Ayn Rand’s Thought: Living and Dead
For those interested in Randian scholarship, the most recent issue of Cato Unbound presents a critical discussion of Rand’s moral and political ideas between four philosophers with different views of her work and its significance. Of particular interest from a critical perspective is Roderick Long’s response essay.
Penny Wong a Climate Change Skeptic?
Leading the charge in pushing for ALP’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has been Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong. However, Penny’s real conviction (or lack thereof) on the matter may have been revealed by the following unlikely story:
Scientists have found camels to be the third-highest carbon-emitting animal per head on the planet, behind only cattle and buffalo. Culling the one million feral camels that currently roam the outback would be equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road in terms of the reduction to the country’s greenhouse gases.
Given that Australia’s feral camel population is already considered an environmental problem, you’d think this one would be a slam dunk, but the story continues:
But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia’s feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol.
But what about the planet, Penny?
Forget the absurdity of not counting feral animals for a moment (though that is a story in itself), but if you sincerely believe that carbon is a serious pollutant, would you not wish to do something about it? Just because it doesn’t “count” towards the bureaucratic Kyoto protocol, surely it still counts towards carbon going into the atmosphere? The only logical conclusion from this is that she doesn’t really believe what she says – that she does not consider carbon to be a serious pollutant.
[Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt]
Obama’s Ceaucescu moment?
This video for some reason reminded me of that famous moment when the Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceaucescu, several minutes into what turned out to be his last ever public speech, was suddenly interrupted by a crescendo of jeers and whistling from his formerly placid subjects. The doomed dictator could do nothing but stand frozen on the balcony with a stunned look on his face as his aides darted around in terrified confusion. This turned out to be a decisive moment in history – Ceaucescu and his even more unpleasant first lady would soon be brought before the firing squad - and it was caused by a mere change in crowd psychology, spontaneous and unexpected, as fear turned to defiance and then contempt.
Obama’s tin-eared gaffe, which was rewarded with a derisive groan from the audience, will probably not lead to his and his wife’s execution by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, this moment has encapsulated a very real change in public sentiment. Obama started out as a messiah-like figure whose very presence, with the help of his deep masculine baritone, would work miracles for the American public; now he is justly an object of ridicule.
Australia Bans Small Breasted Women From Porn
The government continues to protect us (and our children):
Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as ‘abhorrent.’
This has all been good publicity for The Sex Party, who broke the story.
[Via Instapundit]
Minimum Hour Laws
An article in The Australian reports on the ridiculous consequences of the Fair Work Act requirements for minimum hours of work. Here are some of the victims of this outrageous policy:
But Matthew and five other youths, all aged between 16 and 18, have been sacked from the Terang and District Co-operative, 210km southwest of Melbourne, because the Rudd government’s Fair Work Act won’t let them work less than three hours a day.
Both the youths and their employer had wanted to continue their longstanding arrangement and are furious the new law does not allow for the flexibility needed to keep them employed. Co-operative general manager Mr Duynhoven said those of his employees still at school could only get to work by 4pm, after school finished, and the store closed at 5.30pm, so there was only 1.5 hours of work available.
Julia Gillard has defended the system:
A spokesman for Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said the new system was fairer.
“The government does not think it’s unreasonable to have a set of minimum standards for employees, including the minimum number of hours they can work across Australia, as has been brought in under the simplified modern system.”
The Ring of Fire
I have not really figured out what the ring of fire in the chart below is saying but I thought it looked interesting and topical and colourful so I thought I’d share it.
The Ring of Fire
It is taken from an article at PIMCO (an investment management firm).
Australia isn’t inside the burning hoola hoop and apparently that’s a good thing.
Free Radical (Jan 2010)
A new year, a new idea. I thought I’d try out putting together a monthly e-zine bringing together some of the best writing from the libertarian blogosphere. The title of the e-zine is stolen from a previous idea from Jason Soon — “free radical”.
If you would like to help out in this project, please contact me (john.humphreys99@gmail.com). And to publishers of other Australian blogs, please re-post the e-zine to your blog.
Competitive federalism in action
The suggestion that Australian states should compete for business and investment is sometimes viewed as fanciful. The states relinquished their income tax powers during the Second World War and are now heavily reliant on the federal government for revenue. Their residual taxation powers are pretty limited and many of their regulatory functions have been referred to the federal government.
Nonetheless, competitive federalism does exist in some parts of the world. In Switzerland, it is working exactly as it should. Swiss cantons, which have considerable independence from the federal government, are actively competing to attract business and investment.
An article in the Wall Street Journal describes what is happening: Read more »
The argument against anti-defamation laws
Most people accept anti-defamation laws as a legitimate restriction on free speech. For a starters, the laws have always existed so it just seems normal to keep them. If we remove them then society would be plunged into chaos as everybody accused everybody of being a paedophile, a thief, or a murderous nutcase… and if those rumours are believed then they could cause lots of damage to the victims, such as loss of work and/or loss of friends. And that’s just not fair.
Perhaps. But before we give up on fully free speech we should fully understand the arguments.
Defamation involves (1) somebody lying about you, leading to (2) other people holding a bad opinion about you, leading to (3) a bad outcome for you because of lack of trade. None of these things are nice. But they are all voluntary and, all else being equal, none of them should be illegal.
No Second Class Citizens
At the Liberal Democratic Party’s National Conference on 24 January, Sir Roger Douglas gave a presentation that included a discussion of ACT NZ’s approach to presenting its policies, most of which are fundamentally the same as those of the LDP.
An approach that I found intriguing argues that traditional welfare state approaches to poverty, health care, education and pensions have resulted in second class citizens. It can be found in a publication called No Second Class Citizens (summary available here.)
Sir Roger is a former Labour MP who, as Finance Minister, radically transformed the New Zealand economy, cutting tariffs and subsidies, reducing labour regulation and privatising or corporatising many activities. As he says, his goals have never changed.
The goals I have today are the same as those I had when I was in Labour. I am just as concerned today as I was then about poverty. I am just as concerned today as I was then about opportunity. I am just as concerned as I was then about second class citizens. But where I have changed is what I see as the cause of second class citizenship.
Second class citizenship, he says, is caused by the welfare state.
New Zealand has two classes of citizens. And we have two classes not because the Government isn’t doing enough for the poor, but because what the Government does for the poor denies them choices, destroys the incentives they have to get ahead, and subjects them to political abuse.
We have created a system that taxes and regulates opportunities for most out of existence, and destines many to poverty.
And yet, nearly everyone still believes the only solution is more of the same.
On the very goals that the welfare state has sought to achieve, no one could genuinely argue that it has succeeded. Even the modern day proponents of the welfare state, be they in National, the Greens, or Labour, all know it has failed.
But they think they have the solution. They think the solution is more money. I have never heard a politician from those parties come across a problem that they believe could not be solved with just more money. That is why, regardless of who has been in power, the budgets for welfare, education, and health have all shown an almost inexorable growth.
His solution, and where ACT and LDP policy differs from all the other parties, is to return control of money to individuals to enable them to run their own lives. That means less expenditure by governments on behalf of individuals, and more expenditure by individuals on behalf of themselves. Specifics include lower taxes, individual health insurance and education vouchers.
This solution, of course, is not novel to anyone on this site. The main difference with Sir Roger is that he expresses it in terms that reflect concern for those left behind.
An emphasis on fewer negatives rather than more positives, perhaps.
I’m wondering whether a similar approach would work in Australia, given our perceptions about egalitarianism. What do you think?
What if the ETS passes?
The Rudd Government’s ETS legislation is being re-presented to parliament in a couple of weeks time. The Government is doing its best to torment the Opposition by counting down the days and reminding them that failure to pass it a second time will provide a trigger for a double dissolution.
Malcolm Turnbull was very concerned about a double dissolution and would have allowed the legislation to pass. Tony Abbott opposed it and has dared the Government to bring on an election, but three members of his party crossed the floor.
The Greens opposed the legislation because they regarded it as not radical enough. But if they changed their mind and voted in favour of it the second time, and the same three Liberals crossed the floor, it would pass.
Why would the Greens do that? Perhaps because they see little chance of achieving anything more to their liking, with the IPCC now looking shaky over its Himalayan glaciers predictions and the Climategate scandal. So it cannot be assumed the ETS is a dead duck; there is a chance it might get through. What then?
One possibility is that the Government would delay gazetting it. Implementation would be a huge anchor on the economy, with fuel and electricity prices rising, and there are plenty in the Rudd Government who are only interested in using the ETS as a wedge issue against the Opposition. They secretly hope it never eventuates.
Another possibility is that free carbon permits would be handed out for as long as most of the world does nothing. The net effect would be little more than the dead weight cost of setting up the scheme (although that’s not to be sneezed at).
A third is that the Government will set about implementing the scheme, driven by the zealous Wong, only to discover in a couple of years that it has not achieved anything positive and is indeed crippling the economy just as many said it would. In that case it might have to unwind the scheme, as California is now contemplating. From the Wall Street Journal, 11 Jan: Read more »
Censorship should be banned
The government already censors our speech (defamation laws), what we read & watch (porn laws) and what we play (no R-rating for computer games). And now, of course, they’re after the internet. Thankfully, there are a bunch of campaigns under way to oppose the “mandatory filter” great wall of censorship. So for those interested, check out:
* No Clean Feed
* Get Up “save the net” campaign
* Electronic Frontiers Australia
* Digital Liberty Coalition
* Stephen Conroy: fascist
* Great Australian internet blackout
* Libertus
* Filter this vote
* Blue Button
* March in March
* No Censorship
* Stop Internet Censorship
* Gift of censorship
And if you’re too lazy to read, this guy will try to explain it to you…
Heroic Deadlines (by Ron Manners)
Late last year I went along to the book lauch of Ron Manners‘ latest offering: “Heroic Misadventures: four decades – full circle“, following Ron’s life story over the last 40 years and his many business and libertarian adventures. It’s a good read. I have previously said that a full life should be interesting enough so that you could write a book about it, and Ron passes that test.
In between representing the business interests of brothels, helping out in money laundering (back when it was respectable), making and losing lots of money, and being on the run from the tax office, Ron also found time for Australia’s first libertarian party, the Workers Party. Other members of that party include Nick Minchin, Greg Lindsay and John Singleton. The Workers party died out about 30 years ago, though Australia does now have another libertarian political party in the Liberal Democrats. But that’s enough spoilers. If you want to know the full stories, you’ll have to buy the book.
Then in the lead up to Christmas Ron sent out the following poem, which he gave me persmission to reproduce below:
LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Late last year Norm Stamper from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) toured Australia talking about the failure of prohibition and how re-legalisation would lead to fewer deaths, less crime, billions of dollars saved and less corruption.
It is necessary to run these “consequentialist” arguments to convince people, but I would also like to add that re-legalising drugs is also an issue of freedom. To have any meaning, freedom must include the freedom to make “mistakes” according to other people, so long as your actions are voluntary. Drug prohibition is the nationalisation of our blood stream and not only is nationalisation a harmful policy, it is also morally wrong: each person should own their own blood stream.
But unfortunately we don’t live in an age where people respect freedom and individual self-ownership. And so we must battle forward with the arguments that do change minds… and that means pointing out failure of the war on drugs. Prohibition clearly fails a benefit-cost analysis, and the government should only have policies that create a net benefit. So even for those people indifferent (or hostile) to freedom, the re-legalisation should be convincing.
LEAP now also has a blog with regular updates on the progress of their campaign.
Want Happiness? Cut Taxes!!!
(With the recent lack of posts, I thought to keep you all occupied I’d repost this, originally published at Americans For Tax Reform)
Since the rising prosperity brought about by economic freedom, with increased growth, increased living standards, and more jobs around the world, didn’t exactly fit the left-wing narrative, some leftist commentators have changed track. Instead of talking about the economy, they talk about ‘happiness’. “Yes” they say “we might be more wealthy, but we’re unhappy“.
Well, we can now happily tell the left to worry no more – because if you want to make people happier, thencut taxes! The fact that high taxes make people unhappy isn’t exactly rocket science. I mean, if the government takes money away from someone who earned it, and gives it to someone who didn’t (taking 20% in bloated perks for itself in the process), the person who earned the money is bound to be annoyed. This is tax refugees are fleeing high-taxing states in droves.
But earlier this week, a new study as proven conclusivly what we have been saying all along – controlling forall other factors, living in a high taxing state makes you statistically significantly more unhappy than living in a low tax state.
Using data from the 2005-2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a 2003 economics paper examining quality-of-life indicators, economists regressed the subjective measure of well-being (how people rate their satisfaction) against the objective measure (states’ quality-of-life rankings based on compensating differentials).
The findings as to why some people are happy, and some are unhappy?
High taxes seem to be a big reason—ostensibly an even bigger reason than weather given that California is one of the unhappiest states and inclement Louisiana is the happiest. Further, considering how much New York’s crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens. On the other hand, four of the top five happiest states—Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Arizona—are among the states with the lowest state-local tax burdens
As the article concludes, taxes may not be the root of all unhappiness, but they do result in some very sad citizens. So the way to happiness is precisely what we’ve been saying all along – CUT TAXES!
Back to Work
We’re nearly a week into the new year, and for many of us, that means we’re easing back into our normal routines after a (hopefully) refreshing break. I trust you all had a wonderful Christmas and New Year. Here’s some of what you might have missed:
- Our sleepy sun has awoken
- 40 most obnoxious quotes of 2009
- Washington DC is suing AT&T, claiming that unused minutes on prepaid phone cards be turned over to the state!
- Thou Shalt Not Blaspheme… in Ireland
- Fun fact: If you visit Google, type “Thou Shalt Not Blaspheme” and click the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button, you (presently) get taken to a truly awesome page
- DIY project: Build your own Vomit Gun
- Regime change in Iran? Let’s hope so.
- An open letter from Lord Monckton to Kevin Rudd
- And finally, this movie looks like it might be fun. At the very least, it’s destined to cause some controversy (see the clip to find out why):
Peter Spencer.
One of the regular names on this site that seemed to drop off the planet is Justin Jefferson who has been on my “Whatever happened to..(Insert name here)” list for quite a while. Recently he has resurfaced with a great article in Quadrant Online, which he has given me permission to repost here.
By Justin Jefferson
Last Friday I joined a protest of over 80 people at farmer Peter Spencer’s property in the mountains near Cooma. Peter (61), is now past the twenty-eighth day of a hunger strike, (now 37 days) perched high above the ground on a communications tower on his property. Looking down from his aerie he seemed at first somewhat curious and disheveled, but when he spoke he was lucid, his arguments were cogent, and passions ran high.
Peter Spencer is demanding the Australian government pay fair compensation to him and all Australian property-holders whose property rights were taken without compensation pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol. He also demands a Royal Commission into the way governments acquired those property rights, because it seems to have been deliberately intended to, and did, subvert the constitutional protection against the unjust acquisition of property. Read more »
Happy Days!!
Merry Christmas and happy new year to the owners of the roughly 15000 pairs of eyeballs that grace our blog each month. And a belated happy summer solstice to the pagans.
Feel free to give us your thoughts, feelings, plans or predictions for 2010.
Where is Abbott on Internet censorship?
Vocal concern by Liberals changed the Liberal leader and blocked the ETS in the senate. I think we should all make sure that the Liberal party knows what we think of the ALPs Internet censorship legislation. May I suggest that you call or email the office of Tony Abbott and tell him that you oppose the ALPs mandatory Internet filter. I called and emailed his electoral office.
Parliamentary Office (Canberra):-
Tel: (02) 6277 4022
Email: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Electoral Office (Manly):-
Tel: (02) 9977 6411
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/contact.aspx
-
Recent Comments
Tim R on Ayn Rand’s Thought: Livi… 
Fermista on Penny Wong a Climate Change… 
'Nuke' Gray on Ayn Rand’s Thought: Livi… Tim R on Ayn Rand’s Thought: Livi… 
Yobbo on Australia Bans Small Breasted … 
clay barham on Ayn Rand’s Thought: Livi… 
Michael Sutcliffe on Ayn Rand’s Thought: Livi… 
JC on Australia Bans Small Breasted … Tim R on Penny Wong a Climate Change… 
Fleeced on Penny Wong a Climate Change… 
papachango on Penny Wong a Climate Change… 
Libertarian Engineer on Minimum Hour Laws 
Tim Quilty on Discussion Tim R on Minimum Hour Laws 'Nuke' Gray on Minimum Hour Laws
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
