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 general principal is that it’s not sustainable that we continue to give criminals and corrupt police a monopoly to sell cannabis. I don’t want to see that [industry] fall into the hands of tobacco companies or rapacious businessmen. I’d like to see it fall into the hands of the failed business people Australia seems so good at producing or the Australia Post that seems so successful in driving away customers.”

Great quote from the director of the alcohol and drug service at St Vincent’s Hospital, Alex Wodak.

Miranda Devine and Harry Clarke are not impressed. Whilst Andrew Bolt hasn’t commented specifically on Wodak’s postal plan, he never makes any secret of his strong feelings against decriminalising drug-using. Which is odd for a man who last week wrote this insightful little piece about the pernicious effects of Rudd’s state bossy-boots ordering us around like naughty schoolchildren (Nanny’s a ninny).

It’s also odd that Miranda Devine couldn’t care less about the 1 in 5 sixteen year-olds who admit to binge drinking every week but is terrified that 1 in 7 high school students have used cannabis ‘at some time in the past 12 months’!  When was the last time you saw a spliffed up dope-head violently assaulting a innocent passer-by?

Harry’s a nanny-stater through and through but MIranda and Bolty aren’t.  Guys - where’s the consistency in your arguments?

So as a reminder, here’s the anti-nanny state, pro-choice, treat-an-adult-like-an-adult argument.  

Binge drinking, smoking Marlboro 20-a-day, never exercising, eating junk food all day and regularly smoking joints are all dumb things to do. Really dumb. The government’s job is to educate us as to just how dumb this is. It can incentivise us to give up these dumb habits by taxing them. It can run adverts on TV with actors dressed up as ghouls warning us of the horrors of the mid-morning ciggie break. However, their job is not to ban stuff or order us around. That’s what they do in Cuba.

Smoking the odd joint is not going to kill you. But that’s not the point. By legalising drugs you ensure quality control (the biggest threat to a sensible, adult drug user), you collect a small fortune in taxes which you can recycle back into education and treatment clinics, you release half the (non-violent) prison population, you free up 80% of police time to pursue violent criminals, you put organised crime out of business and you stop infantilising adults. What’s not to like.

By the way - check out the comments section from Harry’s article.  They rip him to shreds as a jurassic old fogey.

Update I - Mark points to this Cato article which reveals the costs of policing the drugs war to be 16 times the benefits.

Sukrit makes the excellent point that if we can’t even keep drugs out of securely guarded prisons, what hope do the streets have?

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

Enjoy.

Whenever rent control laws have been enforced in Australia, there have been long queues for those seeking housing. As the government artificially creates low rents below market equilibrium, this induces increased demand. Yet supply does not expand to meet the rising demand because of the low government mandated rents. The result is a shortage of housing. As Thomas Sowell observes in his book Basic Economics, “Nine years after the end of World War II, not a single new building had been built in Melbourne…because of rent control laws there which made buildings unprofitable” (p. 26).

Given that most economists — whatever their ideological disposition — agree that price controls are a bad thing, I was surprised to learn that rent control still exists in Victoria under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1958. To find out how extensive the rent control program is, someone will need to go through the regulations passed under the Act, a time-consuming and tedious process. Research for someone else to do!

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

ii) Corporation Tax to be lowered to 10%

iii) Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax to be abolished

iv) Aim to reduce government borrowing to zero 

v) Abolish the minimum wage

vi) Introduction of Swedish-style vouchers allowing parents to choose their children’s schools

vii) Strengthen the Armed Forces

viii) Adoption of bilateral agreements with individual countries to manage immigration. Impose restrictions on immigration until the welfare state is reduced in size.

ix) Speed up the planning process to allow more houses to be built.

x) Introduce election of local Police chiefs

xi) All new legislation to have a sunset clause

xii) Legalisation of drugs and prostitution

xiii) Repeal the 28 day detention orders

xiv) Build more prisons and toughen prison sentences for violent offenders

xv) Repeal the Firearms Act to allow the use of hand-guns

xvi) Repeal the Human Rights Act

Good luck to them. Expect to be torched by the social democrat media. 

Senior nephrologist, Dr. Gavin Carney, wants the law changed so that young Australians can sell one of their kidneys to the government for $50,000. 

Trading in organs is illegal in Australia carrying a penalty of six months in jail. Last year just 343 kidneys were donated despite over 1800 people on a waiting list. Dr. Carney is exasperated at the low organ donation rate in Australia - apparently one of the lowest in the developed world at just 9.4 donors per million people. 

“People just don’t seem willing to give their organs away for free.” said a frustrated Dr. Carney. 

The chairman of the Renal Transplant Advisory Committee, Scott Campbell, disagrees with Dr. Carney, saying, 

“There’s little doubt that you’ll get more kidneys if you offer money but it will only bring out people who are willing to gamble on adverse health outcomes in exchange for $50,000 because they are in desperate need, such as those in mortgage stress or drug addicts.  Money alters perspectives on honesty and you’ll get people who do not tell the truth because they risk losing the cash.”

He is right. 

Britain has the same problem. Last year the government caused outrage amongst large sections of the population by attempting to change the donation of organs to become the default option rather than a conscious choice. (ie if you don’t want to donate your organs, you have to specify so).

Neither option seems workable to me (one for practical reasons and one for moral reasons). So how do you encourage people to donate?

Update I - apparently 30% of SMH readers would flog their kidneys for $50 grand.

by Andrew Russell

One of the more twisted maladays that the concept of “Fusionism” has inflicted upon us pro-market advocates is an attitude towards markets I like to call “Punishment Capitalism” (not inherently related to the similar sounding “Sado-Monetarism”). The concept of Fusionism, by which advocates of liberty could justify noncoercion as a means to Conservative ends, was first proposed by Frank Meyer; editor of the intellectually toxic “National Review” magazine. Previously, I have discussed the problems of Fusionism, for example how it forces libertarians to justify freedom as a means (implying that freedom is not a worthy goal in and of itself), and also how it was the libertarians who provided all the intellectual ammunition and cultural assets (i.e. Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter and Friedman re-conquering academic economics for markets, Rand and Heinlein who injected the ideas of liberty into popular discourse) yet it was the conservatives that grabbed all the political power. Regardless, the ever-widening faultlines between conservatism and libertarianism are rendering Meyerian Fusionism obsolete. This article will look not at Fusionism itself, but at the attitude of Punishment Capitalism, which the Fusionists frequently carry and have spread.

Fusionism grants us an uneasy tension between the antiauthoritarianism of libertarianism and the authoritarianism of conservatism. Fusionism’s economic attitude of Punishment Capitalism is the perfect example of this tension. Since the Fusionist evaluates on the basis of conservative standards of value, the Fusionist cannot see value in a nonauthoritarian portrayal of Capitalism. As such, the Fusionist must justify Capitalism as an instrument of control and punishment. Under Punishment Capitalism, people make money by “working hard” as opposed to “working creatively.” Under Punishment Capitalism, people work out of “duty to their loved ones” rather than “rational selfishness.” Under Punishment Capitalism, entrepreneurs are portrayed as “Christlike martyrs slaving away in the office” rather than adventurous, creative Richrd Bransons who probably adore their career. Under Punishment Capitalism, to truly enjoy one’s job instantly raises suspicion that it is not “real work,” rather than to see a truly rewarding career as a great thing. To the Punishment Capitalist, the market is a Drill Sergeant ordering producers to strain in blistering heat to produce a product with a very low price. During my following critique, please keep in mind that my favorite scene in Full Metal Jacket is when R. Lee Ermey’s character gets shot. The prick deserved it.

Economic activities tend to be categorizable as either production or consumption. Innovation may be seen as production of ideas. Regardless, the attitudes in each category that Punishment Capitalism has are as follows:

Production is seen as not a means to an end, but like a Kantian perfect duty. One must have some form of constant labor. In addition, this labor cannot be a joyous process to the individual, for that would mean it is ‘play’ rather than work. The entrepreneur is as such someone that suffers, as are all workers. The pain of production is strongly emphasized, work is ‘hard’ and the harder the work, the ‘better’ the product. In the sphere of consumption, however, it is declared that consumption is ignoble, after all consumption grants pleasure. Entrepreneurs that enjoy the rewards of their labor are derided as “playboys.” Inherited wealth is seen not as good fortune, but as the product of some sort of moral theft, and the heir instantly has some additional burden of proof of character thrust upon him.

It is no surprise that this attitude is a descendant of the Protestant Work Ethic. The Calvinist belief that constant labor is a sign of personal salvation makes all those nervous “have I really been saved?” Calvinists labor. Although I disagree with Max Weber’s belief that Calvin is responsible for Capitalism, it is unquestionable that the Calvinist work ethic is responsible for Punishment Capitalism. The Calvinist ethic is based, eventually, on the assumption (prevalent in almost every sort of Christianity) that sufferring is good for the soul. This idea is the Platonic hangover induced by the mind-body dichotomy which reveres the transcendent and damns the physical. As such, to the Punishment Capitalist, production is noble as a form of punishing, disciplining and chaining the physical, as some sort of penance for Original Sin maybe.

The political implications of Punishment Capitalism are as follows. To the Punishment Capitalist, although they will strongly support Capitalism is certain respects, they will have at least some sympathy with many forms of regulation. For one, industries that deal more closely with pleasures (be they the sex, drugs (illegal), entertainment or gambling) will always be regarded as shady, and as such may be regulated. Luxury taxes will also have some sympathy, since luxuries are regarded as hedonistic and excessive and sinful. Sin taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, etc) will also recieve at best mild opposition from Punishment Capitalists. What will be opposed, with religious zeal, is any form of social safety net. Although opposing safety nets is not unique to Punishment Capitalism, the key feature is why this opposition exists. Most libertarians disagree with safety nets, not because they aim to help the poor, but because they are funded by coercive taxation. A Punishment Capitalist, however, sees the evil of welfare not in the source of funding but in the act of welfare itself: it consists of funding an intrinsic moral depravity (laziness). In the debate over taxation, Punishment Capitalists will argue for consumption taxes over income taxes, rather than see all taxes as equally theft.

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand was not completely free of the spectre of Punishment Capitalism (although she was not necessarily a proponent). I give you the example of Hank Rearden’s hatred of Francisco d’Anconia in “Atlas Shrugged.” d’Anconia was hated for being a “worthless playboy” and a “destroyer of wealth” (as if piles of gold have an inherent value? Sounds much too Aristotelian-Intrinsicist for Ayn Rand). Although there is some evidence that Rand herself disapproved of anti-consumption positions, for example when Ragnar tells Rearden to spend a refunded gold ingot exclusively on his personal consumption, it is very easy to read Rand as supporting a Neo-Puritan belief that production via back-breaking effort is intrinsically moral (regardless of the fact that this attitude would contradict Rand’s technical philosophy on numerous levels).

Regardless, Rand critiqued how conservatives argued for Capitalism on the basis of human depravity. She described the argument as saying man is not good enough to be enslaved, and he must be punished with freedom. Extending Rand’s argument, to the Punishment Capitalist, there is no better punishment then being cast out of the Garden (or Welfare State) of Eden and forced to suffer and labor and sweat for our meager rations. To the Punishment Capitalist, constant and unending labor as an end in itself is the most effective set of chains ever devised and the perfect way to force men to virtue.

No wonder the conservatives are such pathetic defenders of Capitalism. In addition to the aforementioned sympathies for certain forms of political intervention that Punishment Capitalism gives, the ethical implications of Punishment Capitalism totally go against the teleological nature of human action as explained by the Austrian economists. Human beings produce because they need to consume. To induce guilt over consumption is to render production purposeless. They are, paradoxically, attempting to bake their cake and not eat it, too. They want factories and skyscrapers and workshops without Las Vegas and Louis-Vuitton-Moet-Hennessey. Eventually, in trying to make the production of wealth a sacrifice, they only succeed in encouraging public decadence and worldliness by producing the stuff in the first place.

Given the vehemence of my critique, one may legitimately suspect that I, the author, am overstating my case. Whilst I understand why someone would come to this conclusion, I am not overstating my case, and I offer as evidence a quote from the conservative Roman Catholic commentator Dinesh D’Souza (known popularly for ‘debating’ Christopher Hitchens by accusing him of alcoholism whilst repeatedly invoking the Dostoyevsky Gambit (”If God is Dead, Everything is Permitted”) in spite of Hitchens’ repeatedly showing that said gambit is false). D’Souza, in his book “The Virtue of Prosperity,” attempts to morally justify capitalism on traditional, religious moral grounds. His ultimate conclusion is that Capitalism is good because Capitalism “makes us better people by limiting the scope of our vices” and “civilizes greed, just as marriage civilizes lust” [p. 126]. In other words, the goodness of Capitalism is that it restrains us from our vices, being chained to a desk prevents us from being able to indulge our greed. Capitalism is, to D’Souza, a punishment mechanism that essentially forms an economic chastity belt around humanity, and it is this that makes Capitalism an engine of taming the beasts that, to D’Souza, we are.

Thankfully, there is an alternative. This alternative is an understanding of Capitalism as a life-affirming, benevolent system. Philosophically, this alternative requires rejecting the anti-flesh attitudes of the Protestant Work Ethic, which are the basis for the mind-body dichotomy that grounds the anti-consumption attitudes of Punishment Capitalism. This alternative of Benevolent Capitalism is worldly (and hence compatible with either nonspiritual or Immanent/Aristotelian forms of spirituality but not Platonic/Transcendent forms of spirituality) and teleological. Production is simply a means to consumption (which is in itself a method of satisfying our needs) and as such is instrumentally but not intrinsically good. Producers act for their own joy and are justified in doing so. Above all; sufferring and control are not to be considered spiritually superior states or proper for man. Those whose job is joy for them are to be celebrated and praised. Those who inherit wealth are to be treated as everybody else. Ultimately, the core of Capitalism is not one of “work harder than everyone else” but one of “live for your joy.” It needs to be promoted as such.

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). The article is as follows: -

A new organization calling itself the International Coalition Against Prohibition will be officially launched in The Netherlands at the weekend.

The ICAP is opposed to any and all forms of government interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. Representatives from 11 countries - the United States, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, France and The Netherlands - will gather in The Netherlands to ratify the articles of association of their coalition.

ICAP believes governments are meddling too much in their citizens’ lives, for instance by introducing smoking bans. 



The International Coalition Against Prohibition says it’s time for a powerful international countermovement, which will defend citizens’ rights to determine their own lives.

From Sad Ireland.

We are hoping to have a number of European organizations present from the hospitality, entertainment and other industries and maybe one or two transatlantic link ups by TV and phone. We intend to send a very clear message to our politicians that we are becoming fed up with the smoking bans and the damage they are causing to many people’s lives and livelihoods.

Coupled with coming alcohol prohibition and the damage that that will also cause this should be a very animated summit. Lastly, add to that the formulation of an international coalition and we should put in place an organization which is going to become very strong and powerful indeed!

Another site I came across in researching this was “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition”, who campaign strongly against the war on drugs, as can be seen in the following clip, which at 13 minutes is long but if you have the time will offer some interesting insights.

The following comes from a recent post by them.

Prohibition gives the criminal all the control: he sets the standard, establishes the rules and reaps the rewards. A wealthy drug lord who makes a show of public generosity gains more respect from the common man than the police officer trying to shut the operation down, no matter how despicable the criminal may be.

Capone and Escobar (a drug baron) gained unimaginable wealth and power because of prohibition, not in spite of it. Without a ban on alcohol or drugs, they would never have had the opportunity to take control.

Ending prohibition and beginning a system of regulation and taxation takes away the criminal’s power. He no longer makes the rules. As the regulation and taxation of alcohol ended bootlegging, so will the end of drug prohibition end the illegal drug trade.

Today, drugs are illegal, they are out of control, and they are everywhere. If they were managed in the way that alcohol is now managed, they would be under control. Instead of criminals getting richer, violence escalating, and drug-related deaths on the rise, we would live under a system of established pricing, peaceful purchase, and a regulated labeling system that would clearly list important information such as purity and dosage.

Would there still be cases of overdose and addiction? Yes. But those are problems now, and a system of regulation would only decrease those instances. Prohibition is a false sense of control for the government. As Capone was in control during the prohibition of alcohol and Escobar was in control of the illegal drug trade in his time, so are the dealers in control under prohibition today.

 Last Sunday, i took my eight year-old son and father-in-law for an evening fishing trip on Sydney’s Middle Harbour. As we motored past a good spot for bream and flathead near Castle Rock beach, my father-in-law suddenly yelled to me to turn sharp right. Two guys were fishing no more than 20 yards in front of us sat in a little tinny anchored up in a main shipping channel. There were no lights on the boat, the only illumination coming from a hand-held torch inside the boat. Without the moon, Sydney Harbour is pitch black. It was a very near miss.

Early yesterday morning, a bunch of partying youngsters were not so lucky. Their boat was hit by a fishing trawler near Bradley’s Head and six of those on board died. It was a tragic accident. Our prayers are with the relatives of those who lost their children. I cannot imagine how they must be feeling today.

But a ‘tragic accident’ is not good enough for our salacious media.  They need an angle and that means finding someone or something to blame. The local papers repeatedly quote a local fisherman, Andrew Ogle, who claims that he was ‘deeply concerned” about overcowding and too much alcohol and predicted that ‘there goes tomorrow’s front page story’.  Already our sympathies are checked - alcohol?   overcrowding?  stolen boat? too fast? (‘the boat roared off engines screaming’).  Bloody hoons.

But let’s save our damning commentary until the inquest is held. Let’s leave open the possibility that this might just have been a tragic accident where no-one is to blame. And please, for the love of God, let’s not introduce yet more regulations for those wishing to use Sydney’s beautiful waterways.

NSW secretary of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, Andrew Williamson is clear that more regulation is needed. He won’t wait for the findings of the inquest to be aired. He knows who is to blame. “It is an indictment of NSW Maritime that we have had 10 deaths [on the harbour] in two years on their watch. If we want to stop people killing themselves on the harbour, reform is what has got to happen.”

Mr. Williamson - you are a fucking idiot and a fucking disgrace.

Update I - the inevitable cry of ’something must be done’ just got louder.  

It certainly is very easy to obtain a boat license in NSW. Applicants have to take a written test but unlike a car, no practical test is required.  But this is a red herring. Boating deaths are not caused by new drivers failing to remember 100 pages of theory or being unable to reverse into a tight mooring space. They are caused by carelessness, drunkenness, stupidity and bad luck - none of which can be reduced by more regulation. 

Victorian schools are being encouraged to begin assemblies with a ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony acknowledging the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land.

Victorian Principals Association President, Fred Ackerman, heartily encouraged the trend describing it as ‘good practice, and appropriate’. 

To illustrate the offensivenss of this ‘appropriate good practice’, let’s take an example from my home country.  Imagine if schools in England began their assemblies by reminding England’s growing population of Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Slavs and Africans to ‘respectfully acknowledge the [Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Normans and Celts] who are the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we stand.’ 

Fair enough?  No, of course not. It would be rightly slammed as offensive, divisive and appallingly racist.  One of the great features of citizenship in England and in Australia (i thought) is that all are equal in the eyes of the law. This new direction would mean judging people by the colour of their skin rather than their personality; it would mean valuing them on the basis of their ancestors not themselves. It would be racism and it would be wrong.

So why is it ok in Australia?

In July, i am due to take my Citizenship Test, having been a permanent resident in this fine country for two years. Am i right in thinking that i will be a second class citizen in Australia because i am not ‘indigenous’?

Andrew Bolt has more.

Update I - my sincerest apologies for using the word ‘indigenous‘. I hadn’t realised that it is no longer politically acceptable to use it. I wasn’t aware that it ‘robbed the traditional owners of Australia of an identity’. Won’t happen again.

Update II - thanks to Andrew Bolt for the link to this post.  Check out the comments section for an ancient English history lesson!