LibertyWhinge.com | Australia

Hi all! I just wanted to apologise for the decrease in posting frequency. Unfortunately this is a very busy time and I already feel I am writing a novel with the essays I am writing. Rest assured that regular posting will resume shortly as I am slowly putting a good dint in my workload.

Thank you all very much for your support!

As we have heard more and more in the news recently, alcohol fueled violence is on the rise. This has of course raised the eyebrows of many a politician keen to expand their regulatory agenda. As usual, the solutions presented such as shortening opening hours, removing high alcohol drinks and increases in taxes are off target. These are problems born of regulation and cannot be addressed by further regulation. Following are five real solutions to help quell the violence:

1. Liberalise the liquor licencing system

For those that have lived in a major city, particularly Sydney, this is easily identified as the most obvious problem. If you were to head “out” on a Saturday, you are all but restricted to a venue whose sole purpose is to serve liquor. Complex and difficult liquor licensing laws really reduce the ability of a young person to avoid violent cesspools which are designed to accommodate only two types of patrons, drinkers and gamblers.

2. Provide an alternative - deregulate, deregulate, deregulate.

Gone are the days when there was something you could do on a weekend night, cheaply, other than drink.  No longer can a group of mates grab some poles and go down and fish on a whim. No longer can a group of mates grab their .22s and go get some rabbits. No longer can you take your dog to the park for a run. Licensing, registration and regulation put an end to that. This is not 1960 and I do not wish to suggest these are the only alternatives, however it is little changes like this that are symbolic of a shift in power from the people to the government. Public land and individual autonomy have become accepted as things of the past; the people in Australia have no power to exercise a responsible choice because all responsibility has long been taken from them.

3. Foster a climate for responsible choices

Perhaps a combination of the above, but in order to expect a person to make responsible decisions about their drinking habits it is time to force an understanding of the consequences of alcohol consumption. Alcohol should never be considered a contributory factor in the defence of a violent perpetrator. We all know the effects of alcohol just as the violent offender does. Why do we still enjoy an incredibly low murder rate? Why aren’t drinkers offing each other in massive numbers? Because a drunk makes a moral choice just as a sober person does. If alcohol diminished the ability of a person to make a choice to the degree that is often suggested, it would be illegal.  If anything, violence committed under the influence should be more heavily punished than it would otherwise.

Maybe these are something of an over-simplification. However, from my experience living in working class suburbs of two of Australia’s largest cities, these three points should certainly be primary considerations for any place wanting to reduce alcohol fueled violence.

Charton Heston, great actor and civil rights activist has passed at the age of 84. Charlton Heston, who once marched along side Martin Luther King will be remembered as a brave political activist who frequently stood proudly in support of what he knew was right, regardless of popular opinion. As a celebrity, he is perhaps the last who could truly claim to be acting in the interest of American values. He was among the first in Hollywood to publicly denounce racism and served as the president of the NRA from 1998 to 2003. Regardless of political affiliation, you have to respect a man who has the courage of his convictions.

A true American hero, rest in peace soldier.

Sorry to go off topic, but I thought I would post a video of the White-Lipped Snake I caught in my home…I had it in a bucket for two hours trying to find out what to do with it. All the advice I could get from about eight different sources was that no-one would take it, but I wasn’t allowed to kill it. Go Australia! I ended up throwing it over the back fence…

I find I am often at odds with the writers of the SMH, however today I stumbled across a rare gem relating to the delusion we hold that we still live by the constitutionalist principles of small government. Somewhat bizarrely titled “Small government goes large on red tape to create an industry giant“, it perpetuates the idea that this regulation is something that goes hand in hand with small government. Of course, this a falsity. The figures presented are clear indication of the problem. 600 regulatory bodies, a budget running into the billions and 34 000 employees leads one to believe that perhaps we are not as free as many claim.

The statistics speak for themselves. To quote, “At the time of federation, it took 358 pages of federal legislation to unify the country. In 2006 it took 6786 pages just to keep the place ticking over.” The author attributes this rise to the “deregulation” of industry and privatisation of social services that occurred in the decade following 1980. I am not so convinced. We have moved away from the intentions of our founding fathers who wished to create a constitutionally limited small government, to this red tape behemoth governing every aspect of our personal and business lives. Gone are the days where the judiciary fairly interpreted and developed law to bring it to alignment with social values and norms, now it seems we are governed by a fused executive and legislature keen to autocratically push its ideologically tainted policy right down our proverbial throats.

Businesses are increasingly forced to dedicate an obscene amount of resources towards regulatory compliance. Few if any individuals could claim to be aware of the complex regulation governing every aspect of their day to day lives. This is not freedom. To quote the brilliant Johann Wolfgang Van Goethe, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Whether you agree that Australia could in fact be considered ‘enslaved’, to interpret the term as one of degree, we certainly are ‘enslaved’ in the sense that we have long foregone our individual autonomy. We have, as a result of our apathy towards politics, accepted the precedence of the will of government. This must change.

Racist, bigot, xenophobe are the cries! Never have I had such an annoying discussion. I certainly do not consider myself opposed to the concept of ‘multiculturalism’, at least not in a way that I would actively discourage it. That being said, I recently viewed a video of ultra-conservative Mark Steyn giving his views on this concept. He challenged some very basic views I had on the topic and most importantly, he challenged a concept that seems well and truly entrenched in our society under the assumption that it is obviously a good thing. Due to my experiences with the dogma people hold in relation to guns, I could not help but be at least a little sympathetic to the skepticism he holds towards an issue as emotionally charged as this. As such, I took his points on board and acknowledged them as a valid viewpoint on the topic. This to me seemed something that any sensible person would do.

Now, yesterday in a seminar I was in at university, the topic of ‘multiculturalism’ and immigration came up, and naturally I voiced some of the reservations that I had heard from Steyn. I barely articulated my point on cultural values when the lecturer proclaimed an end to the discussion, claiming it was getting an “I’m not racist but…” tone. I was stunned. Note this happened immediately after someone proclaimed their puzzlement as to why so many Australians fear immigration as the devil. The irony was obviously lost on the lecturer. This is not the first time something like this has happened.

I certainly do not consider myself a conservative (nor a lefty for that matter), but I do however have extreme sympathy for conservatives in that the education system consistently stifles discourse on conservative concerns. While I personally have my own well formed arguments in opposition to many conservative positions, I am sure many do not, and the complete ignorance of the fact that many students may have reservations towards commonly accepted ideas, reflecting what are often immediately dismissed as “racist” viewpoints, is very dangerous. It is something that infuriates me in education.

It is becoming increasingly evident to me that the number one concern stifling progress in society is the constant state of denial ‘progressives’ and lefties seem to live in. If someone challenges their peace, love and harmony dogma, they immediately retort with ad hominem arguments, usually finding some modernly constructed pejorative buzz word to label the challenger with, that somewhat oddly, usually accurately categorises as hostile what is an otherwise valid viewpoint. My dream is to be able to create a forum in society to argue contentious questions over multiculturalism, cultural differences, non-partisan legislative reform and anything else one sees fit. My dream is freedom of speech.

Green calls for ban on bottled water

There are calls to abandon bottled water for the tap variety, amid claims its causing a major plastic landfill problem.

New figures show Australia’s thirst for bottled water is expected to grow by nine per cent, reaping drink companies $460 million this financial year.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon says it is a disturbing trend that needs to be reversed.

“We survived before we had water in bottles. It is unnecessary.”We need to clean up our act and for many of them it’s just a huge waste of resources.

“When you see water imported from Fiji in plastic bottles, you know it’s bad for the environment all round.”

Bottled water, plastic bags, whales…could there be issues of less significance? Yes we survived before bottled water, just like we survived before sanitation, running tap water or electricity…damn resource wasting luxuries. Ban this, ban that, something new every week from these people. Who on Earth is voting these crackpots into the senate? Damn compulsory voting and the apathetic uninformed masses! It’s like these policies are written out over a coffee and a Tim Tam, the Greens are becoming increasingly dangerous.

Now on a more sober note, bottled water may well be a waste of resources but that totally misses the point. What is the alternative here, we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic, and people will buy bottled drinks regardless. Which wastes more resources, a bottle of cola or a bottle of water? It is clear their objection lies in the fact that this business is extremely profitable as opposed to any quasi-environmental concern, their anti-capitalist socialist agenda is the bulwark of their parties success after all.

Rhiannon claims Fiji Water is clearly bad for the environment, but what she fails to mention is that it is also incredibly good for the Fijian economy, representing over 15% of their exports. Fiji Water supports several local hospitals, has built several schools, and has contributed greatly to disaster relief efforts with the Red Cross in the region. In fact, thy have even won the prestigious U.S. Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence for “doing good in the global marketplace.” But hey, what does Lee Rhiannon care, she was raised in a prosperous country where her education, like her insane little political party, was likely funded on the capitalist dime. What does she care of the welfare of a developing country? She does not offer any evidence to support her claim of environmental damage, but she won’t bother with that as the environmental concern is so “clear” after all.

I’m with Ms Rhiannon and the Greens, to hell with Fiji, let their economy fall to ruin once more, I’m sure the Greens would have no objections to sending troops there again right? Maybe we can send Ms Rhiannon into Suva first this time around, it would probably the best thing we could do for their economy.

*Note: Sarcasm, this is not a death threat.

This is a question I come across over and over and over again. At university, I often get into long heated debates about the benefits of socialised health care, public education and the welfare system. Naturally my opposition creates complete and utter confusion amongst the leftists and many a centralist as such a position hardly maintains the status quo. The one thing I consistently find is that those who most vehemently defend the welfare state almost unwaveringly come from an upper-middle or upper class background. They were raised often in nuclear families, their parents owned their own home and it is not unusual to find that the family had two or three cars. They payed their taxes, happy with their wealth, satisfied they have done their part to help the impoverished in this country.

As you might have guessed, it is not so rosy living in the working class. Although raised in a single parent minimum wage family, beyond student assistance, we did not accept welfare payments. We had private health insurance as Medicare coverage was inadequate anyway. My greatest concern with the state was not to get financial assistance, but to avoid the financial strain their bureaucracy created. It wasn’t food, education or health care that we had trouble affording, it was the fees, taxes and BS that one faces at every corner.

Growing up, the things I enjoyed most were hunting and fishing, these are the things I spent virtually all my time doing. At a very early age the first gun my father gave to me was taken, and when I was old enough, the obligations I had to fulfil to get a firearm changed so it was not possible for someone of my status to get another one. As a young man I also fished with my friends constantly, if not at the beach or Lake Illawarra, it was for minnows and eels in the local creek. We had our rods and we used whatever we had for bait, stealing many a steak from the freezer. About 7 or 8 or so years ago however, all of a sudden we needed licenses to fish these public waterways. $75 sounds a pittance, but to a group of boys with no money, it was hard to justify.

As I grew I wanted to get my Drivers License. This sounds simple but not in Australia. To this day, I have not been able to achieve this goal. As a youngster, my family had one car, the car my Mum drove to work in. It was not possible to learn using this car as our income relied on it. The few lessons I could get in other cars, despite how quickly I learned, I could not try for my license as I needed to clock some obscene 120 hours driving to even attempt, all for our safety to be sure. If I was, or were to now, pay for lessons, a license would cost me upwards of $6000. Obviously not realistic.

This is the meat of what keeps the poor in their place.

This problem is clearly not unique to Australia. Recently I read “Deer Hunting with Jesus” by Joe Bageant, a small town liberal who repeatedly puzzled as to why the poor kept “buying” the ‘individual responsibility’ maxim sold by the Republicans. He repeatedly tried to ascertain why the poor in America seemingly voted against their interest. He couldn’t understand their pride in rejecting welfare. What he failed to realise is that what he defined as their interest is of only minor importance. The bread and butter of helping someone in poverty succeed beyond their means and to live happily is not to provide them a welfare crutch, as those who truly wish to change their lives rarely accept it, but to remove the taxes, fees and regulation that act as a constant impediment to achievement. The small things in which the working class find enjoyment, a cigarette, a beer at the pub or even a spot of fishing or hunting, this is what needs protecting, or rather, what needs to be left alone. To push socialised health care on Americans is to push an obligation to their fellow man to look after their own health to ‘limit liability for society’, that is a violation of human rights.

In short, the poor do not want to be looked after like children, they want their autonomy back. Being poor does not remove any understanding you have of the consequences of your actions, a smoker or drinker knows they are hurting their health. Taxing an addictive product 1000% to let them know is specious reasoning at best. So cut the taxes, trim the regulation, and stop passing laws…stop enslaving people into lives of mutual obligation, let them be free.

 Today the Supreme Court of the US heard oral arguments in DC v. Heller, for those who know about it. This is first time the court will rule on the meaning of the second amendment.

Not sure how many of you will be interested, but Mark from the Gun Rights Advocates Podcast has recorded a live stream of the oral arguments on his podcast released today. The outcome of this case has international ramifications. Should the right be affirmed (and incorporated), this puts great doubt on the possibility of any UN sanctioned civilian arms control in the US. This one decision could literally cripple international movements to remove small arms from the hands of civilians, for whom the US is often the main focus.

Despite the NRA’s clear opposition to this case being heard, I have become a member and will donate to the NRA ILA now that they are involved. I  strongly suggest anyone with an interest in gun ownership or the protection of their freedom do the same.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=391918

A man involved in a shootout with police near a suburban Sydney shopping centre was planning a US-style massacre and not a bank robbery as first thought.The unnamed 22-year-old was carrying three spare magazines for his fully-loaded Glock pistol — a total of 40 bullets — when he was intercepted by police on Monday.

A source close to investigators says the man intended to carry out a random shooting spree in Eastwood Shopping Centre, but they have not established a motivation for the planned attack.

…

This story was brought to my attention by MK, as he wanted to hear my opinion on it. Here it is; I don’t have one, at least, I don’t want to. This is an incident that is, or at least should be, of little consequence. It has become habit for liberty loving people to comment on every misuse of guns that pops up in the media. My primary observation is that if the police had not been there, the inability of the law abiding to protect themselves would surely have been ignored in favour for pushing their perceived culpability in arming this criminally deranged man.

It is a said state of affairs when the assumption is that our representatives will jump at every violent criminal act as an opportunity to restrict our individual liberties. After Port Arthur, a terrible tragedy to be sure, the dangerous mentality of our politicians became abundantly clear. Conspiracy theories aside, the issue there was that a man, so isolated from the community by his intellectual disability, got so messed up he felt mowing down scores of civilians was how he should deal with his angst. It is not a concern that society let him get near a gun, this is a rubbish illiberal way to look at it; the problem is that this mentally challenged man found such difficulty finding acceptance and tolerance in the community he felt he needed to lash out in this violent way. History will look upon his acts and those similar such as the Dunblane and Columbine massacres, less as an example of the failures of freedom, but as the failure of a society too deluded by mass communicated political misdirection to ever address the inherent failures in their social structure that fostered such unprecedented violent events.

If the guns were all gone we would have achieved precisely nothing. If this Sydney man was not allowed to have a gun or any other weapon, I doubt that would have somehow resolved his mental problems or guaranteed that he would not have lead a violent criminal life anyway. Perhaps his damage to society and especially the people around him would not have been as clearly evident as a well publicised rampage, but I doubt anyone truly believes the mere opportunity of having a weapon handy is what turned this man from a saint to a mass murderer.

The great lie of gun control is that the core belief supporting it; that people commit horrible acts simply because they have the means to. It works on the presumption that people are generally evil and can’t be trusted, it ironically perpetuates that very isolating presumption, generating the very motivation that causes these deranged people to murder others.