Thoughts on Freedom

I think there is a chance that we will have a double-dissolution (DD) federal election that will be triggered by climate change.

The ALP has played climate change and their policy response (an emissions trading system — ETS — by 2010) as a big political issue. While they will wait a bit longer for their white-paper process and the Garnaut review to finish… they will ultimately put some ETS legislation to parliament some time in the next 12 months.

If the legislation is not passed, I think the ALP will have to use it to trigger a DD election. They will do this because (1) they will have a comfortable lead in the opinion polls against Nelson and will see the opportunity for getting a better Senate situation; and (2) after they have built up climate change as such a big issue, they can’t be seen to lose and run away.

I think there is a fair (though less than 50%) chance that the legislation will be blocked.

Read more »

Some great news from the States via the latest Zogby poll.

UTICA, New York – As the race for President passes the Independence Day holiday and heads toward the dog days of summer, Sen. Barack Obama holds a 44% to 38% lead over Sen. John McCain in the horserace contest, but also leads by a substantial margin in a state-by-state Electoral College tally, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The extensive national poll of of 46,274 likely voters also shows Libertarian candidate and former Congressman Bob Barr wins 6% support, eating into McCain’s needed conservative base of support.

The online survey was conducted from June 11-30, 2008. It carries a margin of error of 0.5 percentage points. After nearly a decade in development, the Zogby Interactive survey on a state level was remarkably accurate in the 2006 midterm elections. In 18 U.S. Senate elections polled two years ago, the Zogby online survey correctly identified the winner of 17 of 18 races. ….

 Pollster John Zogby: “Obama is in the driver’s seat right now, especially where it really counts - in the electoral votes. Bob Barr could really hurt McCain’s chances. McCain can’t afford the level of slippage to Barr we found among conservatives in this polling. While there has been plenty of talk about Obama’s recent emphasis on his centrist positions, he can get away with it during these dog days of the campaign as McCain finds himself still trying to shore up the conservative base. McCain will have to move to the center because right now Obama is clobbering him among independents. But there is the rub for McCain: Bob Barr has some juice among conservatives and is hurting him in several states. ”

Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents. McCain’s support among conservatives is 74%. On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.

This indicates the possibility of up to 5-6 million votes, and there is time to improve on that as both Barr and Root are being taken seriously by a fair proportion of the media, a far cry from the norm.

The disappointing part of it is “Barr gets 43% of libertarians” which means the libertarian purity factor is worse than I predicted, although quite a few serious and dedicated Libertarians have swallowed their disappointment and are backing Barr/Root.

Regardless of the conservative origins of both members of the team, they appear to be bringing huge numbers of voters to pull the lever for Libertarian for the first time, after seriously considering LP policies for the first time. This has to be a positive.

Today we saw the first test of the Rudd government with the by-election in the rural Melbournian seat of Gippsland. It has traditionally been a safe National seat, but the Liberals and Labor live in hope of an upset.

After one hour of counting (and 43% of votes recorded) it looks like the Nationals will retain the seat with an increased majority. Antony Green has called it for the Nationals. Not sure what this means, except that Brendan Nelson (leader of the Liberal-National opposition) will keep his job for a bit longer.

But the more interesting information for libertarians is the performance of the LDP candidate Ben Buckley. At the moment he has 4.8% of the vote. This is above the magical 4% barrier which determines which political parties receive public funding.

(Note: While the LDP is opposed to the idea of public funding for political parties, it is not viable for us to be the only political party rejecting the money.)

7:30pm UPDATE: 55% counted; 6.3% swing to Nationals; LDP on 4.8%
8:20pm UPDATE: 65% counted; 7.3% swing to Nationals; LDP on 4.6%
03 July UPDATE:  87% counted; 6.2% swing to Nationals; LDP on 4.2%

This was passed on to me by Viv Forbes. We need to find the originator of this document and have the constitution itself done by the same person. One thing we can safely assume is that there are other libertarians out there somewhere.

‘We the sensible people of Australia, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. Read more »

Protectionism is back:

Toyota will receive $35 million from the Federal Government in return for building a new hybrid car in Victoria from 2010.

The headline: “Toyota hybrid gets $35m aid”.  I wasn’t aware Toyota was in such dire straits as to require aid… Come on people, dig deep and give generously - there are starving corporations out there.

The $35 million comes from the $500 million green car innovation fund that Mr Rudd promised before the election.

That’s a relief - for a moment, I was worried it came from my taxes.

I guess Rudd considers this good politics.  He manages to suck up to unions, greenies and the Japanese in one go.

UPDATE:  With Victorian state government kicking some cash in too, they’re actually getting $70m.

UPDATE 2:  A lot more from Andrew Bolt.

UPDATE 3:  Seems Rudd is again ignoring a Productivity Commission report:

That report said the economy would be almost $600million a year better off if Labor proceeded with the former government’s plan to halve tariffs and get rid of car industry assistance, and that Rudd’s proudly touted $500million “green car fund” was essentially an expensive waste of time.

And it’s all the tip of the iceberg, I’m afraid:

Industry Minister Kim Carr (could we be about to have a Carr car plan?) leaves next week for talks with Ford chief executive Allan Mulally and GM chairman Rick Wagner about their possible Australian investments, with incentives from the green car fund.

This is an appeal for support by LDP Treasurer, David Leyonhjelm.

Australia’s only libertarian political party, the LDP, has nominated a candidate in the Gippsland by-election on 28 June 2008. 

The candidate is well known local identity Ben Buckley. Ben is a libertarian based on first principles. To him it is obvious that Australians pay far too much tax and Governments are too authoritarian and intrusive. However, he has never previously been involved in libertarian politics. For many years Ben was co-owner and Chief Pilot of Alpine Aviation, involved in crop dusting plus emergency Medivacs and mercy flights. At 71, he is still involved in the provision of fire spotting services and general aviation. 

Ben’s early years were spent in contract deer culling in New Zealand, where he also learnt to fly. His fame and skill as a pilot spread and one of Ben’s major achievements was flying an ultra-light aircraft from Australia to New Zealand.  Ben’s adventures and anecdotes around his flying, disputes with Aviation Department bureaucracy and community activities are contained in the book ‘Buckley’s Chance”, published in 1998. 

Ben has always been a staunch supporter of the timber industry as well as pushing for better access to the bush by four-wheel drivers and hunters. His passion for community issues led him to enter local government and he is now in his second term as a Councillor with East Gippsland Shire Council. Prior to its amalgamation he spent 12 years as a Councillor with Omeo Shire, including one term as President.

Ben has a strong local following as a result of his involvement in local government and previous candidacy as an independent candidate. While winning the seat is not that likely, with the LDP’s help he could really make a mark and catapult the party into the mainstream.

LDP members and supporters can assist Ben’s campaign in the form of money or time (or both). Donations up to $1500 are tax deductible and can by made by direct bank transfer, credit card, cheque or Paypal. See the LDP’s website or contact LDP Treasurer David Leyonhjelm on treasurer (AT) ldp.org.au for details.

Physical assistance with the campaign can take various forms. Options include letterboxing prior to the election and handing out leaflets on election day. Contact LDP President Peter Whelan at president (AT) ldp.org.au or (02) 9652 0415 if you can help.

Discussion of the Gippsland campaign can be found on the LDP’s blog. 

This is a guest post by Philip Lillingstone.

You can find more information on this subject on his website, www.compulsoryvoting.org, but no further pictures of Paris Hilton.

Of all the reasons given to us why Australia (and the exceedingly few other countries that have compulsory voting) should retain it, I think the most spurious one is the one that informs us we ‘have a duty to vote’.

In times past when Australia was at war, women with white feathers might approach able bodied men on the street who were not in uniform, to suggest to them that they should heed a call of duty to their country. We are supposed to believe today is that each citizen similarly has a patriotic duty to his fatherland/motherland to do his ‘bit’ by making that great sacrifice and proceeding to the ballot box.

The fallacy of this argument I believe, is that of semantics. It would hardly be a stretch to define duty as an obligation to undertake a tangible service. We may be happy to perform our various duties but that does not belie the fact that the very nature of a duty is to do something primarily defined as that which the receiving party views as having value. Whether it be to give someone comfort in times of distress, to pay monies to the national revenue or take up arms in times of war.  We may joke with our friends by declaring that the reason we are helping ourselves to the hot chips on their plates is because of our duty to test their food for poison, but in reality, an act done for self indulgence that can in no way benefit anyone else, can simply never be described as a duty. Read more »

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has admitted that the government has run out of ideas on how to cut spending. Round 2 is up to you, dear readers. Let’s rise up to the challenge laid down by Mr. Tanner,

‘We would welcome any suggestions or savings proposals from anybody in the general community’.

As a reminder, here’s a paper from the Treasury on how the government managed to piss $272 billion up against the wall this year. They also note with concern that real spending has increased by a whopping 50% in the past ten years despite ten years of strong economic growth and that ‘all other things being the same, higher government spending will reduce economic growth.’

Social security and welfare……$96.5bn

Health……………………………….$43bn

General ……………………………..$32bn

Defence …………………………….$20bn

Education ………………………….$18bn

Transport & Infrastructure ……$10bn

Industry …………………………….$10bn

Culture ……………………………..$6bn

GST payments to States………..$36bn

Total ………………………………..$272bn

Send in your finest proposals, we’ll put the best ones up for a vote and then mail them direct to Mr. Tanner.

Just some examples of hypocrisy that came to mind recently:

• Why did Therese Rein (the Prime Minister’s wife) admit herself to a private hospital to fix her gallstone problem, despite campaigning in favour of the public health system during the 2007 election?

• Why does the Prime Minister heavily tax ordinary Australians so they can’t afford private health insurance, but remain unwilling to give up his own private cover?

• Why do Canadian politicians cross the border into the United States for their health needs if America’s (comparatively free-market) health system is so bad and Canadian public health so good?

• Why do Family First candidates look at pornography in private and protest against it in public?

And a bit of irony:

• Why do anti-globalisation protesters use mobile phones and other technologies developed through competitive, capitalist markets?

Liberty did once exist in the Anglosphere.

A marvelous passage from A.J.P. Taylor’s ‘English History; 1914-1945′.

‘Until August 1914 a sensible law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country forever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.’

‘Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so.’ 

‘The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale; nearly $400 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8% of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness or unemployment.’ 

‘This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted ony to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.’ 

‘All this changed by the impact of the Great War.’

I’m on the opposite side of the world at the moment (Jerusalem — great city) and mostly out of touch with the political & economic debates of Australia. But the budget still gets me curious, so today I had a quick flick through the budget papers. A few things worth commenting on…

Big government? The Liberals are claiming that this is a big-government budget. The ALP are claiming that it’s better than what the Liberals did. Both are right. At first I thought this budget had actually cut tax & spending, albeit modestly. However, on closer inspection it seems that the ALP has actually increased tax and spending a bit.

Read more »

A guest post by Shem Bennett, of the LDP.

A lot of people seem to have some naïve views about democracy that I would like to dispel. It’s actually not that uncommon- I’ve had people in the past question the LDP’s name saying, “liberty, that’s all well and good, but why democracy? Isn’t that just mob rule and contradictory to freedom?” Well, yes and no, depending on how one views democracy. Taken in isolation democracy can be seen as to put it bluntly “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner”** but the reality of democracy, particular the tradition of liberal democracy seen in Western nation states is far removed from such a crude analogy. So I’d like to take some time to highlight why democracy is not just a “necessary evil” but rather a good that we should strive for. Read more »

New research has led to the discovery of a new element - the heaviest yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium  (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- to 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

via The Adam Smith Institute

The newly formed British Libertarian Party now has a manifesto. Their policies are broadly similar to Australia’s own libertarian party, the LDP, with a few differences.  Interesting to note the much more robust defence policies of British libertarianism as compared with the more passive variety that exists in Australia and the US.  Also note that aim to abolish income tax rather than introduce a flat 30% tax favoured by the LDP.

The British electoral system does not favour small parties. Hence there has been much reluctance from British libertarians in the past to set up a new party, believing that they would rather have their prominent supporters in parties that are capable of gaining power.  There is no chance of the BLP ever gaining a single seat.  The other key difference is that there is arguably a much greater need for a classical liberal party in Britain as the state is so much more prevalent in people’s lives than here in Australia (hard to believe, i know) and the Opposition Tories have become much more statist than their Thatcherite predecessors.   Government spending as a proportion of GDP is around 43% in the UK versus 23% in Australia (not counting the UK’s massive off-balance sheet liabilities such as pensions and PFI) and the economy is sagging under eleven years of regulation and state interference.

Their main policies are;

i) The abolition of personal income tax

Read more »

From Expatia. “Anti-govt-intervention group to be launched”

I know that some of you will disagree with me here but I believe that something that is a social problem, (in a lot of cases this simply means that some of us don’t like it) can with the intervention of the dead hand of the state become a social disaster.

Some interesting figures on the various state responses to gun crime come up in the San Francisco Coalition Against Prohibition campaign against Proposition H (handgun control) as follows.

Washington, D.C. has a handgun ban, and is arguably the murder capitol of the USA. Murder is higher now than before the ban. England banned firearms, and crime increased (up to 28% for street robberies; rape and murder have both increased). Read more »

Now that the 2020 magic-dust is settling, some themes are starting to emerge. The over-arching vision of this middle class love-in is a desire for a much bigger, more powerful and more controlling state. A state that pokes its beak into every aspect of our lives. A state that no longer simply seeks to help its citizens make better-informed decisions, but one that reduces individual choice, removes personal responsibility and forces its people to change their behaviour.  

So is this now consensus thinking? Is an all powerful nanny-state now the Establishment view?  Is George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ no longer read as a warning but an instruction manual? Are there are any dissenters?  Rather worryingly, the editorials of all four national newspapers were very positive about the summit as was the leader of the Opposition.

Brendan Nelson, has said he will take these ideas ‘seriously’.

The Age believes these ideas deserve ‘prompt backing‘. 

The Australian was more guarded but generally offered an upbeat view of the summit.

The SMH was very excited though did note that the ‘individual recommendations were largely unremarkable.’

The Daily Telegraph called the summit a worthwhile exercise and was generally the most fawning of all four major papers (though they were furious with the ‘irresponsible‘ idea to legalise drugs).

So is anyone in Australia in favour of liberty anymore?

A more benign view is that this is a ‘top of the market trade’ - the product of an economy with 100% employment, half a generation of uninterrupted economic growth and unprecedented health and wealth.

Let’s hope it’s the latter.

Update I

Thank goodness for the IPA. 

Most bloggers (from all political shades) were unimpressed. So why does the media love it so much?   Are they losing touch?  Or do they feel pressured to report it in glowing terms?

Update II

Andrew Norton was there but bored

Kevin Rudd set the tone for the 2020 summit with this, ‘the job of government is to set a strategic vision for the nation.’  The PM then urged delegates to ‘ignore’ critics of the summit. Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, agrees with Kev saying he quite likes the summit, as there is ‘some method to the madness’.

So that’s it folks - there is simply no opposition to 2020. What they said is going to happen. So what did they come up with? What are the ideas that our brightest and best 1,000 (gender balanced of course) have produced? 

I’ve tried to pick up the actual ideas as opposed to the vapid, nauseating, white picket-fence, white middle class, patronising apple-pie dirge (for example in the ‘productivity’ room, the participants proposed encouraging ‘children to try new things without fear of failure’). Fuck me, why hadn’t i thought of that before? 

So take a deep breath, pour yourself a stiff brandy (whilst you still can) and come with me for a walk about as far as you can travel away from Liberty Street…

Social Policy

“We’ve got our fair share of welfare workers who came with a clear focus on 5% of the population” remarked Chair, Tim Costello. Do you really want to hear what they came up with?  ok - big deep breath needed …

A national paid maternity scheme.

A new health equality commission.

To legalise all drugs to reduce prison overcrowding. (yes!)

Barry Jones wants everyone to be forced to live in densely populated urban hubs. (jeez -who the hell invited the Brownshirts?)

The introduction of a rent-to-buy scheme by 2020 whereby the government guarantees the mortgages of those who can’t afford them. (err…anyone here heard of sub-prime?)

Federal recognition of gay marriage.  (yes!)

Maxine McCew wants a 50% quota on female MPs (a teensy bit sexist perhaps?  why not a quota on all Christians, Muslims and ginger-haired people too?) 

Read more »

The SMH carries an article on Saturdays front page lamenting the power the state of NSW is giving itself in regards to bipassing property rights.

THE State Government plans to give its agencies and councils power to compulsorily acquire private land to re-sell to developers at a profit - or, if they choose, at a reduced price so the developers make even more money.

Legal authorities describe as “quite remarkable” a section of new planning laws flagged by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to acquire land by force to onsell to private developers.

I agree with the concerns raised in the article. However I do find odd the notion that governments stealing your land and selling it is somehow worse than stealing your land and keeping it. And is there really any distinction between stealing your land so a private for profit road can be built for the public good or stealing your land so a private for profit shopping mall can be built for the public good? In one sense I think there is a distinction in so far as new road corridors are not easily or readily created through private market means, whilst shopping centres are. However the key legal constraint on governments (at all tiers) really ought to be a proper and transparent assessment process of the public benefit of such a forced acquisition which is open to legal challenge, and a system of just compensation.

OK, I know I will never get many of you on the John McCain bandwagon, (I have been quietly supporting him for a while without telling you), and you all seem to think Ron Paul is the answer to the prayers of all of Libertaria.

 Here is a guy for you who will do far more for the libertarian movement than any of the other LP candidates and Paul combined, with the exception of Wayne Root, who although he is the best of them will probably now find the going tough.

 The LP now finds itself in the unusual position of having two candidates with actual federal government experience, Bob Barr as a former congressman, and former Democrat Senator Mike Gravel.

Read more »

Magic…

via Andrew Bolt.