Discussion 4
This area is for general discussion on any topic. Readers are free to post any conversation or comment on meta-issues here. The discussion forum will occasionally be archived.
Archived discussion is available for May, June/July, and August-November.
Also join us at the Australian Libertarians group on Facebook.
What has happened to you! This blog used to be great for finding arguments! Now it’s like a graveyard! You can’t all be counting votes, can you?
Comment by nicholas gray | December 3, 2007
Nicholas, I think they have all shot through, I thought I was the only visitor.
Mate check out my post and let me know what you think.
Comment by Jim Fryar | December 3, 2007
when is a proper threaded forum going to come up?
Comment by david | December 4, 2007
Nice post. Jim.
I have just finished jury duty!!! I am confirmed in my opinion that amateur juries are not an ideal way to judge issues!!! Our verdict should have been delivered by a jury of judges!
Comment by nicholas gray | December 4, 2007
What are the statistical chances of being called up for jury duty?
Also, some light humour.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39192
Comment by Tim R | December 4, 2007
Can someone explain to me exactly what is “social inclusion”? And by what means will this wonderful-sounding thingy be achieved?
Comment by E.D. | December 5, 2007
Nicholas ; I have updated it.
Tim R; After keeping an eye on the Democrats (US), and various other nanny staters, you had me worried for a while, I thought they might take it seriously.
See, I tried to warn you.
Comment by Jim Fryar | December 6, 2007
david, there’s a proper threaded forum at the ALS facebook site. wordpress doesn’t seem to allow such functionality.
Comment by Sukrit | December 7, 2007
Perhaps this is the place to raise the issue of Jury service. It’s boring, and my opinion is that either judges, or trainee judges, should be jurors, not ordinary people conscripted into evidence-weighing. Of course, it might cost more to have professionals in the jury-box, but you get what you pay for, so I’ve been told. I do think that we arrived at the right result, and it involved the claim that a man had forced a woman into prostitution, so my libertarian principles weren’t violated by the type of case, but judges might have arrived at a quicker decision.
SO, should juries by professionalised? OR should judges have complete sentencing powers?
Comment by nicholas gray | December 11, 2007
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html
Tax babies ‘to save planet’.
Hilarious!
Comment by architectonic1 | December 11, 2007
E.D.: Yes, ’social inclusion’ means ‘promiscuous fucking’. We are going to have a policy on it, as it promotes social justice, social language and social morality. Think of it as a way by which society re-distributes the sexual resources which are currently being inequitably, or greedily, misused by reactionaries to exclude ugly people from having sex.
Comment by Justin | December 11, 2007
Sukhrit, saw your letter to the Aus. Nicely argued. Bet no-one notices.
What all liberty-lovers need is a catchy T-shirt slogan.
LIB=RTY (Lessening Intrusive Bureaucracy equals Rightly Treating Yourselves) L.I.B.E.R.T.Y!
Better than rocket science!
Comment by nicholas gray | December 14, 2007
Disgusting words from Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama recently:
“The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.”
Comment by Daniel Farmilo | December 18, 2007
Govt departments: If you have anything to say about climate change please run it past the politburo first. k thx bye.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/20/1197740472726.html
Comment by Ben Shurey | December 21, 2007
I like the way the Freedom Party of Canada express their marijuana policy: -
Few adults want their children to smoke marijuana, but fewer still would want their children labelled offenders for life simply for having smoked marijuana. Moreover, the manufacture and sale of marijuana cannot be stopped: prohibition laws simply move marijuana trade from the legitimate drug production market into the dangerous, unregulated criminal market. In the criminal market, there exist no controls to ensure that consumers are not unwittingly sold marijuana tainted with much more harmful chemicals, such as PCP. The Freedom Party of Canada will not promote marijuana consumption. However, the Freedom Party of Canada will repeal marijuana prohibition, will release from custody or imprisonment all Canadians held only for growing, selling, or possessing marijuana, and will purge from every Canadian’s record any record of a violation concerning only the growing, selling, or possession of marijuana.
Comment by Jim Fryar | December 27, 2007
I have to agree with that, Jim. Incites a very good emotional response.
Comment by Daniel Farmilo | December 29, 2007
Mark Hill should like this short article about the failure of incresed government health care in Massachusetts.
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/health_31586___article.html/care_insurance.html
Comment by Tim R | January 7, 2008
I don’t enjoy people’s misfortune, but that article is brilliant.
So concise and packed with issues and reasons to privatise and cut taxes.
Comment by Mark Hill | January 7, 2008
Sukrit, aka the “fanatical libertarian”.
Enjoyed your comment published in today’s Australian.
Comment by Tim R | January 8, 2008
I read a good article once on drugs in the States, and one campaigner came up with the slogan along these lines- America can either be drug-free, or free, but not both!
A good line of argument, I thought.
Comment by nicholas gray | January 8, 2008
For Ron Paul fans: Fox denies Ron Paul opportunity for TV debate.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/paul_fox_debate/2008/01/06/62102.html?s=al&promo_code=426B-1
Comment by Tim R | January 9, 2008
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23031593-2,00.html
Plastic bags to be banned?
Comment by architectonic1 | January 10, 2008
Just wanted to let you know that Delaware Libertarian has both talked up your blog and posted a permanent link.
I’d be thrilled if you considered us for a reciprocal link.
Thanks
Steve
Comment by Steve Newton | January 11, 2008
Dear ALSers… your chance to help
Comment by John Humphreys | January 18, 2008
So, we’re expanding ALS membership and it’s activities?
Dinners, think tank activiities, media releases?
Comment by Mark Hill | January 18, 2008
Can someone unchain my moderated comments…set me free?
I think they got boned because they had two links. This is just draconian.
Comment by Mark Hill | January 19, 2008
Hi John,
I’m interested in helping and becoming more involved. I’ve just quit my job so I’ve found I have a bit more spare time between essay procrastination. What’s the next step?
Comment by winton | January 20, 2008
Interesting graph with stats on doctor immigration between Canada, US, Aust and UK.
For all it’s problems the relatively less socialised US system attracts the most doctors and keeps them. Canada has 10X more doctors leaving than staying.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/17/1810/F1
Comment by Tim R | January 21, 2008
Delaware Libertarians, Nice to have you in contact. I suppose I should write ‘Gday’, but I like to move beyond stereotypes.
What do Delaware Libertarians believe in? Is it different to the mainstream Libertarian movement- if so, in what way?
Q. How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Who needs light bulbs? One Libertarian can enlighten a whole roomful by oneself!
Comment by nicholas gray | January 21, 2008
The more we learn, the less we know.
The good news is, humans aren’t responsible for the melting of the West Antarctic Ice!!! Yeah!!! (According to a column in today’s Australian.)
The really bad news is- The extra melting of the ice is due to an active volcano under the ice!!! Anybody know how to turn off an active volcano?
Comment by nicholas gray | January 22, 2008
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23090576-29277,00.html
The door opens a little wider for the LDP in Queensland?
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 22, 2008
More here:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1908#more-1908
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 22, 2008
For minutes, I’ve been trying to turn Liberty into an acronym, and I think this is my best shot-
L.I.B.=R.T.Y! (Letting Individuals Be equals Riches To You-and-me!)
Can anyone else come up with a T-shirt slogan?
Comment by nicholas gray | January 24, 2008
http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=611918
A couple of studies on same-sex relationships that suggest a need for greater legal recognition.
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 24, 2008
http://reason.com/blog/show/124573.html
Louisiana results still not in.
RP beaten due to collusion by the conservatives. Politics is such a scam.
Comment by Shem Bennett | January 25, 2008
Noticed some discussion with Bob about the form of a libertarian revolution. This article reports on how students in France and Germany are brainwashed to hate capitalism.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095&page=0
Comment by Tim R | January 29, 2008
The Ninemsn site has a question about legalising cannabis! Quick, wirte in now and help the govmint to micromanage our lives even further! Freedom is so precious that it needs to be rationed! All power to the people (in Canberra)!
Comment by nicholas gray | January 30, 2008
Winton (and others who want to help develop the ALS), please send me an e-mail: john.humphreys99 [at] gmail.com
Comment by John Humphreys | January 30, 2008
“Racehorses for dinner”:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/australian-racehorses-for-dinner/2008/02/02/1201801095371.html
What’s all the fuss about? Are horses that different to other animals?
Comment by Fleeced | February 3, 2008
I do wonder…if students in German are brainwashed to “hate” capitalism, why is it working so well there?
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
Work ethic. A love of productive achievement. Devotion to reason as a primary way of making decisions.
Remember, the Germans were a volk for a long time…. That doesn’t leave easily and tribal values still remain, hence anti-capitalist sentiment. Same with the Scandinavian nations. Also explains why Hong Kong and Singapore happily grab capitalist values.
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
Well I’ll actually go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps capitalism works best when those who partake in it have at least a healthy skepticism of some of the more extreme claims made about the value of free enterprise and unimpeded economic growth
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
But Germany isn’t where it’s worked best. Capitalism has worked best in places where it’s been embraced without restriction. The best western example is the US up to about 1950 and I’ll ‘go out on a limb’ myself and say national wealth has never been created so fast as it was in the US from around 1800 to 1950, taking the US from nothing but a large expanse of land with some local Indians into the global superpower in 150 years.
I’d also argue that the US fall from grace (if you believe there is one) is more to do with a moral problem than a capitalist one.
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
I’m only looking at the current situation - by any reasonable measure capitalism is working better in Germany currently than it is the U.S. I doubt there’s any scientific way of accurately attributing this towards the public’s attitudes towards capitalism, other to point out that unbending faith in free enterprise is not necessary for capitalism to flourish.
Further, the results of polls showing students are sympathetic towards socialism in France & Germany is hardly surprising - has this actually changed much recently? How much different is it to the situation in Australia, or the UK? We all know the quote about having no heart if you’re not a socialist at 20 and having no head if you’re still one at 40. OTOH, I was actually rabidly pro-capitalist for a while (mainly after reading John Mackey), then gradually accepted that some of the claims made about free enterprise and competition sounded great in principle but often failed in practice.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
Capitalism is working best in Germany and not in the US? What are the unemployment rates? Ever been unemployed?
Comment by Mark Hill | February 3, 2008
Unemployment is a problem, accepted: however in Germany it’s reducing, while in the U.S. it’s growing. At any rate, there are many potential solutions to reducing unemployment that don’t involve making Germany more like America.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
What measures are you using? Seriously, I’m not an economist and I’m curious.
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
Germany doesn’t have a serious trade imbalance and a subprime crisis for a start. It has almost no inflation, strong GDP growth despite no population growth (the US GDP growth of the last few years is at least half attributable to population growth), and an export growth of 9% in 2007.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-germany)
Oh and while achieving all that, it’s also cut greenhouse emissions ~20% from 1990 levels (I do have a source for this, but optus network is screwed currently and googling is taking forever).
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
I know Germany has cut greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding is that they also have the most expensive energy in Europe.
Answers.com isn’t really ringing my bell. i.e.
http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-germany
Germany is one of the world’s most highly developed market economies. It is the world’s third largest economy in USD exchange-rate terms,[1] the fifth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP),[2] and the largest economy in Europe.
Although recent performance has been dynamic, due to a strong world economy, the German economy is marked by domestic structural problems, and continued difficulties in fuelling formerly communist East Germany.
and http://www.answers.com/economy-of-the-united-states
The United States economy has the world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP), $13.21 trillion in 2006. It is a mixed economy where corporations and other private firms make the majority of microeconomic decisions while being regulated by the government.
The US economy maintains a high per capita GDP, which although not the world’s highest, compares favorably to that of all other major economies. The economy also has a reasonably high GDP growth rate, a low unemployment rate, and high levels of research and development investment. Economic concerns include national debt, external debt, entitlement liabilities, consumer debt, a low savings rate, and a large current account deficit.
They both have problems and they’re both successful.
In terms of whether ‘regulated’ capitalism is a good thing though why is this proving Germany is superior to the US?
I’d argue that Germany is seeing the light with regards to capitalism with things like this:
Most foreign and German experts agree that there are/ were domestic structural problems to be addressed. Beginning in 2003, the government gradually deregulated the labour market to tackle formerly high unemployment. As a result employment levels are on the upswing and the unemployment rate fell to 7.3% (August 2007) in West-Germany. The situation in post-communist East-Germany remains problematic at 14.7%. The overall unemployment rate was 8.8%. By ILO standards, the unemployment rate was lower, at 6.2% (July 2007 figure).[3] Further issues, which are being addressed by governmental policies, are high non-wage labour costs and bureaucratic regulations that burden businesses and the process of starting new businesses.
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
Germany’s economy is more regulated than the U.S. and is growing sustainably, with no serious risk of it collapsing into recession. I agree Germany’s economy could be further improved by sensible reduction of unnecessary regulation. It’s not clear what improve the U.S.’s economy at this point.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
Recessions don’t last forever. I’d argue that’s a pretty short term focus, and even so, further deregulation can be a stimulus to get out of one.
I’d argue the US could improve it’s situation by reducing defence spending and allocating those funds elsewhere, or even continuing to cut taxes. End the War on Drugs and allocate those funds elsewhere as well. I think that’s 80% of what it would take for the US to remain the dominant world economy for quite a few generations.
BTW, there’s an article in the weekend Financial Review titled ‘US economists doubt free-trade orthodoxy’ (page 30). I’ve no doubt that we’ll end up ‘refining’ free trade to deal with some of these problems people are upset about e.g. inequality. At the end of the day though, I think problems like this will be primarily be solved by making poor people richer so they don’t care so much about people substantially richer than themselves. And even though we may tinker at the edges to ‘fix’ these issues, as the article says, ‘we’re not talking wholesale, dramatic repudiation of the (free market) theory’.
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
Even if the US recovers quickly from recession (which seems to be the consensus of recession-predicting economists) it’s not going to solve the trade imbalance any time soon.
Agreed that cutting defence spending and ending the war on drugs are biggies - but they’re just not going to happen sadly.
I don’t know of any “free market” theory. There’s isn’t an operating market in the world that isn’t defined by some set of rules. The trick is working out which rules actually produce the effect they are designed to, and avoiding the situation of two rules having diametrically opposite effects.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
You need some sorting out,
A trade imbalance? Trade balances simply don’t matter. Ever.
A trade balance can signify loose (read inflationary) monetary policy and massive deficit spending. Which the US has. Which are strong determinants of a recession anywhyere.
Consequently, a larger BOP deficit doesn’t matter, nor does the other constitutent part, the current account. A current account deficit is a capital account surplus. Which is largely and nearly always foreign direct investment. In other words, having foreigners build more factories and paying more and higher wages than you wouldn’t without FDI.
Subprime crisis: most Western countries have some kind of sub prime collaterallised debt market. The US was the only one to have a problem, unfortunately this impacted risk premia globally. The US market has 70% controlled by Government sponsored or owned firms which have the full faith and credit of the US or a line of credit to the US treasury. In other national CDO markets, this doesn’t happen. Moral hazard and credit rationing guidelines weren’t followed and this wasted scarce capital, bidding up the price as banks recapitalised.
Ergo the US should cut spending, tighten monetary policy and deregulate their non bank financial lending market.
It should be very clear as to just a few things the US should be doing now.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 3, 2008
Mark, a lot, if not the majority, of economists would disagree with you. I’m not sufficiently well trained to judge, but give me one reason I should take your word over that of most economists?
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
Can I answer that…..can I……can I?
He’s doing a PhD in economics!
Comment by Mick Sutcliffe | February 3, 2008
Also, they would agree.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 3, 2008
Well Milton Freidman would, perhaps. But his contention was based (as far as I can tell) on the assumption that all currency exchanges were floating. The US-China trade relationship is very heavily skewed by currency manipulation.
At some point, China almost certainly will decide to focus on its domestic economy rather than its export economy. At that point, the U.S. is going to have some very difficult adjustments to make (so, of course, will Australia).
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 3, 2008
China has some kind of peg and the US has a dirty float. Why is this an argument against austerity? One of the arguments for a currency peg or a fixed rate (such that Singapore uses, or indeed, Panama) is that it encourages austerity. These countries are amongst the highest growth, lowest inflation in the world.
You should look up Okun’s Law on wikipedia or google. The keep unemployment low, inflation needs to be nipped in the bud. (The other implications are that you need to seek to redress microeconomic problems that create strucutural unemployment and to encourage growth).
Why will China stop exporting, and why will they stop buying resources or seeking FDI?
You shouldn’t take my word as an argument from authority. You should compare the evidence I put to you against the evidence your other sources have. I think in our discussions so far I have been fairly convincing.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
I fully admit to being a complete economic layman, and economics doesn’t interest me sufficiently to invest all my time and energy into understanding economic theory better. But the one thing that nobody can deny is that after centuries of economic theory development, there still is relatively little convergence on some “ideal” theory that best explains and predicts human behaviour (which is ultimately what you’re trying to do). As such, you can still take the top 100 economists in the world (by whatever criteria), and get a multitude of different opinions on basic matters like what the definition of money is, let alone the degree to which trade imbalances matter. Just as you could 100 years ago.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
Found this very interesting- Challenge to FDA in US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Alliance_v._von_Eschenbach
Comment by Tim R | February 4, 2008
But the evidence squarely points towards supporting free trade, austerity and deregualtion.
Let’s go with the evidence and not opinion.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
What result are we trying to achieve? To maximise economic growth?
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
Look at Okun’s Law.
If you lower inflation, growth will maximise (and as a by product, your BOP situation will increase towards balancing or being in surplus until income effect take hold and increase demand for imports). If you maximise growth, you will maximise employment and incomes. If you maximise growth, you maximise technological development.
Growth is a worthy goal on it’s own but it is also a catchall variable in some ways.
Free trade also raises real incomes by effectively increasing production in trading partners by allowing as much specialisation and gains from trade as possible. There is a growth effect but there is also an immediate income effect.
An economy without the problems that the US has, which you pointed out will maximise growth and avoid recessions as well.
Why wouldn’t you maximise growth? Growth allows people to downshift and work less hours as they become more productive. It increases the opportunities for the poor.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
I agree that maximising economic growth should be the primary goal of economic policy - but not if it occurs at the expense of social wellbeing, or at the expense of the chance for future generations to enjoy prosperity. Ultimately some subjective judgement has to be made about what the ideal end result is, and democracy is probably the only reasonable way to determine that. If voters consistently choose a party whose policies deliberately restrict economic growth because they prefer the result, who are you to tell them that they’re wrong?
And while less restrictions and regulations on economic activity are generally better up to a point, we don’t really know what the ideal level is, even if all you’re trying to achieve is maximum growth.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
Please define social well being and say how economic growth (more correctly, economic liberalism) can harm it.
You should see “Pennsylvania’s Anarchist Experiment: 1681–1690″. It is by M. Rothbard. Google it.
How can growth be made at the expense of future generations? Intergenerationally sustainable economic policy is growth engendering. Bush’s fiscal policy is neither growth engendereing or intergenerationally sustainable.
The optimal level of deregulation is easily quantifiable, simply by taking a economist rationalist approach to approving or rejecting Government policy.
1. Voters aren’t economists. Economics can be counter inutitive and sometimes can only be learned by working through detailed examples.
2. Look at the median voter model and the political-economic cycle. Just think of how decisions are made in a houshold of three equal parties and remember the subsidies for methanol and support of the Liberal party.
People are free to vote for whoever they like, but I feel I have an obligation to inform them that they can be better off.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
Economic growth usually improves social well-being, but I agree that in the cases it doesn’t the latter should take precedence over the former. The question is, however, outside of equality under law how can a government increase social well-being without meddling with social engineering and trying to force outcomes?
I think social well-being is something that has to come voluntarily through a progressive society. The best way to ensure that people are progressive, is usually to ensure they are educated, happy and rich (usually in that order). We educate people by providing universal access to education, we make people happy by allowing them choices and we make them rich by allowing capitalism to run unhindered.
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
How can growth be made at the expense of future generations?
Damage to the environment, I think, is what was implied here.
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
But you wouldn’t be maxmising growth then. You need to use resources efficiently to maximise growth.
Which is very similar to an argument I am making on catallaxy at the moment.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
It depends, Mark.
Isn’t growth usually calculated in terms of annual figures? We might look to be maximising growth for 20 years now but harming it for 50 years later. Do economic models really have the power to accurately predict growth that far into the future?
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
If your primary motive is profit, you’re going to use resources in the manner that get you the maximum possible return in your lifetime, even it means using them inefficiently, and leaving less for future generations, or leaving some sort of mess that future generations have to pay for the clean up of.
It’s not *just* environmental damage/resource usage that’s an issue, there’s also the issue of leaving debt for future generations, though I suspect this is overstated.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
Mark, re voters aren’t economists: exactly. They should electing parties based on what the promised outcome is. If one party promising maximum possible economic growth for the next 3 years, whereas the other promises less growth but more equality or less environmental damage, and the voters choose option b), then that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And yes, education is key. Economics should be part of the high school curriculum. As should critical thinking.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
And political science. If voting is compulsory then knowing how IRV and STV work is arguably as important as Reading Riting and Rifmatic.
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
We learnt how various preferential voting systems worked at high school, but I forgot it all. General principles are far more important than learning specific systems.
“If voting is compulsory”? What true libertarian would support compulsory voting?
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
1. Profit is not analogous to growth. Yes, they are obviously related but not in a simple linear relationship. Maxmising profit for the entire economy would mean also efficiently using resources. Which would mean not giving some firms special privileges to waste resources at the cost of other firms and society in general.
2. If you want to maximise growth, you don’t need to forecast. (I also am sceptical of long range economic forecasts - you can’t predict calamities and the role of the entrepreneur well enough). You need to know how geometric means are calculated. Any loss in a growth rate in one period, or negative growth really brings down the average.
3. Voting relates back to the median voter model. Mainstream policies cater to the agent who makes a choice between a) and b). We also have 150 electorates and a lot of pork barreling. Like I said, they can vote for whoever they please but I think economists should discuss and inform people about policy.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
Compulsury voting?
We shouldn’t have it on pragmatic grounds alone. It is unenforcable, all “they” can do is force you to turn up and pretend you voted.
Germany has 90% voter turnout and voluntary voting.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
What true libertarian would support compulsory voting?
Oh, I don’t. I was just criticising the current model where public schools neglect teaching politics entirely and then we expect people to cast an informed vote. Well obviously the major parties like the system because it benefits them, but y’know..
I’m just pointing out flaws in the current system, I’d like to rewrite the system entirely, myself…
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
I used to support compulsory voting years ago. Now I agree it’s not justified, and causes more problems than it supposedly solves.
My memory of political education from high school was that it was fairly thorough. But like I said, most of it didn’t stick very well.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
I guess it depends on the school. I have a feeling that despite the other flaws in the American education system one of their strengths compared to us is their strong education in Civics. Americans know their constitution far better than we do ours.
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 4, 2008
Yeah but our constitution isn’t worth crap.
Whether that’s really a big problem or not is anoter matter entirely, but I don’t think the U.S.’s obsession with its constitution (*especially* by Libertarians) is healthy.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
You don’t think it is healthy for the public to have high expectations of the Government to abide by their circumscribed powers and separation of powers and to be accountable by checks and balances?
You’re a big believer in democracy. I think that republican, or constituional democracy is very healthy.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
Absolutely it’s healthy…where did I imply otherwise?
Voters shouldn’t be deciding on policy details, just the outcomes they want.
That’s more or less what we have now, except that parties try to sell too much policy detail, like exactly what level of tax cuts will be deliverered. I don’t want to vote on a party based on whether I’ll get a $10/week or a $12/week tax-cut, just on which one is promising a result that appeals to me.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 4, 2008
Can anyone point me to a solid argument against Fair Trade?
Comment by Brendan Halfweeg | February 4, 2008
http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/04/29/does-the-fairness-of-fairtrade-coffee-matter/
I would add that the owner of Dilmah Tea is totally against it and it encourages inefficient practicies, thereby lowering real wages of 3rd world farmers who still compete with tariffs in 1st world markets.
Having free trade would increase productivity (and so wages) and would emliminate punishing trade barriers.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 4, 2008
‘I don’t know of any “free market” theory. There’s isn’t an operating market in the world that isn’t defined by some set of rules.’
No-one has suggested that a free market is one that is not defined by some set of rules.
Comment by justinjefferson | February 4, 2008
Justin, they may not say it outright, however it’s very strongly implied that a “free” market is one that doesn’t have any rules and regulation restricting what people can do.
I personally believe in well-regulated markets. Many are not, because there are too many counterproductive rules and regulations. Get rid of those rules (or find better ones), and markets will operate better. Get rid of all the rules, and you don’t have a market at all.
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 5, 2008
Here’s a related idea- what does everyone think about Intellectual Property? At ‘Mises Economics Blog’, there is an ongoing argument about whether patents and copyrights protect creative types, or styfle change and innovation. As a man with an idea which might become an invention, I naturally support Patents? How about you?
Comment by nicholas gray | February 5, 2008
If success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, then even if others manage to copy your “inspiration”, will it actually count for much?
Perhaps your product would be improved by having others compete to develop the same idea?
How many great ideas have gone wasted because the person who came up with them guarded them with all the patents they could, but never were able to turn them into a consumerable products?
But…if ideas aren’t protected by law, will investors have the confidence needed to invest in them?
Comment by LibertarianSocialist | February 5, 2008
I pointed out to the libertarians at Mises that if America repealed Intellectual Property laws, then other countries, like Australia, would benefit from the flood of new immigrants with ideas that need patenting. The USSR didn’t believe in patents, and people were not exactly rushing to go there, especially inventors.
Comment by nicholas gray | February 5, 2008
Who says we need patents?
You don’t need a legisaltive framework to promote IP and innovation. Common law and contract is enough.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 5, 2008
I say we need patents!
The countries with a patent system, such as the UK and the USA, are the places which are innovation powerhouses. They became the capitalist exemplars, who lead the world.
The wannabe world leaders, such as France and USSR, who either didn’t bother with patents, or actively suppressed them, have not become by-words of industry and creativity.
I attribute the wealth to many factors, and patents are part of the process!
Comment by nicholas gray | February 5, 2008
I think they were capitalist before they created an overly strong, legislative IP regime.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 5, 2008
Floating Government Departments as Charities:
Has anyone come across anything regarding the above premise. It’s something I’ve been thinking about recently. Say I become PM (inshallah) and decide that John and Jane reality TV shouldn’t have to pay a portion of their tax to endowments for the Arts. If I just abolished the Australia Council for the Arts there would be an outrage from Johnathon and Janice Chardonnay.
However if I floated the council as a Charity and gradually reduced Government funding over the next five years it would give Johnathon and Janice a chance to show their true colours by donating directly.
If this was done with a few Departments and a real decrease in taxation I think it could really go a long way towards the way small government people really want government to function.
Any thoughts? Anyone seen this touted anywhere else? If not I’d like it to be known as the Ben Shurey method. Thank you.
Comment by Ben | February 6, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/language-curriculum-reform-call/2008/02/08/1202234169459.html
Bilingualism is great but the whole VCE system does not lend itself well to actually learning to speak in a second language. Make school a competition and students will be too busy trying to win to learn anything. Increasing the scores given by language subjects will do nothing to increase Australians’ fluency in second languages.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/teachers-to-be-lured-to-tough-schools/2008/02/08/1202234169441.html
Hopefully this’ll be the start of diversification of teacher salaries. The AEU is the thing keeping teachers’ pay low more than anything!
Comment by Shem Bennett | February 9, 2008
And what will you be doing on Wednesday? Should we call it Black Wednesday? How soon before the cries for compensation for the ’stolen’ generation become demands? I’ll be on the train coming in, and so I’ll be able to miss it easily, but will you be watching the grovelfest?
Comment by nicholas gray | February 11, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/libs-need-drastic-fix-says-fraser/2008/02/10/1202578601332.html?s_cid=rss_national
Ben - that kind of idea is something I have been touting for a while. It would be a good way to privatise the AIS.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 11, 2008
Great minds think alike Mark.
Comment by Ben | February 12, 2008
Testing the American dream:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0211/p13s02-wmgn.html
Very interesting and in my opinion a tribute to capitalism.
Comment by Tim R | February 14, 2008
Now that ‘Sorry Excuse for an Apology’ Day has come and gone, are the blind able to see? Are the lame walking and skipping and jumping? Are all the rivers flowing at maximum?
Oh. I guess the day was a failure. Sorry about that (conditional on ’sorry’ not initiating a flood of compensation claims).
Comment by nicholas gray | February 14, 2008
Tim R,
Someone sent me that story earlier today. It reminds me of a survey reported in SMH about a week or two ago, comparing socio-economic mobility between the States and Australia.
It revealed that while a greater proportion of Americans believe in the idea of the ‘American Dream’ than Australians, it is actually easier to go from rags to riches in Australia than the States.
I would love to see this copied by an Australian.
Comment by winston | February 15, 2008
And what does everyone feel about Kosovo? Are you jumping in the streets for joy? Eating only Kosovar foods today? Wearing Kosovar colours? As a pro-secessionist, I’m in favour of small units of government.
Comment by nicholas gray | February 18, 2008
I think the SMH is full of it. I takes a lot less longer there and a lot less money to incorporate for example.
I am all for the right to secession. I also think countries shouldn’t remain seperate for no purpose, e.g Federation was good for Australia and I would be for bringing PNG and NZ into the fold.
Comment by Mark Hill | February 18, 2008
I liked the article because it shows how important your attitude is and your focus on life. Even though our society is highly flawed, we have elements of capitalism and you can make it if you do the work. (in US and Aus)
If you’re “on a mission”, or “out to prove something” you’re miles ahead of most people.
Comment by Tim R | February 18, 2008
Mark,
Federation was no doubt good for Australia but was it good for the people of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia? I think that there are good arguments to suggest that it wasn’t. Okay we got rid of some border tariffs but we ended up with a federal income tax. And we already had use of a common currency before federation.
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | February 18, 2008
Below is a message I just posted on the CSU student forums. I think it’s pretty self explanatory…. Looking for some short catchy advertising phrases to put on A4 printouts to hang around the campus tomorrow afternoon to flush out any available libertarians or other freedom-identifying students…
Tim
I realise this sort of thing isn’t most students cup of tea, but I am interested in setting up a Libertarian Society at CSU.
Libertarianism is the philosophy of the individual making choices for themselves, free of interference from government. It embraces social freedoms like drug liberalisation, voluntary euthanasia and gay rights, (without forcing them on anyone) and economic freedoms coming from low taxes and minimal government intervention in the economy.
Basically it promotes a society of individuals voluntarily interacting, making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own actions. Libertarian philosophers/writers include Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills, Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman, Freidrich Hayek and many others.
If the philosophy is too much for you, it can be broken down to libertarians being people who don’t like being told how to live their life by others. I guess the idea of the club will be to discuss and promote libertarian ideas.
I will be out at the clubs day at Wagga tomorrow afternoon looking for people who are interested, but if anyone who won’t be there wants to contact me by email. my address is:
tquilty@dragnet.com.au
Tim
Comment by Tim Quilty | February 21, 2008
What arguments, Terje?
Comment by Mark Hill | February 21, 2008
Economics professor Ross Garnaut has somewhat pre-empted release of his report on climate change and govt policy in a widely reported public forum yesterday, before he officially briefs the state and territory governments and the interim report is released to the federal govt.
So, is Prof Garnaut exceeding his mandate and likely vexing PM Rudd with an unauthorised release ?
or
Is Prof Garnaut making a sanctioned media first strike before meeting the premiers - leaving them, and by extension the Feds - no where to go but on board for radical economic and energy ( and government ? ) surgery once the report is tabled ?
Don’t know - all votes solicited, but find it hard to believe he would not have read the PM sufficiently to know that he better be keeping close contact with the PMs office before making comment, unless he wants his next job to be at the Mawson base in the Antarctic.
Comment by Kevo of Sydney | February 21, 2008
Desaperate Times….?
Here is a link to Dr David Shearman over at the ABC again talking the Garnaut initial report to plug his book/philosophy ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171204.htm
“I am co-author of the book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. Let us hope that Professor Garnaut says enough to lead us to reverse this failure.”
It is still not quite clear as to which perceived failure Dr Shearman rails against - the possibility of human influenced catastrophic climate change and/or democracy. But I think I know which one.
Or - as another example of this trend
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/21/7201/
We’ll Save the Planet Only if We’re Forced To
“As the climate that sustains human life unravels around us, we are long past the moment when we need real medicine - and the only one we have is hard government legislation.”
And don’t think this author hasn’t given though to the libertarian philosophy:
“the only people who cling to a libertarian defence of fossil fuels are people who take money from the fossil fuel industry itself”.
And the comments section leads to the inevitable demands for mandatory population controls to prevent - well - a population collapse in a non-mandated fashion.
See you libertarians on the ride to the re-education camps
Comment by Kevo of Sydney | February 25, 2008
Kevo, don’t you mean ‘Gene-therapy camps’? The latest fad in science is to postulate that political choices are genetic, so nonconformists are genetically challenged. So the poor dears will need to become the new welfare recipients of gene therapy. See you at the hospital!
Comment by nicholas gray | February 25, 2008
Thanks Nicholas
My reading of the increasing wave of political argument along the lines that:
Democracy is unable to deal with - and may in fact be a major contributory factor to - the Triple Whammy ( too many people, puting too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while there is insufficient carbon in the ground as potential fuel to sustain too many people - and around we go ) is uncomfortably reminiscent of Europe around 1933, where no small amount of intellectual support existed for ’strong leadership’ and a non-democratic system.
If the likes of Dr Shearman can start to espouse an argument that supporters of liberty, economic progress and confidence in human ingenuity to deal with the challenges ahead represent some sort of defective genetic pool - I don’t expect advocates to be accorded some sort of welfare status.
I fear that folk of such persuasion will be labelled genetically defective and dealt with summarily. I think the last time around this was called eugenics ?
Comment by Kevo of Sydney | February 25, 2008
I was surprised there was no post discussing the Business Council of Australia’s recent press comments about freezing government spending and criticising the Howard government.
Comment by Tim R | February 26, 2008
Well, I doubt if they meant it. It’s just good business to get on side with the Govmint, considering how much you don’t want them to think of you as an enemy.
Comment by nicholas gray | February 26, 2008
So the non smoking punters rejoiced when the smoking ban took the awful smoke out of our pubs. Never mind the fact that the publican as property owner should have the right to let whatever he wants go on in his pub go on in his pub.
Now the same people nanny state is going to take away the actual pubs (or are thinking of reducing their numbers).
http://news.theage.com.au/cuts-in-bar-numbers-worth-debating-rudd/20080227-1v7r.html
Who’s petard is this on which I am being hoisted? It can’t be mine surely!
Comment by Ben | February 28, 2008
BEN, have you ever voted in your life, and not informally? If you have, then you are guilty, guilty, guilty!!! This petard was made from our collective votes.
Comment by nicholas gray | February 28, 2008
That reminds me. I need to write to the state debt recovery office about that fine…
Comment by Ben | February 28, 2008
Front page on The Australian’s website at time of writing..
“KEVIN Rudd has pledged to keep a close eye on ABC Learning Centres to protect parents…..”
Bad luck for staff, shareholders, suppliers etc if the thing sinks ( whatever the merits of Mr Groves kiddy empire ). And interesting prioritisation of his time by the PM.
The main game seems to remain the wildly endangered Australian species “Working Families”.
My mother maintains this is a euphemism for ‘working class’, but it seems a lot less inclusive to me..what if you aren’t working, not married and/or don’t have kids - Kevin and Julia don’t want to know you or what ?
And they have a poll you can participate in - “should childcare centres be run for profit ?”. Do a have a click to see what folks in your local area think, but no prizes for guessing what the majority of participants want ( Freebies, freebies ).
The way this trend is going I would like to suggest a simpler poll would be “What do Working Families actually believe they SHOULD pay for themselves ?
a) widescreen plasma TVs
b) holidays
c) movie tickets
d) all of the above, or
e) none - The Gov’mnt should pay for everything - they’ve got piles of money and we are just Working Families”
Or I am getting unduly cynical ??
Comment by Kevo of Sydney | February 28, 2008
Kevo, my man, you can drown in cynicism! Give it up, learn to trust and obey, for there’s no better way, to get into this working-person’s paradise called Australia, than to trust and obey! Cynicism gives you wrinkles, and UNDUE cynicism gives you premature wrinkles!
Everyone knows that!
Comment by nicholas gray | February 28, 2008
I don’t know where to raise this subject, so here goes-
Over at Cato@Liberty, the blog site of the Cato Institute, they mention the playwright Tom Stoppard, who describes himself as a timid libertarian. One of the things he really objects to is that he recently had a party at his home in Britain, and because there was a pond on his grounds, he needed to hire two life-savers for the occasion! I know the ‘IPA Review’ had an article on the insurance costs of street parties here in Australia, but do we also have laws as bad as these? Perhaps you could have a regular column- The Red-Tape Index, pointing out the petty laws that keep on taking up space in all our lives.
Oh, the latest Review looks and reads great! If you can just find more occasions to put Actresses on the cover, you’ll be read more often!
Comment by nicholas gray | March 13, 2008
I was very pleased to see the Australian newspaper’s front page article questioning the need for the costly baby bonus.
And, Nicholas, I think that’s a good idea. Someone should do it for laughs as well as making the political statment about our nanny statism.
Comment by Tim R | March 14, 2008
However, Tim, you can bet that ‘our’ ABC WON’T do any such thing. Nor will the Chaser boys. In fact, now that we have Paradise here on Earth (Australia with Labor Governments all across our red landscape), I’ll bet they find nothing to satirise, though they might specialise in foreign follies, especially right-wing lunocracies.
Comment by nicholas gray | March 14, 2008
The ABC have a strong leftwing bias in my opinion, based on how they choose to prioritise their news stories.
Comment by Tim R | March 14, 2008
Oh, NO!!!!! Tim and me agree on something!!! HELP!!!!
Comment by nicholas gray | March 14, 2008
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/australia
A few stupid Aussie laws here. Some of them are really odd.
Comment by Riley | March 16, 2008
Brendan Nelson has just described finding a solution to climate change as the ‘most important political and moral challenge’. yes, he said ‘moral’.
what the f**k is the point of this moron. so, if you disagree with anthropogenic climate change, you are not just questioning the science, you are immoral. dickhead.
Comment by pommygranate | March 18, 2008
It would seem that Nelson has found himself an electoral strategy. Such a pity that it taylored for the last election not the next election.
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | March 18, 2008
i guess you’re right. it does seem to be working for Cameron’s Conservatives.
Comment by pommygranate | March 18, 2008
In other news, this guy over at Club Troppo thinks that Rudd is a “fiscal libertarian”.
Comment by Fleeced | March 19, 2008
“i guess you’re right. it does seem to be working for Cameron’s Conservatives.”
Is it though? They only started improving in the polls when they promised huge tax cuts didn’t they? (Haven’t been following that closely - but that’s what I’d heard). Plus they’ve got the “It’s time” factor.
I agree that calling it a moral challenge is idiotic. I don’t know that Turnbull is much better on this issue - can’t understand what so many libertarians see in the man.
Comment by Fleeced | March 19, 2008
A great article thanks to Yobbo http://yobbo.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/drugs-cheaper-than-beer-in-uk/ (Sam Ward). Read the comments too.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=120654&in_page_id=34
Comment by Mark Hill | March 19, 2008
fleeced - i think it’s a no choice option for politicians. if you adopt anything but a ‘climate change is all man’s fault and it’s our No. 1 priority’ approach, you’re dead at the polls.
Comment by pommygranate | March 19, 2008
I understand that bit pommy - but the whole morality nonsense is annoying.
Funnily enough, Howard played the skeptic pretty well initially… when he started changing his tune, nobody really believed him. I think he may have been better sticking to his guns.
Comment by Fleeced | March 19, 2008
What a great idea!
The motoring associations around Australia continually whinge that petrol prices are too high. So someone has suggested they open up their own chain of petrol stations.
Let them put their money where their mouths are.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=223409
Comment by E.D. | March 20, 2008
I’d love to see a post here on Ryan Frederick
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125538.html
It’s a case that ties into a lot of Libertarian themes: The futility of drug laws, the right to arms for self defence, property rights and authoritarian police behavior.
Oh and as an FYI here is another great reason article that is calling the DC gun ban case a (gay) civil rights case.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125584.html
Comment by Ben | March 20, 2008
Ben; Radley Balco at the Agitator is good on a lot of this stuff too.
One that I noticed recently was the following, but he also does a lot in the area of stuff ups with irregular police raids.
Officer Charged in Lima SWAT Shooting
Only with misdemeanors, but to be honest, I’m a little surprised.
I actually don’t know whether this is appropriate or overly lenient. The reason it’s hard to tell is that we’re closing in on three months now, and the Lima police still won’t say what happened to make the officers shoot an unarmed woman holding an infant.
Comment by Jim Fryar | March 20, 2008
Thanks Jim. I didn’t know about that one (or that site).
Comment by Ben Shurey | March 20, 2008
Libertywhinge visited me at RWL via your link. on looking the site over I have found it to be excellent and have linked with it. I think we should do the same.
Comment by Jim Fryar | March 22, 2008
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there the link is Libertywhinge
Comment by Jim Fryar | March 22, 2008
http://news.smh.com.au/govt-may-consider-raising-drinking-age/20080324-215z.html
Do these bastards sit around all day thinking: How can we f*ck with the Hoi Polloi today?
We’re hiking taxes on booze because you don’t know when to say no!
Comment by Ben | March 27, 2008
I’ve finally figured out what we all need. We believe the market is important, but we spend our time on a political blog. What we are looking for is a combination of a company and a cause! Perhaps we should start up a store where we would sell everything needed by an ardent individualist! We could go so far as to sell items to people who want to secede in life! We could call it Prosecessionals, because we would be the secession professionals. Our sign could be an ‘X’ over the world, and our motto could be ‘You Can Be Free’.
Imagine it. A libertarian wonders into our store, and finds books with a heavy anti-state theme. Further in, he finds home power generation kits, and solar heating systems, and arms and self-defence tools. He finds specialist offices, where he gets discrete advice about how to bend the law to get what he wants. And he could join up, and perhaps become a mercenary fighting in dictatorships in, say, Zimbabwe. This would be something like ‘The Weapons Shop’, but with a broader range of goods, and operating now!
Isn’t that what we are looking for? A cause to support? As well as live for?
Comment by nick gray | March 28, 2008
One of the biggest crises in Australia currently, is the water shortage. The Productivity Commission has recently published a report which hints that the current shortage is largely due to Govt mismanagement.
Nonetheless, the average Australian is unlikely to be convinced of the advice that water collection and distribution should be privatised. Actually, I’m not overly convinced myself, given the enormous costs involved, e.g. is it cost-effective to have duplicate water pipes criss-crossing capital cities? Lots of privately run dams and pipes? Desal plants?
As I said, I’m unconvinced. But I’m open to reasoned arguments.
Comment by E.D. | March 30, 2008
Word-press ain’t sending my comments on! Help! Is it all being stored for later? I’ve tried three times now to reply to ‘C’ in the ‘New Sins’ column!
Comment by nicholas gray | March 31, 2008
Nicholas - fixed for now. Not sure why but you got marked as spam.
Comment by TerjeP (say tay-a) | March 31, 2008
Thanks, TerjeP! (Is that a silent ‘P’?) You can name your next-born child after me!
Comment by nicholas gray | March 31, 2008
E.D - what do you mean “enormous costs”, which rationalise decision making whilst people piss water away because they don’t have to pay for it?
Which makes us worse off? Paying market values against all othewr alternatives for inputs or not having to pay them at all?
Comment by Mark Hill | March 31, 2008
Something on a similar topic- the ‘Australian’ has an article by Glen Milne today, where all is revealed about how they’re saving the rivers! Apparently, the $1billion which Victoria got was not added, but just a re-arrangement of the promised finances- others got slightly less, in other words. The whole thing was just delayed so that Howard would not have a water win, but now Rudd can claim to have done one better!
This should be linked to Flash-Heart’s stupid pro-government stance on water ownership. For 14 months, the states have done nothing, purely for party political reasons! No business could afford such sloth. If someone does know Flash-Heart’s address, perhaps you could make sure that he is force-fed the information.
Comment by nicholas gray | March 31, 2008
It did it again,TerjeP! I put in a comment about water politics, and it’s disappeared somewhere!
Comment by nicholas gray | March 31, 2008
Here are some of defences of the status quo (public sector monopoly) I have heard.
1) The water shortage is caused by the drought (and/or global warming) so moving to a free market is not going to make it rain.
2) Water is essential to life and shouldn’t be treated the same as other economic goods.
3) While the Government may not be totally competent in supplying water, the private sector would be worse, they would simply jack up prices to increase profits, and never mind the consumer.
4) Further, the Government would not do that because of political pressures.
5) Water provision is a natural monopoly (you can’t run multiple sewage and water pipes to every home or business).
6) In virtually every case, privatisations in other countries have proven to be disasters.
7) If private companies were allowed to operate, they must be constrained by very strict regulations.
9) Putting prices is unfair for those on low incomes.
Thoughts?
Comment by E.D. | April 1, 2008
How did that smiley get there??? It was meant to be point number eight.
Comment by E.D. | April 1, 2008
How did that smiley get there??
That was meant to be point number eight.
Comment by E.D. | April 1, 2008
Hi E.D.
I’ll have a crack.
1) Have a look at this for a great answer: http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/governments-water-shortage/
2) So is food yet all attempts to make food a “right” have led to shortages and death.
3) This idea comes from a lack of understanding basic economics. A company cannot simply jack up a price. They sell you a product at the best price possible but if there were to sell you water at a ridiculously high cost they you wouldn’t buy it. See the food example again. This is especially true with water as it’s something we can all easily obtain by just buying a water tank.
4) This is mooted by the above answer. The problem with the government running anything is they have no incentive to become more efficient in order to lower their costs and pass the savings onto you (in order to be more competitive).
5) You probably could run multiple pipelines etc but that’s not the point. You are referring to the medium for water, not the water itself. If a company decided to jack up the price of water to leverage a monopoly I could simply decide to buy my water in less convenient yet cheaper ways. Wherever there is someone overcharging there is someone else keen to get in and make a profit from this gap in the market. This in turn would drive down prices from the pipe owners as they would have overestimated consumer need for their product.
6) What rot. I would assume they are referring to the bechtel deal in Bolivia. The villain in that case was surely President Banzer. He signed his countrymen and women up to a ridiculous deal whereby most people could not afford the prices offered for water. Or they would have to choose between eating of having drinking water.
The people reacted as in the answer to the last question IE: they started collecting rainwater. Bechtel complained and Banzer made it illegal to collect rainwater. In a free market you cannot force people to not collect rainwater on their own property! You need a government to do that.
7) I disagree but I’d have to see the examples given before I could talk about them.
ocho) That’s very true. If the water falls on your property it’s all yours. What you are paying for is the work that goes into it. Purification, testing, laying of the pipes to deliver the water etc etc. You are still paying for this when the government supplies it but it’s just forced on you rather than paying for what you want.
9) This one shows a lack of understanding of what happens when you don’t put a price on things IE shortages. I would strongly recommend reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It explains these principles in great clarity. It’s a great book for the economics novice (like me).
Comment by Ben | April 1, 2008
Ben - very neat.
but not sure about 5). most of the privatised utilites (gas, elec and water) have one transmission system that is also privately run but functions as a monopoly provider under severe regulatory restriction. it seems to work ok though. collecting rainwater isn’t really practical for most people (av daily useage for a family is 750 litres) and this isnt England
Comment by pommygranate | April 1, 2008
Ben,
Nice answers, and thanks for the link above, I hadn’t seen it.
Comment by E.D. | April 2, 2008
Did anybody else see Insight the other night?
They had some Greens guy from NSW telling everybody that the government should be forcing people to buy Hybrid cars. And then there was a person from the motor vehicle industry calling for more regulation of the motor industry.
A great day for freedom, I think not!
Comment by Perry Ferguson | April 3, 2008
Rainwater is not the only way to fill a tank. A truck with a big tank on the back can also do so. (And plenty of people in Australia have been supplying their water in this fashion over the last few years, so it’s not theoretical.) So that puts a lid on what your water pipe monopolist can charge - the cost of a tank plus the cost of water delivery from outside the monopoly area.
Also I don’t think people HAVE to use 750 litres a day. Part of the point of any water privatisation would be the price going up to reduce useage (if there is a shortage). If water is expensive enough you won’t water your lawn, take 15 minute showers and so forth. Again, plenty of people living on water tanks using lots less then 750 litres a day.
Also we have an active functioning private water market in Australia, between irrigators. Property rights are tradeable, people with higher value useages buy it from those with less. So water can be traded.
Laying pipes isn’t really all that expensive either, if there are clear property access rights, so duplicate networks could arise, particularly if lots of people in a suburb weren’t happy with their water prices. Particularly if they did it in conjunction with others laying new phone and power cables, gas lines etc. That is a long term solution, but again it puts a roof on what a monopolist can charge.
Finally, there is an endless amount of water on the planet. So the only real issue is at what price (how badly) you want it.
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 3, 2008
WordPress is SLOW!!! It’s taking hours to clear my comments! Perhaps Terje could have a quiet word with the manager?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 3, 2008
Too right Tim. I’d also add that a heavily regulated system for supposedly “natural” monopolies stifles innovation. Case in point would be Telstra and the Aussie interweb backbone.
Comment by Ben | April 3, 2008
Anyone know how much it costs to truck water?
Piped water is around $1 a kilolitre(?) I’m not sure how many litres a tanker can hold, but I doubt this would be economically viable at that price.
Comment by E.D. | April 3, 2008
Yeah, you’re looking at around 200 times that price, depending on how far they have to haul it, of course.
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 3, 2008
Tho presumably you’d have your tank hooked up to catch rain as well, so the tanker would only be the fallback when the tank water ran out…
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 3, 2008
Is that market price?
Comment by Ben | April 3, 2008
Tanks are just an example of why a monopoly would not be able to gouge more than a fair market price out of us.
If tanks aren’t to your liking you could always wait a couple of years and get one of these bad boys!
http://www.airwatercorp.com/detail.aspx?ProductId=90
Comment by Ben | April 3, 2008
No scratch that, I googled it and got prices around $150 for 15000 litres - or $10 a kilolitre. So still more expensive then the pipe by an order of magnitude, but it puts an upper limit on what your monopoliser can charge.
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 3, 2008
Yeh but it’s cool!
Comment by Ben | April 4, 2008
Keep the pipes publicly owned and privatise the dams. Define a quality benchmark for water and open up access to the system to any private supplier that meet the benchmark on quality. Let innovation reign. Or is that rain?
Comment by TerjeP (say tay-a) | April 4, 2008
Why keep the pipes publicly owned? Would you nationalise a new company that came along and built a new network?
Comment by Mark Hill | April 4, 2008
The pipes are the only aspect that is monopoly like. It hinders debate and progress to worry excessively about privatising them. Where we need the most innovation and competition is in water supply, not water delivery.
Comment by TerjeP (say tay-a) | April 4, 2008
Does anyone know what is happening with WordPress? It seems to accept my comments, and then they take hours to get through! Is this one of them Daylight-saving switch-over troubles, or do I have the same name as a terrorist?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 4, 2008
While I agree with Terje that it is the simplest solution, it still stifles innovation and efficiency in the delivery, and limits us to a single quality of water - everything has to be to drinking standards. But then I don’t really see half a dozen competing pipe networks emerging. Maybe in new housing developments they could lay several networks…
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 4, 2008
How come nobody here is talking about schools fingerprinting schoolkids? Preparing them for the total state, are they?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 4, 2008
Nicholas - you must have the same name as the king of spamming because the wordpress software dumps your comments in the spam trap along with all the pill ads and porno. Maybe it is your IP address. Does it happen if you blog from a friends house?
Comment by TerjeP (say tay-a) | April 4, 2008
The IP address I was using was from work. I am a minion of the State lands Office. What could be wrong with that address?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 6, 2008
#170 had no trouble getting through! I’m working from home! Even though I’ve switched from Bigpond to ATU, I have no teouble from home! I’ll try again from work tomorrow, and see!
Comment by nicholas gray | April 6, 2008
My comments aren’t taking as long to get through, so thanks to all who helped!
So how do we feel about fingerprinting schoolkids? Good or bad?
And did anyone else read about how Rudd was snowed under in England? Where’s the global warming now?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 7, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/solarium-ban-for-fair-skin/2008/04/09/1207420485900.html
What???? Is this a late April fools?
Comment by Ben | April 10, 2008
Name two people who died from tanning salons.
Comment by Mark Hill | April 10, 2008
Mark, I’m not even sure that one girl did actually die primarily due to her tanning. I think it may well have been a minor cause. ie: She may have got skin cancer at an early age anyway due to other possibly genetic factors, although I’m fairly ignorant of her personal details.
But of course it’s irrelevant, even if tanning beds are dangerous it’s wrong to regulate the industry in this way.
Comment by Tim R | April 11, 2008
Laws based on skin colour… Where’s that racism commisioner?
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 11, 2008
Holy smokes! I actually want to go into a solarium and ask to use a bed…sorry mate, no whites allowed…
Comment by Seb | April 13, 2008
“Proposed laws to allow companies to snoop on their workers’ emails are needed to protect vital electronic infrastructure from terrorist attacks, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gillard-defends-email-intercept/2008/04/14/1208025037405.html
Uh huh -
So vital electronic infrastructure - defined as what and by whom ? - will be guarded against local e-attack by perusing the emails of the worker bees ??
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, is Deputy Leader Julia really anticipating a smoking gun moment like this ?:
“Hi Sam Obam, Hicksie here. Just wanted to drop you a line to let you know my new email address here at the Dept of Really Important Stuff. BTW - what was that colour coding we discussed last time - red-geen-blue or blue-green-red, you know how these little details can slip the mind ? Rgds Your Pal Davo. Ooops - gotta go, Minister Julia is apprently coming by for a lunch hour team talk”.
In all seriousity - the previous federal government was damned regularly for wedge politics, spin and fearmongering as part of a supposed rightwing control conspiracy in banging on about real terrorist threats - you know, people with bombs wanting to blow things up !
And nobody is concerned that Team Julia is granting powers to scan emails at wherever because they think cyber terrorists are going to be dopey enough to use their work email to plot their conspiracies !?
Comment by Kevo of Sydney | April 14, 2008
Ok, ‘Kevo’, I just got this past ASIO. We blow up the Tax Office tomorrow night! Everyone else ready? Mr. Laden has got our supplies in from The Base, hint, hint. The Revolution starts NOW.
Remember- K-ill E-very V-illainous O-fficer!
Comment by nicholas gray | April 17, 2008
Bin Brother is watching.
A company in Australia has developed a way of monitoring your bin’s weights.
My worry is that governments might start abusing this and use it to police recylcing thereby increasing bureacracy and furthering the nanny state.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216333.htm
Comment by Tim R | April 17, 2008
And Kevo, re: #178, you are totally right.
The Labour party is incredibly popular at the moment even though they are doing things that if the Liberal party had done, would have been condemned and hated.
Comment by Tim R | April 17, 2008
I’m not worried. Council’s couldn’t organize a p*ss up in a brewery.
The waste that comes with bundling cleaning services with council rates is a pet peeve of mine. Savvy environmentalists should be pushing for privatized waste disposal because pushing the costs of waste disposal back onto the consumer means they have more incentive to use less wasteful products, re-use and recycle more.
They typically won’t see this as most of em are Watermelons
Comment by Ben | April 17, 2008
Meanwhile in Russia: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/russian-newspaper-shuts-after-putin-affair-story/2008/04/21/1208742828509.html
Comment by Ben | April 21, 2008
Here’s something of interest. Page 14 of today’s ‘Australian’ has an article by an astrophysicist who fears that the current lack of sunspots means we’re in for a Cold year! He seems to feel that Global Warming would be good, if it were happening, as it would counter-act the trend towards an Ice Age!
If you haven’t got an Australian, I urge you to buy it just for that item alone! (Though there are other good stories as well!)
Comment by nicholas gray | April 23, 2008
I believe this is the article Nicholas is talking about:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23584524-11949,00.html
Comment by Mark Hill | April 23, 2008
The actual newspaper article gives the whole speech, which makes it more convincing, but that is the guy, the first Australian to become a NASA Astronaut.
Comment by nicholas gray | April 23, 2008
nicholas - do you have an email address you could send me? i have tried your work one but it doesn’t seem to work. you can send it to me at pommygranate7@yahoo.com.au. if you wd prefer. thanks
Comment by pommygranate | April 23, 2008
I have a private address at nicholasgray@isp.net.com but my computer seems not to work in cold weather. Still, it might get through! You just gotta have blind faith!
Comment by nicholas gray | April 23, 2008
This joke just popped into my head on Monday, so it must be fated to be told.
Q. What do you call a Movie Producer?
A. You don’t! If you’re lucky, he’ll call you!
Comment by nicholas gray | April 23, 2008
Found this interesting.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1
Clinton on an Iran Attack: ‘Obliterate Them’
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Comment by Tim R | April 23, 2008
I suspect that Clinton hasn’t had enough sleep lately and she got handed a loaded question. Having said that I still think she is one scary individual.
Comment by TerjeP | April 24, 2008
Mrs Clinton says we will obliterate you,
I don’t subscribe to that point of view…
Comment by Tim Quilty | April 24, 2008
The actual Clinton statement seems to be in reference to Iran carrying out the threat of attacking Israel with Atomic bombs. But doesn’t Israel have its’ own bombs? Is the pro-Israeli lobby so strong that candidates need to constantly make ‘I love Yids’ statements? Hamas and others are so committed to Israel’s destruction that having America’s backing does Israel some good, even if they have to put up with ex-presidential peace plans (Sure, go back to the 1967 borders, you can trust us, we won’t bomb you, honest, cross our hearts and hope to die if we break our word!)
On a more cheerful note, your next Biblical quote for the front page could be Acts 5, verse 4- ‘Before you sold it, the property was yours, and after you sold it, the money was yours to use as you pleased-’. that’s Peter talking, as the head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. The part after the cut-off is him upbraiding a man for lying about the amount, but I think the first part is as neat an expression of Libertarian philosophy as we’ll find.
Comment by nicholas gray | April 24, 2008
Nicholas, isn’t that the bit where people were selling their property to join the collective commune? I guess that’s OK in a libertarian society - as long as people aren’t coerced into it they can do as they please - but still…
The “upbraiding” was because the man lied about how much money he had, and didn’t pool the whole amount - he was holding some back for himself. Being voluntary to join, I guess you could say it was a breach of contract - but after being rebuked, the man “fell down and died”. That’s quite some upbraiding! Here’s what happened afterwards (verses 5-10):
Man - that’s cold…
Comment by Fleeced | April 24, 2008
Some people chose to join the commune, but Peter objected to the lies, not the ownership of property, or the use of money! Let’s concentrate on the positives, shall we.
After all, at this time, Peter is regarded as the head of the community, so his comments are a licence for all people to use their money as they see fit, so long as you don’t try to lie to God about it!
Comment by nicholas gray | April 24, 2008
Snipes gets three years jail for failing to lodge his tax returns:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/snipes-jailed-for-three-years-for-tax-evasion/2008/04/25/1208743197078.html
Comment by Fleeced | April 25, 2008
You know, Snipes might have got lucky! The Weekend Australian had a report that life was getting too good in prisons, so they weren’t trying to escape! Illegal drugs of all kinds can be had ‘inside’, and prisons aren’t as bad as they once were!
Maybe American prisons are similar?
Comment by nicholas gray | April 28, 2008
For those interested in an update on North Korea, (aka “the land of abundant fruit” if you believe the propaganda videos).
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/korea/articles/20080425.aspx
An excerpt: “crime has become so rampant that police have been allowed to summarily execute criminals. The jails and prison camps are full, and too many guards are ready to take bribes”
Comment by Tim R | April 28, 2008
I strongly suggest that a link to this blog should be setup on LPD website. People can find more interesting and become more involved here.
Comment by Matthew | April 30, 2008
I am just wondering if anyone knows what will happen after the Membership application is sent out to LPD? Do I receive a confirmation letter? Cheers.
Comment by Matthew | April 30, 2008
Usually they give you an email or letter? You could ask Peter Whelan or David Leyonhjelm via email too I suppose.
I think a well moderated blog like the Adam Smith Institute’s would be alright. But it needs to balance the image of “professionalism” with actually reaching out to people. This could be difficult.
Comment by Mark Hill | April 30, 2008