I’m starting to think that some people - the suppliers of food and beverages at cricket matches, for example - have a vested interest in making things look worse than they are. They can then rip the punters off with impunity.

And if people weren’t told about the $5 locker room/leave your bags at the door charge before hand, I suspect the Trade Practices Act may come into play.

What gives?

… I realize people are going to start calling us Lazarus soon, but if it’s any consolation it’s because we’re getting more popular by the day.

I’ll be in Sydney for work stuff in mid-December, and have earmarked December 16 (that’s a Saturday) to meet up with Sydney bloggers and other interested parties. Jason over at Catallaxy is in charge of time and venue (I know very little about Sydney). I’ve also got a bit of spare time otherwise, so a convivial libertarian dinner on another night is on the cards, too.

Just letting you all know that Catallaxy is back on deck, and that we’ve come up with a solution that should prevent our server frying after being Crikied and Australianed in the one week. That said, you’ll have to reach us via http://catallaxyfiles.com/

The old badanalysis link no longer works; c8to, our techie, is migrating all the material across from the old server.

… Which is why the site has been down all day, and why LP and Troppo are getting swarmed rather badly.

To our regulars and visitors, please bear with us, we are working on it!

Yobbo’s job as a very special sort of online gamer got me thinking about how we define communities, and whether online communities can ever fit the bill. Over at Catallaxy I’ve posted on one of the truly massive MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games), World of Warcraft. I’d be interested in readers’ take on this new universe, for the simple reason that people are now beginning to trade (for real money) their online gaming identities.

What gives?

Once again Crikey has decided that Catallaxy is worthy of some added attention, in large part, I think, because I write there. I’m sure Jason doesn’t mind the free advertising - and nor does Thoughts on Freedom, which got some nice advertising courtesy of news.com.au (link below). That said, I am heartily sick of what GMB & JC call ‘the rabbit punch routine’, where people are attacked, well, because it’s cool to do the attacking. Not because of anything they may or may not have said. I made this comment in the relevant thread over at Catallaxy. I’ve put it here so everyone can see it as a main blog post.

I wondered why I couldn’t get onto Catallaxy this morning while I was waiting for the jury’s verdict. Yet another bit of Crikey dross explains it.

Disclosure
Unfortunately, some of this attention has come Catallaxy’s way since I’ve been one of its writers. Much as libertarians may find Mark Davis’ politics annoying, his analysis of the way the commentariat reacted to me in Gangland is pretty much on the money (see my Quadrant piece for details). Margaret Simons is a bit player in that commentariat, and people like me are clearly a threat. I’m not sure why, but I am.

These people simultaneously believe that blogs contain the collective (and meaningless) outpourings of Gen X/Gen Y, are no threat to the MSM, are never fact-checked, are populated by TEH EVIL GMB, and so on. Yet I start writing for Catallaxy and Thoughts on Freedom and that is news - more than Crikey, too - see this piece from news.com.au. I’d like to think these asshats can see that their days are numbered, but I suspect they don’t want to see that far.

It’s worth pointing out that Simons wrote a major piece for the Australian during the controversy over me winning the Miles Franklin. This piece - among ather things - made comments on my physical appearance and depended entirely for its cachet on gossip. Like Weathergirl, Simons claimed to have spoken to all sorts of shadowy - and not so shadowy - people in my past. Funnily enough, when I spoke to some of these people later, they claimed either (a) that they’d been misquoted or (b) that no-one by the name of Margaret Simons had ever approached them. The piece ran in late 1995 or early 1996. If people with access poke around on Factiva, they should be able to track it down.

Simons has significant appearance issues of her own - which I will not detail here - that do help to explain some of her obsessions. And it is characteristic of the left (and even the non-political commentariat) to ‘pile on’ (Les Murray uses this phrase, too, GMB) when someone doesn’t fit the cookie-cutter model. Murray also makes the point that women are generally treated very badly - he has written some excellent stuff on this issue, excerpted here. This is actually a chapter-length excerpt from his biography, and details his views on exactly the issues Jason has flagged above. I highly recommend it if you’ve got some spare time.

For my part, I don’t ‘represent women’, and I don’t mind the sometimes rather masculine interactions on Catallaxy. Just as men stand to learn from how women manage interpersonal relations, I believe women also can learn from men on that score. I’m quite sure that if GMB or JC disagreed with me, I’d know about it. Instantly. And I’d probably get called a bunch of stuff. To which my response would probably be ‘phooey’.

The commentariat, by contrast, goes behind my back, writing sneaky, smearing articles about both me and co-bloggers in forums where no-one from Catallaxy is granted a right of reply. To be quite frank, I prefer the ‘blokey’ in your face model, rather than the ‘girly’ stab in the back model. I always feel much happier when I know where I stand.

There, that’s said it. Frankly, a large number of people in the commentariat need to get over themselves and get a life. I don’t think Crikey is leftist, by the way (although the two recent attacks on Catallaxy were both from leftists). Rather, I think it is symbolic of a broader problem in Australia’s commentariat - the substitution of personal attacks and smears for engagement with peoples’ actual views. The staff writers at Catallaxy and Thoughts on Freedom - to a man and woman - write thoughtful, reasoned copy. People in the comments sometimes don’t. This is the way the blogosphere works, folks. Get used to it.

I’ve only just noticed that people are still commenting on my Quadrant piece. I have no excuse for failing to notice apart from a tendency to only check recent blogposts.

Obviously, the link is all over the internet so of course people are still interested in stopping by and offering their thoughts. My apologies, then, to those people who dropped in and offered a comment expecting a response from me. I have now replied to your questions to the best of my ability.

…And I would really like to learn how to enable a ‘recent comments’ feature, like we have at Catallaxy…

Sukrit, is this even possible?

Bryan has included Thoughts on Freedom - along with a tasty selection of other blogs - in his Oz Politics Blog feed. The full list is here, so you’re encouraged to pay him a visit and check out the newcomers. Highlights among the additions include Andrew Norton and The Raving Wingnut, although there is plenty of bloggy goodness besides.

As promised, some husky pics. First up is a picture of the illustrious dad himself, looking like King Muck on the bed. This is a dog who genuinely thinks he’s Christmas.

Next, some puppy pics. Texas threw 7 puppies; They’re nearly 5 weeks old, and the two show specimens have already been sold. The others (non-show) are still up for grabs, and come wormed, vaccinated and socialized.

You’ll need to wait, though, as reputable husky breeders prefer to keep their puppies for 10 weeks so they’re properly ready for their new home. The puppies come in a range of colours, consistent with both sire and dam colours. There are darker pups with ‘masks’, and lighter pups with tan highlights. All have blue eyes.

The first puppy pic shows two of the darker pups. The second pic shows two of the lighter pups contrasted with one mid-tone puppy.

If you’ve decided a husky is for you, then I highly recommend some research into the breed. These dogs like exercise, and if you’re determined to stick to that new diet and exercise regime, one of these pups could be for you. If, however, you just want a pretty dog and you’re not willing to exercise it, then expect to find holes in your backyard galore and one very stroppy animal. Huskies need to RUN.

Still interested? Contact rdiplock AT hotmail DOT com. Non show puppies are $400.00 each.

THE NATIVE TITLE ACT AND SPONTANEOUS ORDER:
HOW LEGISLATING IN PLACE OF THE COMMON LAW HAS UNDERMINED FORMAL EQUALITY AND THE RULE OF LAW

I ABSTRACT

Australia is a country where legislative solutions to social problems are very popular. ‘Someone should make a law against it’ and ‘they should do something about that’ are oft-repeated mantras on all sides of politics. They’re even commoner among ordinary citizens, who — as F A Hayek argued some sixty years ago — soon get used to authority taking personal choice out of their hands. Legislators pass more (and more complex) laws, laws under which the rest of us are supposed to live.

One of Hayek’s great insights was his understanding that governments are bad managers, especially when they seek legislatively to micromanage every possible outcome. The Road to Serfdom concerned the totalitarian abuse of power, but Hayek leaves us in no doubt that ends-directed, teleological legislation — even in a democracy — ultimately shares some of the same fascistic tendencies.

The ‘impenetrable thickets’ of the Native Title Act — as memorably described by Gaudron J — exhibit many of the qualities about which Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom and Law, Legislation and Liberty. As an important contributor to classical liberal economic and jurisprudential theory, Hayek remained concerned throughout his life with formal equality, the dangers of arbitrary legislation and the risk that arbitrary legislation would derogate from the rule of law — and with it the formal equality he so prized.

In this paper, I argue that the NTA derogates from the formal equality that underpins all liberal democracies, and the manner in which it does so is arbitrary. This arbitrariness undermines the rule of law. Before turning to the Act, I outline Hayek’s evolutionary theory of law, particularly his discovery that the common law manifests the characteristics of a ‘spontaneous order’. Read more »

Over at Catallaxy, I’ve decided to have a big think-out-loud session on the parlous state of the media. This has largely been in response to the atrocious coverage of the most recent Middle-Eastern bust up. Rob at Better Part of Valour has done a super job of rounding up all the info, and a quick hop across to his site will tell you pretty much all you need to know, as well as provide a mass of links.

Now I’m a libertarian. I’m really, really suspicious of foreign policy adventurism, and am fairly sure that whatever happens in the Middle East (Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc), it’s likely to go badly. How badly is an unknown, however, because the ladies and gentlemen of the press have been very keen to make everything look worse than it actually is. I used to think making shit up was the preserve of novelists (I should know, I am one, and have made up my fair share), but some of this stuff is simply staggering.

With that in mind, I’ve put the legal beagle to work and tried to sketch out a few proposals. Check it out and let me know what you think.