ALS: thoughts on freedom

Australian Libertarian Society Blog

Submission on civil unions

The Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser has recently introduced a private members bill on civil unions for same-sex couples. The debate is ongoing, but submissions to the relevant committee considering the bill closed today. Below is my submission, on behalf of the Australian Libertarian Society.

Submission to the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee

RE: CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL 2011

On behalf of the Australian Libertarian Society (ALS), I would like to suggest that the government does not belong in marriage at all. The debate about how the government should regulate our love lives and our personal relationships rests on the idea that the government should be involved in the first place. That starting assumption is flawed. Love and relationships do not become better or worse because you inform a politician. Few married people conclude that their love is real only because it has been approved by Anna Bligh or Julia Gillard.

A marriage or civil union is an agreement between two people, and the only people who should be able to make that decision are the people involved. So long as the people involved are consenting adults, there is no reason for the government to restrict their right to form a contract with each other. The idea that the government should restrict the basic economic freedom to contract, on the basis that the parties to the contract are the same sex, is a perplexing attack on liberalism and the rule of law.

Ideally, the government should fully deregulate “marriage”. But if the government insists on continuing its weird fixation with documenting our love lives, then at the very least they should conduct their kinky hobby without discrimination. Personal discrimination is necessary and normal in everyday life, but government discrimination should never be tolerated because the government has the privileged position of being able to impose their views on others through force, and without direct consent.

In case this isn’t clear, let me state it simply — marriage should be fully deregulated, but if that is considered “too radical” then the government should at least allow for same-sex civil unions.

Defenders of marriage will rightly say that marriage is traditionally a religious concept. If only it had stayed that way. I suggest that religious groups should be free to discriminate according to their beliefs, just as we all discriminate every day regarding who we date, meet, support, visit, like, etc. However, that discrimination must not be done with the backing of government. Churches should always be free to *not* conduct a same-sex marriage or a same-sex union, but that decision should be left to each church, and not imposed by the government.

Freedom is now considered a quaint concept in most of the western world, including Australia. While political talking heads will argue passionately about how the government should run our lives, most people are genuinely perplexed when they hear the idea that perhaps the government should not run our lives at all. Many people now feel comfortable in their gilded cage, debating about the rules that our “leaders” should impose on us. This letter is in support of civil unions, and to let you know that some of us still believe in human self-ownership and reject the idea of government control of our lives.

You may set restrictive laws if you like. I will consider obeying them. Who is Ron Paul?

Kind Regards,

John Humphreys
Australian Libertarian Society
libertarian.org.au

November 4, 2011 Posted by | Civil liberties | | 8 Comments

Liechtenstein

There is a country in Europe with a federal income tax rate of 1.2% and free trade, recognition of same-sex unions and yet no anti-discrimination legislation, people can own handguns for self-defence, welfare is done at a local level, their leader believes the State should just concentrate on the rule of law and foreign affairs, citizens can veto any piece of legislation with a referendum, local autonomy is so extensive that a local community (about 3000 people) have the freedom to vote themselves independent at any time, there is no standing army, they refuse to join the EU, and have a GDP/person of $134,392. Welcome to the Principality of Liechtenstein — libertarian wonderland.

August 15, 2011 Posted by | International | | 27 Comments

Lords of Poverty

I’ve just finished Graham Hancock‘s 1989 classic “Lords of Poverty” and recommend it to anybody interested in the working of the international aid bureaucracy. Hancock is scathing in his assessment of international aid agencies such as the United Nations, bilateral aid agencies (eg US AID), development banks (eg World Bank), and the IMF, and concludes that they haven’t just made a few unfortunate mistakes but they are irredeemably broken and need to be abandoned.

I found a few of his examples to be overly harsh, but found his thesis to be generally persuasive. Instead of trying to review his themes, I think it best to provide some extended quotes, and then encourage you to read the rest…

“This is how the game works: public money levied in taxes from the poor of the rich countries is transferred in the form of ‘foreign aid’ to the rich in the poor countries; the rich in the poor countries then hand it back for safe-keeping to the rich in the rich countries. The real trick, throughout this cycle of expropriation, is to maintain the pretence that it is the poor in poor countries who are being helped all along. The winner is the player who manages to keep a straight face while building up a billion-dollar bank account”

….. Read more »

August 6, 2011 Posted by | Books, Economics, International | , , , , , | 9 Comments

American politics: GOP nomination

America is more than a year away from their 2012 Presidential election, but things are already heating up. The “Grand Old Party” (GOP) of the Republicans are starting their process of picking their Presidential candidate to take on Obama, and as yet it is still a very open race. One interesting element of this nomination race is that there is growing strength among the non-establishment “outsider” candidates. It is still more likely that a “mainstream” candidate (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry) will win, but the “outsiders” (Bachmann, Paul, Cain, Palin) are all within striking distance.

So with only a little bit of poetic licence, I will run through the candidates in pairs… matching an “insider” and an “outsider” together for each category.

Frontrunners — Mitt Romney (establishment) v Michele Bachmann (outsider). Romney has been leading in all major polls since the start of the race, but many consider him to be a soft leader who is in front mostly on name-recognition. He was a contender in the 2008 nomination race before losing out to John McCain. Bachmann has been the outsider who has caught the most momentum in recent weeks, leading the polls in some states (all important Iowa) and second in others (New Hampshire). The problem with Romney is his history of supporting a health mandate and seemingly changing his opinions to suit the circumstances. Bachmann is considered more of a conviction and “tea party” politician, but lacks the experience and as a “mini-Palin” has occasionally suffered from “foot-in-mouth” disease. She’s free-market and socially conservative.

Just behind — Rick Perry (establishment) v Ron Paul (outsider). Rick Perry hasn’t entered the race yet, but if/when he does he will automatically be in the mix as he is already polling at or above 10%. In some ways he is a cross between Romney & Bachmann… with the experience and credibility of Romney but with some of the conservative convictions of Bachmann. He has previously voiced sympathy with the “independent Texas” movement, but some question whether America is ready for another Texan governor (following Dubya). On the other side is libertarian favourite Ron Paul who has consistently been coming in near the top of the polls (around 10%) and came in second in fund-raising so far. The principled doctor now has a more professional campaign, but he is still being over-looked by many in the media.

Read more »

July 9, 2011 Posted by | Economics, International, Politics | 5 Comments

Irresponsible gambling

The problem with irresponsible gamblers is the word “irresponsible” not the word “gambler”. The same is true with “irresponsible drinking” or “irresponsible drug-use” or any other irresponsible action. It is not the existence of gambling or alcohol or drugs that create irresponsible behaviour. And yet the nanny-state campaigners want to punish the product instead of addressing the underlying problem. With wowsers Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie in parliament, and the government in trouble with the carbon tax, the pressure is growing for the government to “do something” about poker machines.

It’s easy to attack poker machines. I don’t like them. I enjoy playing texas hold’em poker for the judgement, excitement and social element… none of which I get from poker machines. But personal preference is besides the point. In a free society, people should be free to pursue their own hobbies and activities, and I shouldn’t force my preferences on others. People who use poker machines (like smokers and shooters) are the new whipping boys of politics. While “progressive” politicians love to wax lyrical about defending minorities, they only seem to defend fashionable minorities. And while trendy lefties will advertise the moral superiority of their tolerance, they only seem to tolerate groups which they actually like.

People who enjoy playing poker machines are seen as the “wrong sort of minority” and therefore they apparently deserve no tolerance.

Read more »

June 10, 2011 Posted by | Civil liberties, Economics, nanny state, Politics | | 10 Comments

Looking back at the budget

An old co-worker once told me that he never reads the newspapers as he doesn’t want to read something written with less than a days consideration. Wise man. So this is the “one week consideration” version of my views on the 2011/12 federal budget.

Budget balance

The first strange thing about this budget is that everybody is talking about the 2010/11 budget balance (-$49.4 billion) or the 2012/13 budget balance (+$3.5 billion). This is understandable for political reasons. The Coalition want to point to the big deficit and Labor wants to point to a surplus. But the 2010/11 is old news, and the 2012/13 is an unreliable forecast. The actual cash bottom line for 2011/12 (the budget year) is -$22.6 billion. Given the current state of the economy, we should have a small surplus now and not a deficit, so the government has to lose a few marks on fiscal policy.

Total government spending for 2011/12 is predicted to be $365.8 billion, of which the biggest element is welfare ($121.9 billion) followed by health ($59.9 billion), education ($29.9 billion), and defence ($21.3 billion). Total cash spending is 4.3% higher than the previous year in nominal terms.

The savings that weren’t

Two annoying budget tricks is to add up multiple years and report a four (or five) year total, and to refer to taxes as “savings”. I don’t mind that politicians and bureaucrats play these tricks… lying is effectively part of their job description. But the sad thing is that the journalists just mindlessly report it. Either the journalists want to pass on the same lies as the government, or they are just incompetent.

Read more »

May 16, 2011 Posted by | Economics | , , | 10 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers