Well today is the day people! For those that have been asleep for the last 6 months or so, a land mark case in the US Supreme Court over the last year relating to the interpretation to the second ammendment of the USA bill of rights. The ammendment is:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Now to many Australians, a notion of a right to bear arms seems insane, granted. But the truth is, a majority of natural rights theorists clearly support the right to bear arms as a fundamental right of a liberal democracy. As mentioned here, the oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court were incredibly informative as to the basis of this right. For those that are interested, a transcript can be found on the NRA-ILA website here.

Anyway, moving on, today the Supreme Court made its decision on this all important case and came down on the side of the ‘individual right’. Basically, for the first time in its history, the Supreme Court today ruled that each individual citizen of the United States of America has a fundamental and inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Along with striking down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban, they also struck down the requirement that guns be stored unloaded and disassembled. From what I could gather from the oral arguments and Justice Scalia’s questioning, the reason for this was that a firearm stored away in such a manner would be useless for its intended purpose of self-defense.

There are numerous reason why this case is interesting in Australia’s context. Australia, especially under Labor, is something of a United Nations devotee. Australia has been an instrumental partner in the United Nations’ efforts to greatly reduce the trade of small arms across the globe. For a long time, one of the key objectives of this program, and that of several international NGOs such as IANSA, has been to get the US to play ball on arms control. If that day had come, it would have been a sad day for liberalism in every way. This programme threatens one of the core checks on government espoused by everyone from James Madison to John Locke. In this age of misguided majoritarian rule, rulings such as the one made today are of spectacularly glaring importance. This is why an uncompromised separation of powers and judicial independance is of such value.

Another reason why this case is of particular importance is that its ruling will carry weight in the Australian judiciary. As many of you know, Australia does not have a bill of rights and any rights we do hold are somewhat malleable common law rights. Recently however, the High Court set something of a dangerous precedent in finding an implied right to “free political communication” in the Australian Constitution. This lead to numerous other similar claims to implied constitutional rights including a “right to free movement” claimed in Kruger v Commonwealth. Now while the latter claim was rejected, the dissenting justices did confirm the right. While it is something of a stretch to suggest a High Court headed by Kirby would ever find an implied to “keep and bear arms”, or even that such a challenge would ever present itself to the court, it is likely that the US Supreme Court decision will hold a degree of influence over the Australian High Court in the future. Again, I would not hold any hopes of such a right ever actually being ‘discovered’ in the Australian Constitution, in fact I shudder to think the complex construction that would need to be made in the attempt.

Regardless, this is a landmark ruling that will have enormous consequences internationally. The US civilian market in many ways legitimises the US arms industry, resulting in greater production, less red tape for and greater exports from the largest small arms producer in the world. The influence of the world’s largest federal liberal democracy should not be underestimated.

Coverage on the DC Gun Case decision can be found below:

SMH, CNN, The Australian, NY Times, Washington Post, The Age.

For a laugh, have a look at the difference between the coverage in the SMH and The Australian. If you want to see bias, there it is…thanks Newscorp for some great ‘impartial’ coverage!

If you are like me and a bit of partisan political commentary from a political nobody just makes your day, then I am sure your well versed in the ins and outs of the political blogosphere. Now I know it is in the very nature of modern political commentators to reject allegiance to any particular ideology, but I am starting to question if most of the writers I am reading even actually subscribe to anything at all. It is easy to characterise oneself as either right wing or left wing, maybe even liberal or conservative, but what does that really mean to the writer? Reading some of the “conservative” and “liberal” writings on the internet, I wonder how many truly subscribe to the values of their proclaimed political leanings. Is there anything distinctly conservative or liberal in their writing?

There are libertarians and classical liberals that write about social justice and the modified provision of a welfare state. They pitch free market laissez-faire economics while suggesting policies that are more a reflection of some kind of bastardisation of social liberalism and Keynesian economics. Just last week I read the post of a self proclaimed “aggressive libertarian” talk about the “right” to education! Maybe I missed something but how in the blue hell could the right to education be construed as a negative or natural right? There are conservatives talking about progress and reform and the importance of individual responsibility. When one believes in atomism and egoism to this degree, yet still hammers the importance of law and order with the zeal of a fundamentalist, what is the point they are a making? Their criticisms and suggestions lack coherence to the point of being devoid of any value altogether.

Maybe it is symptomatic of liberalism to strive for the development your own opinion to try to assert your individuality, distinct from the political dogma of ideologues, but there is no point to contradicting oneself at every turn. I’m starting to wish every blog was accompanied with a statement of belief and purpose so I could ascertain what it is exactly the writer is proposing.

/end rant.

Well all the assignments are done and submitted, and I can finally push pressure groups, party politics, electoral systems and Australia’s foreign aid program out of my head. Till exams begin in two weeks anyway. I just thought I would jump in an reaffirm my commitment to this outlet!

Perhaps a little humorous observation to get the ball rolling, has anyone else casually noticed that many of the recipes for the “alcopops” so heavily regulated recently were devised during the infamous “prohibition” era in the US as a means to disguise the fact people were drinking alcohol?

I think the irony is lost on the Rudd government.

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.