What's really damning is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the United States pretty much the same as World War II, even though they are fighting an enemy nowhere near as powerful.
0 Comments
Most central banks are staffed by unelected bureaucrats and are outside the realm of political control. The Treasurer, no matter how much he may disagree, is bound by convention not to interfere with the monetary policy decisions of the bank.
This state of affairs has insulated central banks from accountability. Parliament does not control the Reserve Bank of Australia’s budget, as it does for the High Court. Full disclosures of monetary policy dealings domestically and internationally are not accessible. The RBA’s exemption from Freedom of Information laws prevents the public from finding out the extent of its relationships with external actors. Like the Fed, no parliamentary committee truly oversees every aspect of its decision-making, meaning it is probably more secretive than the Australian Security Intelligence Service. A good way to improve accountability is to audit the RBA. Comprehensive audits can reveal useful information about how a central bank is employing its discretionary powers. Opponents of an audit argue that opening up the bank's books would impinge on its "independence". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that central bank independence is a good thing. Even so, it's unlikely that expanding the scope of audits would significantly affect independence. Protections can be put in place to minimise this risk. Not all documents discovered during an audit need to be made public. Some can be viewed privately by the inspector-general in charge of accountability. Appropriate safeguards, such as time lags between a monetary policy decision and an audit of the decision, can also be implemented. Thus, there is no excuse for not providing citizens a better understanding of the RBA's shenanigans. An additional barrier to employment in the legal profession is the subjective system of "character tests" regulated by the Victorian Board of Legal Admissions (Letters, 6/12). The funny thing is that the character test doesn't seem to always work. Many lawyers that I've interacted with find it difficult to be honest when it comes to fees – inflating billed hours is a common trick. There's no better proof than the hundreds of disciplinary cases lodged against lawyers across Australia.
I would urge politicians to abolish the character test – not just for law, but for all professions. This would encourage competition and bring down prices for consumers of these services. Bad character can instead be sorted out by consumer protection organisations where customers can rate individual lawyers just as they rate cars or hotels. (Published in The Age, letters to the editor, 7 December 2016)
Lesson One: Break the Regulatory Shackles In 1933, a referendum was held in Western Australia. By 21st century standards, the question put to voters was well outside the confines of socially acceptable discourse. Voters were asked whether WA should secede from the Commonwealth and become an independent nation. Amazingly, a sizable majority — 68 per cent — decided in favour of breaking away from the federal government.
There are few better examples of the distinctively rugged spirit of the West. Yet despite the sentiment in favour of seceding, WA’s plea was denied by the Australian government and the British Parliament in no uncertain terms. The powers that be were not about to stand for such intransigence. For the most part, Western Australians appear to have resigned themselves to their fate. But worsening economic conditions have in recent years re-ignited the debate over secession. Reasons to Secede WA’s Mines Minister Norman Moore has openly advocated that the state secede and rely on alliances with China and the US for its defence needs. The Labor Opposition has ridiculed such talk, labelling it the work of a “lunatic, right-wing fringe in the Liberal Party.” Such hyperbole is hardly justified given that WA has legitimate grievances. Take for instance, the carbon tax introduced in July 2012, or Julia Gillard’s mineral resource rent tax, both of which will create uncertainty among the Western Australian business community. Moreover, as Moore points out, other states in the federation parasitically live off the revenue generated by WA’s booming economy. How is this fair? In general, secession can be expected to result in less internal conflict within the state that has seceded. This makes sense because communities that come together to secede are usually homogenous in important respects (such as ethnicity). Also, another political benefit of secession lies in the emergence of governments that are closer to the people they represent and are consequently more accountable. The Legality of Secession Already we can see that there are several reasons why WA would be better off as an independent country. An important question arises, however. Does Australia’s Constitution permit secession in the first place? Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales does not think so. “The constitution simply does not contemplate any part of the nation breaking away,” he writes, “with no state having the right to unilaterally leave the federation.” Williams suggests that “the only viable legal path to secession is by way of a national referendum. This could change the constitution to permit Western Australia to leave.” In his book Secession: The Ultimate States’ Right, Greg Craven — one of Australia’s leading constitutional experts — reaches a similar conclusion. The legality or otherwise of secession is a moot point. If secession is to occur, it will never happen with the High Court’s approval, simply because the court is appointed and funded by the federal government and will therefore tend to rule in favour of Canberra. Hence, in an important sense the legal arguments of Williams and Craven are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The debate over secession must occur primarily in the political rather than the legal arena. That said, is the legal case against secession really as strong as Williams and Craven say it is? The answer is no. When Australia’s colonies agreed to come together as a federation under the Constitution, they did so on the assumption that the federal government would be limited to the powers enumerated in section 51, and that the states would retain their reserved powers. Common-sense, not to mention elementary contractual principles, dictates that if the federal government oversteps its bounds and encroaches into areas of state responsibility then a state is justified in exiting the constitutional compact. The compact theory of the Constitution derives from American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson argued, essentially, that for federalism to mean anything in practice, the states must have the ability to hold the central government to account. Or as Clyde Wilson puts it, “Federalism implies states’ rights, and states’ rights imply a right of secession.” Craven considers Jefferson’s theory and dismisses it on the grounds that the circumstances of Australia’s legal framework differ substantively from the US because, unlike the Americans, Australians were a part of the British Empire at the time of federation. If readers are interested however, an excellent collection promoted by the Mises Institute entitled Secession, State and Liberty more than adequately defends the theory. Conclusion We may sum up by emphasising that secession is not a radical idea. In fact, many Western nations were borne out of secession. Consider, for instance, the fact that the American revolutionaries fought to secede from the British Empire. And Australia has over the past 100 years effected a peaceful secession from Britain as it has gradually become more independent and republican sentiment has grown. As more people become aware of the positive effects of secession, let it not be said that it is an idea only supported by the “loony right”. Secession is an idea whose time has come. I'm one of those fanatical libertarians that Mirko Bagaric denounces. I have the naive audacity to resist any government sanction of "compassionate torture" during a time of fearmongering over the terrorist threat, because I know we have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist. I also know that there has never been a death on Australian soil due to Islamic fundamentalism.
The problem with any arguments for regulated torture is the question of who gets to decide when it's appropriate. Who decides when the stakes are high enough for torture? Who decides when to discard the notion of innocence until proven guilty? In all cases, the government decides. The government, being made up of fallible men and women, would then be given the power to declare a threat and then abuse its citizens on the basis of that declaration. This situation is completely unacceptable in a free society and would overturn everything that distinguishes Western societies from the terrorists. (Published in The Australian, Letters to the Editor, 8 January 2008) The August 2016 decision of the Federal Court to award $3.3 million under the Native Title Act to traditional owners who were dispossessed of their land has once again made indigenous affairs a hot topic.
But land justice is a deeper concept than offering indigenous people piecemeal monetary compensation. We need a permanent solution that immediately improves Aboriginal outcomes across a variety of indicators such as life expectancy, employment, and incarceration rates. Aboriginal people have a life expectancy about 10 years less than non-indigenous Australians, are more likely to be unemployed and are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned. It is true that British colonisation and the human rights abuses of previous governments have created tremendous harm to indigenous peoples past and present. For this, appropriate reparations must be made. The current native title system tends to approach the problem by proscribing “traditional owners” who are often senior elders within a group of Aborigines. Moreover, native title can only exist to the extent that there is no superior title to the land (for example, by mining companies or farmers). In practice, its scope is limited. The effect of the present system has been to hamper the entrepreneurial talent of Aborigines living in remote communities. By now, we could have seen many Aboriginal millionaires who could have helped their communities in a far more effective manner than inefficient government programs ever could. Instead, remote communities today are bastions of poverty. In the 1967 referendum, a resounding majority of Australians voted to give the federal government power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people, wherever they lived in Australia, and to include Aborigines in national censuses. The change aimed to foster a coordinated approach that bypassed the divergent policies of individual states. Today, however, it seems as if less Commonwealth imposed uniformity would have been better. While the referendum was excellent at achieving symbolic outcomes, it has allowed the federal government — for more than two decades since the second Mabo case —- to avoid taking the hard decisions that would lead to progress. In particular, legislation limiting Aborigines to communal ownership of land must be abolished. Giving individuals private ownership of land (a capital asset) is one of the proven means of generating wealth. Freehold title would allow aborigines collateral for investments or housing. If an individual property rights framework were set up, groups of Aborigines could still collectively join together and retain cultural elements. At the same time, those who wished to integrate into the mainstream economy would find it easier to do so. The Commonwealth government should immediately cede control of the bulk of its powers relating to Aborigines to the states. Decentralised federalism is the surest way to accommodate the diverse range of local circumstances that must be taken into account when formulating indigenous land rights policy. The states should conduct surveys of 90 percent of Crown land, and after consultation with historical residents and traditional owners, should randomly allocate each Aborigine over 18 years with a voucher that entitles them to an equal plot of this land (for example, one square kilometre). As some will have received land not suitable to their individual purposes, the states should then manage a barter system to allow Aborigines to trade vouchers until they reach suitable agreement among themselves. The land they now own is freehold, and they should enjoy the same rights as any other Australian. The Aboriginal participants must agree, however, to not launch any future legal claims trying to claim more land. Also, the constitution should be amended so that all reference to race powers is deleted and all laws specifically dealing with Aborigines should be repealed. Henceforth, they must be treated the same as other Australians and must not be provided any special privileges or race-based quotas. Handing back government land to the descendants of the first Australians would significantly reduce the scope of government and remove much of the bureaucracy that has benefited from the native title “industry.” The cost savings achieved would mean income taxes could be reduced for everyone. Second, it would finally give legal title that is not inferior to Aborigines, to use as they see fit. The paternalist mentality driving current indigenous policy would be ended, and there is potential for a major macro boost to the economy. My proposal avoids continuing indefinitely the blame game for poor outcomes and unleashes the productive force of capitalism. Real land rights are what all non-indigenous peoples enjoy. Why should Aborigines be any different? Originally published at The Spectator Australia (20 September 2016). Many people trace their shift toward classical liberalism to a particular author. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for instance, cites the great Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk for first planting in his mind seeds of doubt about social democracy and the Marxist system. But I credit my interest in liberalism not to a famous intellectual but to my father. Like many Indian civil servants, my father entered the public service with the expectation that he would be contributing to the betterment of society. This belief turned out to be naïve. As he soon discovered, corruption and political games are more important for public sector actors than improving the lot of the least fortunate. Searching for answers to the inefficiency plaguing government “solutions” to public policy problems, he turned to the science of economics. It was while studying economics that he discovered Nobel laureates Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Thus my father was able to fast-track my learning by conveying all he had learned. I have now outgrown my father's influence and admire writers that he has never heard of: Albert Jay Nock, Lysander Spooner, John T. Flynn – these are just a few of the individuals I discovered by delving deeper into the libertarian literature. Yet the man who figures most prominently in my thinking is “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard. Reading his Ethics of Liberty was an eye-opening experience. Rothbard moved beyond utilitarian justifications for liberty and justified freedom in the realm of natural law. He deduced the entire corpus of libertarian philosophy from a few basic axioms of human existence – such as the idea that we own ourselves (self-ownership). Reading Rothbard radicalised my thinking. I realized that I was duty-bound to resist statism in any way I could. Life was not, as some utilitarians seemed to think, simply about increasing economic efficiency. To the contrary, libertarians are fighting for truth, justice and beauty. As Ludwig von Mises wrote: “Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle." Readers should feel free to share their own journey in comments.
IT IS understandable that Martin Feil (Business, 13/9) opposes free trade on the unfounded argument that it helps "large bullies".
One cannot, after all, expect commentators like Feil to argue government should leave businesses alone, as that would negate the reason for their existence. Indeed, their very jobs would be in limbo if they were to argue for an industry policy that is based on a hands-off approach. An admission that Australia should be left free to develop its own comparative advantage would be to negate the supposed informational advantage "experts" such as Feil possess. In reality, Feil and other industry commentators cannot predict where Australia is most efficient and productive, nor should they need to. Feil will not tell readers of the copious amounts of public choice literature that discuss the incentives powerful lobby groups and commentators have in attracting more attention to their area of specialisation. Most revealing is his discussion of the "virile partnership between the industry and government" in the US. When experts advocate closer links between industry and government, consumers should beware. [Letter to the editor published in The Age, September 27 2006] In 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions established by the executive order of President George W. bush were illegal. As a consequence, Bush approached Congress to have the commissions at Guantanamo Bay reinstated in legislative form.
Congress acquiesced and passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which strips away the right of detainees to rely on the Geneva Conventions and infringes on habeas corpus. The constitutionality of Congress's legislation is presently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Given these circumstances - and Australia's willingness to accept David Hick's detention and trial in a legally suspect US tribunal - I take the imposition of a control order on Hicks with a grain of salt. What we are witnessing is a gross violation of the rule of law. Published as a letter to the editor, 'The Australian', Dec 22-23 2007. |
AuthorSubscribe to my newsletter and Youtube channel. Categories
All
Archives
November 2022
|