ALS: thoughts on freedom

Australian Libertarian Society Blog

Hypocrisy and Irony

Just some examples of hypocrisy that came to mind recently:

  • Why did Therese Rein (the Prime Minister’s wife) admit herself to a private hospital to fix her gallstone problem, despite campaigning in favour of the public health system during the 2007 election?
  • Why does the Prime Minister heavily tax ordinary Australians so they can’t afford private health insurance, but remain unwilling to give up his own private cover?
  • Why do Canadian politicians cross the border into the United States for their health needs if America’s (comparatively free-market) health system is so bad and Canadian public health so good?
  • Why do Family First candidates look at pornography in private and protest against it in public?

And a bit of irony:

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

May 27, 2008 Posted by | Politics | 12 Comments

Intellectual Property

An interesting post at Slashdot:

StealthyRoid writes

“I’m an anarcho-capitalist, and a huge supporter of property rights, both physical and intellectual.  At the same time, I find the current trend of increasing penalties for minor violations, criminalizing civil IP matters, anti-consumer technologies like DRM, and abuse of the legal system by the *AA’s of the world really disturbing.  You’d think that by now, there’d be a reasonable solution to the problem of protecting intellectual property while at the same time maintaining the rights of consumers and protecting individuals from absurd litigation, but I have yet to find one. So, I pose these questions to the Slashdot community:  1 — Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it’s illusory? If not, why?  2 — If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn’t require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?”

Naturally, being Slashdot, it has responses such as this:

“As an anarcho-communist, I have to say, I don’t acknowledge property rights…”

But, lefty comments aside, the thread is worth a look – and I’m curious as to how fellow-libertarians reconcile this issue, as I am unsure myself.

May 26, 2008 Posted by | General | , , | 77 Comments

Art Or Child P*rn?

Bill Henson is getting a public flogging for the depiction of semi-naked girls in his Sydney exhibition. Rumours abound that he may even face criminal charges. Is this fair?

Larissa Debriski writing in The Age challenges us to ‘find an image of a naked 13-year-old beautiful, moving or thought-provoking’. Here’s another delightful aritcle from the lovely Larissa on why she loves the word ‘cunt‘. Memo to Larissa – if you’re an adult male and you find photos of semi-naked 13 year-olds ‘beautiful’ or ‘thought-provoking’, then you need help.

Michelle Grattan, in the SMH, thinks it’s all a big publicity stunt by Kevin Rudd to win back some votes. Andrew Bolt responds to Michelle here.

Miranda Devine, on the other hand believes that artists, perverts, academics, libertarians, the media, advertising industries and the porn industry have ‘successfully eroded the special protection once afforded childhood.’ In no libertarian handbook that i’m aware of does it condone exploiting minors, Miranda.

So who is right? Are Bill Henson’s photos of 13 year-old girls, naked from the waist up, art or kiddie porn?

Whilst art may be in the eye of the beholder, child porn is child porn, even if people like Larissa find it ‘beautiful‘.

The main argument being touted by the ‘ban it’ brigade are that these photos might end up in the hands of kiddie-fiddlers. This is ridiculous. Henson rightly replied that such a person could head down to Bondi Beach and see a lot more child flesh on display if they so wished. Alternatively they could spend a Saturday night at the Manly Hotel and watch not only semi-naked teenage girls but drunk ones too.

The central issue is whether a parent has the right to consent on the behalf of a minor to show nudity. Personally i cannot understand why any parent would give such consent. Is there anything they wouldn’t do for a quick buck? But if both parents and daughter consent, should that be the end of the matter? I personally don’t believe it should. Thirteen year olds cannot and do not think like adults. That’s why they are not granted the vote. They are unaware of the consequences of their nude bodies being Googled around the world.

Until they reach adulthood (say, age 16), their naked bodies should remain in the home.

nb – the photo above is much tamer than the ones causing such heated debate. the word ‘p*rn’ is asterisked to avoid the spam filter melt down. (censorship is the only thing not liberally applied round here.

Update I: Art certainly is in the eye of the beholder ;)

Other opinions from Kim at LP, and Helen Dale looks at some of the legal ramifications for Henson.

May 26, 2008 Posted by | General | | 63 Comments

Libya introduces economic reforms.

I owe David Leyonhjelm for bringing this to my attention. There appears to be significant change afoot in Libya, and not the usual ‘Oh shit’ change, but real change for the better. This is not only in the economic area, but also to a limited degree socially.

 Since December 2003, when Libya announced that it had agreed to reveal and end its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and to renounce terrorism, relations with the West have improved to the point where relatively normal relations exist with them. Come to think about it, it seems kind of odd not having Gadhafi making a bloody nuisance of himself.

 Gadhafi will never be acceptable in polite society owing to some of the extremes he went to during his pariah years, but will probably get along with governments just fine. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as the reform to his character but his past will always make him thoroughly reprehensible.

 Free market style reforms will do a great deal to improve the economy as it has done in a number of countries in the past. The massive oil revenues of Libya will of course be used by the left as a smokescreen to excuse themselves from having to make any embarrassing admissions. Read more »

May 25, 2008 Posted by | Civil liberties, Economics, International | 9 Comments

Libertarianism; The New Black

We’ve been called geeks, nerds and uncool for as long as i can remember. But after years of being unfashionable and watching lefties get all the hot girls, this is very exciting news, 

‘Low tax-low spend economics is finally threatening to become not just irresistible in terms of rational debate and empirical evidence – which, in fact, it is has been since at least the 1980s – but something far more devastating in electoral terms: it is poised to become cool. It will now be unthinkably unfashionable at dinner parties to defend the notion of the state as the monopoly supplier of virtue and fairness.’

via Samizdata

May 22, 2008 Posted by | General | | 50 Comments

Burma; The Right To Protect

The crisis in Burma caused by cyclone Nargis appears to be worsening. Despite reports yesterday that the Burmese junta will allow limited aid provided it is channelled through ASEAN countries, the aid agencies have released reports predicting widespread famine and death. Save the Children believes that ‘thousands of children will starve to death within weeks unless food supplies reach them soon’ and The UN believes that ‘up to 2.5 million could be at risk of death and disease.’

What to do?

The libertarian position has already been made clear by Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering ‘condolences and sympathy‘ to the people of Burma, Ron Paul was the only member of the entire House of Reps to vote ‘no’. Lew Rockwell is against any form of help for the Burmese believing it to be a good excuse for the US to take over another country.

Norm Geras points to an alternative reason for the ‘do nothing’ school as presented by author David Rieff in the LA Times. He makes the very valid point that aid agencies are in the business of aid and hence always exaggerate the suffering caused by disasters. But he also makes the absurd point that calls for aid from the French and British are tantamount to a renewed colonialism.

But is ‘do nothing’ the correct and only course of action?

The Economist favours air drops but the Guardian says these don’t work. Our very own ex-foreign Minister and now head of the international Crisis Group, Gareth Evans, has no time for pussy-footing around and has suggested that the UN might need to bring aid to Burma ‘non-consensually‘.

More than a few very powerful people (UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner) are raising the issue of whether the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia (which guaranteed the right of a sovereign nation to non-interference from other nations) is now null and void and whether the recent UN resolution of a responsibility to protect‘ (or R2P) should be invoked. This resolution, passed in 2005 with little fanfare, forces the UN to act if a sovereign nation is committing crimes against humanity.

The debacle in Iraq has made people forget that sometimes coordinated interventions can lead to productive outcomes – for example Kosovo and Kuwait. But one thing is clear – unlike say, lower taxes, freer trade or less regulation, the issues around foreign aid and intervention are complex and unintended consequences lie in wait around every corner. It is simply not possible to know the right answers.

Perhaps the best solution is the threat but not the act of intervention. Perhaps this is why the junta have finally relented.

If you would like to do something, John Quiggin is raising money at his blog.

May 21, 2008 Posted by | General, International | | 27 Comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers