Writing speeches for Kevin (RR) 11:41 PM

Its very surprising to find this article in the AGE ... its definitely worth checking out, and as you go through the comments you'll find it comes as no surprise to anyone that has worked in government previously.

However, i do differ from some of the comment in that i think the liberals empowered their ministers much more than kevin does.

WRITING SPEECHES

thanks to IPA for pointing it out

Crime and punishment (Roy Rodgers) 2:29 AM

All this talk of wowsers and their wowsery ways inevitably leads to the topics of crime and punishment. These two are perhaps the hardest concepts for anyone who takes liberty seriously to come to terms with. They provide an obvious conundrum. The libertarian has to somehow come to a position on the potential legitimacy of the state's use of coercive powers that range from simple fines, to incarceration, in some cases torture and in some countries all the way through to death.

Some laws where made to be broken...

Since the end of the second world war most developed economies in the west have seen an amazing boom in legislation. God knows what the page count is currently, there are laws and regulations for nearly everything.

I got fined $170 just last week for parking my car for longer than one hour in my residential street just outside my house during the day when the street was half empty .... apart from the fiscal pain this caused me, the law the I've broken or the crime that I've committed is obviously absurd. I got fined for simply parking my car ... there was no congestion issue, no one got hurt in any way. I was simply utilising a public asset (the road) in exactly the manner is which it is intended to be utilised.

And how about the guy in Port Melbourne who recently got fined $50,000 for demolishing his house which he paid for with his cash but which unfortunately had inestimable heritage value as an example of post war public housing. Yes that's right this guy got in the shit because he was rude enough to demolish the crappy public house that was standing on his $1million dollar block of land. ABSURD.

So the next time you've stepped out at 4am to get panadol for your loved one and you find your self sitting at a red light in a street that resembles the set of 28 days latter. Just ask yourself why the hell am i sitting here in my pjs like a big fat goose just because there's a red light. Ask yourself if i ran the light who would be to blame ... you or the idiot bureaucrat that forgot to turn the lights off when everyone went to bed. For god sake ... that light deserves to be run!

There is a legion of examples of laws and regulations that represent nothing short of state based abuse and should be canned immediately. Laws and regulations that have nothing to do with causing harm to others. Wouldn't it be good if someone had enough gumption to propose a libertarian day where it was the duty of every Australian to break some form of ridiculous law. A day where its your duty as an Australian to flip the bird to the cubicle dwelling bureaucrats. However, that person will not be me ... I'm sure it would be illegal to suggest such a thing.

the conundrum ...

Despite these seemingly pointless laws, it can not be denied that there are genuinely bad people out there .... or more correctly people out there who either want to, or are prepared to if the circumstances dictate, do serious harm to others. People whose utility functions include the disutility of others, who are totally indifferent to the utility of others, or those who take no heed of the reciprocity associated with doing harm to others.

The conundrum for the libertarian is that there are people who whether through circumstance, disease or stupidity represent a genuine risk to the rest of us. And the only way to effectively address this risk (at least in the short term) is to remove them ... to physically separate them from those to whom they wish to do harm. And as unfortunate as it sounds there is no institution better placed to do this than the state. The conundrum is that there may after all be a role for the state and it's not a very nice role. It's a role that involves using force and coercion, something any sane libertarian feels hesitant in allowing the state to use.

While there is a role for the state, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's doing a good job of it. In fact the state seems to be a bit confused about what its actually supposed to be doing. It would seem that the conventional approach to punishment and prisons is based on the notion that punishment is doled out to prisoners in the belief that it will reform them or rehabilitate them for their ultimate reintegration into society.

While noble, such a goal is not necessarily consistent with the idea of risk aversion. If you take the position that the state justice and prison system exist as a way of society managing the risks associated with it's criminal class, then you have to wonder how recidivists actually exist. If the system assessed their risk efficiently then they would not be released and they would not have the opportunity to keep perpetrating. In assessing the threat that a convict poses to society the authorities should reference the statistical probability that the prisoner will re-offend. Maybe they do?

It's worth recognising that rehabilitation itself is one way of addressing such risk. However, those that commit crimes that are highly recidivist in nature like pedophiles, serial rapists or serial murders are mostly likely highly probable to re-offend. So regardless of whether such individuals have found god and repent for their sins their actual release will also depend on the statistical likelihood of them re-offending. The point being that prisoners who have committed crimes or exhibited behaviour that indicate a probability of recidivism would not be released.

And I recognise that it doesn't sound anything like the rant of a libertarian and places a lot of power in the hands of the state .... when i said conundrum i meant it.

and now to the hangman ...

The following link takes you to an archive of the last words of executed inmates. The archive is maintained by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. It's probably safe to assume its existence is due to a legislative obligation placed on the department.

Link to archive

As with the issues of crime and punishment, the archive presents libertarians with a conundrum. Included in the archive is the inmates rap sheet. I haven't gone through all of them but for the sample that i looked at based on their rap sheets and the horrible things they have done they can only be described as animals, nothing short of walking human excrement .... ... ... on the other hand when you read their last words you get the uneasy feeling that there is some humanity there. From the sample there was a universal profession of sorrow for the pain that they had caused others. Now I'm assuming that they are telling the truth and given that the statements are taken just before they get the needle there's no good reason for them to lie.

While in general crime and punishment is perplexing, one can form positions about some of the more extreme aspects, like capital punishment. Capital punishment is definitely something the world is better without. The primary reasons are:

1. there has never been any form of government in human history competent enough to impartially administer a program of capital punishment, nor has any had enough nous to avoid the odd case of judicial murder
2. I have a strong suspicion that given the appeals mechanism necessary in such systems and the opposition that such programs generate amongst your right for life types, the costs involved would far outweigh those of the alternative - long term incarceration.... and we pay enough tax as it is.

The economics of crime ...

One interesting thing worthy of note was that the last minute, seemingly contrite apologies, professions of sorrow and admissions of guilt were consistent with economic theories of crime and punishment.

One of the first economists to try and model crime and punishment was Gary Becker. Becker wrote a seminal paper imaginatively titled Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.

Link to full text copy of Becker's paper.

In his paper Becker argues that there is an optimal level of enforcement and punishment. More importantly Becker established quite convincingly the proposition that criminals are rational and that criminal behaviour follows rational decision making processes. The basic contention is that the criminals willingness to commit crime is a function of both the positive utility he/she derives from the crime (some of a pecuniary nature some of a non pecuniary nature) and the costs associated with the crime.

Under Becker's models the costs are a function of the probability of being caught and the value of the punishment. Sort of like analysis regarding contingent states of the world.

The paper is a good read. Becker proposes a framework similar to a classical one with the exception that its based on involuntary exchange. What would normally be the buyers are the victims and the sellers are the criminals.

It follows that (depending on the criminals level of risk aversion) the supply of criminal behaviour could be influenced by increasing the probability of being apprehended or alternatively by increasing the costs associated with penalties. Which is more effective depends on the criminals risk profile, for those with a risk affinity, increasing detection and apprehension is more effective than increasing penalty. Its less clear for the risk adverse, increasing either penalty or probability of apprehension would most likely do the job.

The interesting thing with the archive of last statements is that it would appear to represent a situation where the probability of apprehension and conviction is 100% and the cost associated with the penalty is as high as it could possibly be (assuming no one is suicidal). In these circumstances it would appear that all (or certainly all the ones i looked at) express regret and remorse. It would appear that when you reach the universal maximum for the cost of crime you may achieve some form of rehabilitation.

This universal expression of regret and remorse is dependent on the imminent penalty. We have no grounds for assuming that were the penalty to be removed or where we to introduce a probability that it would be removed, that we would get the same outcome.

wowser, wowser, wowser (Roy Rodgers) 12:25 AM

Lucky for us the good people over at the IPA have compiled a comprehensive list of all the new laws and regulations the task force put forward in its report.

As you can see quite a few!! enough to keep a whole armada of cubicles busy for the next 10 years.

All the economic consultants out there are going to start salivating the second they see this list ... wont be able to help themselves... just think of the revenue stream. But who am i to talk, the second i saw the list i decided to seriously consider the wife's contention that we just need that holiday shack on the beach.

New laws
1. Food and beverages classification
2. Junk food if self-regulation fails
3. Raise price of tobacco
4. Tobacco promotion ban
5. Tobacco out of sight in retail outlets
6. Plain packaging on cigarette packages
7. Ban smoking in public places "where children are likely to be exposed"
8. Ban smoking in cars
9. Second-hand smoke in workplaces, incl. outdoors
10. Second-hand smoke outside, "where people gather or move in close proximity"
11. Increase size of pack warnings
12. Tobacco brand names
13. further protections against sales to minors
14. Second-hand smoke outside, "where people gather or move in close proximity"
15. Ban vending machines sales, the internet, and at hospitality & other social venues
16. Nationally consistent liquor outlet opening times and density
17. Nationally consistent accreditation requirements for liquor licences
18. Nationally consistent late night outlet laws
19. Nationally consistent alcohol serving and training
20. Alcohol promotion regulation if voluntary regulation inadequate
21. Alcohol advertising during live sport broadcasts
22. Alcohol advertising during high adolescent/child viewing
23. Alcohol sponsorship of sport and cultural events
24. Alcohol promotion regulation
25. Alcohol availability restrictions, indigenous communities
26. Liquor licence hours restrictions in indigenous communities

New Programs and Frameworks
27. National Framework for Active Living
28. National Food and Nutrition Framework
29. National program to support Health and Physical Education in National Curriculum
30. Expand after-school health programs
31. Healthy and Active Families initiative
32. National Healthy Community Leadership and Education Program
33. Social Marketing Strategy
34. Multi-component community-based obesity programs in low SES communities
35. Multi-component community-based obesity programs in indigenous communities
36. National workplace health leadership program, and best practice guidelines
37. National accord for workplace programs and risk assessment
38. National program to alert pregnant and pre-pregnant women of dangers of excessive weight
39. National strategy to combat illicit tobacco trade
40. Multi-component community-based tobacco control projects
41. Develop further Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
42. Alcohol Diversion Programs, indigenous communities
43. Network of Alcohol-related programs
44. National Strategic Framework for preventative health research

New bureaucracies
45. Prime Ministers Council for Active Living
46. Healthy Food Compact
47. Regulatory body for required disclosure to government, communication to consumers and emissions
48. National Tobacco Strategy Steering Committee
49. National Prevention Agency
50. Preventative health strategic research fund
51. National preventative health research register

Recommendations
52. Research Program to inform National active living framework on economic issues
53. Commission review of economic policies and tax systems towards encouraging healthier food consumption
54. Work with industry towards food labelling
55. Voluntary industry scorecard
56. Nationally agreed accreditation standards for food labelling
57. Research: program to strengthen evidence of effective workplace health promotion
58. Research: legislative changes to encourage workplace health programs
59. Research: feasibility of grants and tax incentives for employees to encourage achievement of benchmarks
60. Health and PE in National Curriculum
61. Establish system to monitor policy of minimum 2 hours physical activity per week from K-10.
62. Research: How teachers promote health
63. Community Intervention Trials
64. Local Government Partnerships to encourage local councils to adopt health guidelines
65. Research: into effectiveness of the self-regulation of junk food
66. Expand allied health workforce
67. Clinical guidelines for allied health workforce
68. Carry out National Risk Factor Survey in 2010
69. National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey in 2012
70. Research: national research agenda for obesity
71. Research: ongoing research into obesity into indigenous communities
72. International agreements to combat illicit tobacco trade
73. Social marketing campaigns against tobacco use
74. Research into warning label effectiveness
75. Tobacco retailers licensing regime
76. Research: possibility of legal action by government and others against tobacco companies
77. All health services smoke-free, incl. Grounds
78. Patients quizzed about smoking status routinely
79. More money for: extra Quitline resources
80. Nicotine replacement therapy more affordable
81. Social marketing campaigns for indigenous smokers
82. Training in smoking cessation advice for indigenous health workers
83. Tobacco Control Workers in indigenous communities
84. Promotion to health professionals for Quitline
85. Poster advertising in disadvantaged communities
86. Increase efforts for anti-smoking for people with mental illness
87. Prisons and state-funded human services agencies smoke-free
88. Target parents to convey message to children to not smoke
89. Make smoking classifiable in movies
90. Constant alerts to public about dangers, and about new research findings
91. Tobacco surveillance system to assess whether anti-smoking targets are being met
92. Increase resources to develop and implement best practice for laws and regulations related to alcohol
93. Develop business case for COAG nation partnership on policing and enforcement
94. More money for: Drink-driving monitoring
95. More money for: Licence enforcement
96. More money for: Annual review of licences
97. Demerit points for licences
98. More money for: monitoring liquor laws
99. Social marketing strategy
100. Campaign to "build a national consensus on healthy alcohol consumption"
101. Campaign for awareness of alcohol guidelines
102. Campaign to de-normalise intoxication
103. Campaign to raise awareness of consequences of alcohol
104. Research: effectiveness of voluntary approach to alcohol promotion regulation
105. Research: alcohol modelling
106. Advocate: alcohol floor price
107. More money for: alcohol campaigns
108. More money for: healthcare providers, indigenous communities
109. More money for: staff training, indigenous communities
110. More money for: treatment programs, indigenous communities
111. More money for: coordinated case management, indigenous communities
112. More money for: responsible serving of alcohol provision
113. Community groups of indigenous to promote alcohol responsibility
114. Research: alcohol consumption, indigenous communities
115. More money for: health care for alcohol problems
116. More money for: health care for alcohol problems, disadvantaged groups
117. Nationally consistent principles regarding alcohol to minors without parental consent
118. Promotion of early drinking age discussion
119. Community support for parents and alcohol
120. Research: Alcohol use in families and with children
121. Research: nationally consistent collection and management of alcohol wholesale sales data
122. Research: National indicators on alcohol consumption

Link to IPA discussion

Re: Who would have thought (Lone Ranger) 3:31 PM

Further to your post, Roy, it really is laughable that "racism" is the depth of analysis attempted ABC journalists (and much of the mainstream media generally). The 2-3 million people that marched through Washington this week were protesting big government, socilaised health care and big brother, and were demanding freedom and the right to be left alone to live their lives. The libertarian movement is picking up steam for the first time in 100 years in the US, and the founders of the nation would thoroughly approve. This is a question of liberty - not race (why is the left so obsessed with race anyway?).

The tragedy from my perspective is that there is no such movement here. Let me quote from the 1909 Australia year book with regards to the Australian character:

The Australian at present is little other than a transplanted Briton, with the
essential characteristics of his British forbears, the desire for freedom from
restraint, however, being perhaps more strongly accentuated.

The key point is not the the Australian was thought to be like the Briton, but rather the emphasis on his (or her) dislike to restraint, of control. What happened in the intervening 100 years? From a freedom loving, independent people who were ashamed to take hand outs (ask your grandparents), we have become a nation of welfare dependent hand-out junkies, who seem to think that the "rich" should pay for our health care, schools, roads and everyhting else that Government does and probably should not. Where are the lovers of freedom? What happened to the independent Australian who supported himself and his family? What happened to the suspicion of big government? Where is our Washington? Where is our Ayn Rand?

This is how free people become enslaved.

Who would have thought (Roy Rodgers) 12:10 AM

If you've been following this blog you would no doubt be familiar with the total disregard some of the contributors have for economic competence of the aussie media. Personally, I seem to be in a state of perpetual confusion ... its really my own fault ... i watch way too much ABC (or as its otherwise known the AlpBC).

The last couple of days have proven to be very perplexing.

For a start I cant begin to understand why my lovely little abc reporter felt he had to whole heatedly endorse the latest load of crap from the democrats in the states that attributes obama's growing unpopularity to RACISM.

At no point in the good five minutes of coverage this story got, did my lovely little red fisted abc reporter even mention that some of the protest against obama may result from his recent attempts to socialise a health system in what must be the most liberal country on earth. No way would that piss people off ... no they must be racist.

And is there any evidence to back this claim of racism? well no .. i didn't see a single white sheet or burning cross on any of the footage. But i did see allot of placards protesting obama's proposed health policy. If to simply disagree with obama's policies is racist, then the man is the single greatest threat to American democracy since FDR. It is basically akin to instituting an African American infallibility clause.

The other thing that has left me incredulous is the seeming lack of comment regarding the fundamental precedent set by the Commonwealth in showing total disregard for private property rights. I'm talking TELSTRA.

No one has yet mentioned that this week saw for the very first time in the history of the Australian Federation, a Commonwealth government demand a totally privately owned company divest itself of a significant proportion of its assets.

It doesn't matter if you love or hate TELSTRA. No matter how much more competitive you think the world is going to be, no matter how cheaper you think your phone bill will be, you can not ignore nor underestimate the importance of what the Commonwealth is proposing to do.

Never before has any Australian government ever forced through coercion a private company to effectively dissolve .... NEVER.

Whats more they don't actually have the power to do it up front. They have to do it via black mail. Gone is any pretense at procedural fairness any attempt to avoid administrative bias. They are basically holding the company to ransom, in such a way that would totally violate the procurement policy for any state government, you can't exclude a company from a tender simply beacuase you dont like its market share ( i didn't mention the commonwealth's procurement policy cause I'm assuming its okay with them).

Love TELSTRA or hate it ... you should still be alarmed at this attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of our modern economy ...

I want my 8 cents back (Roy Rodgers) 3:30 AM

Gather round kiddies its story time.
Today’s tale is one of hope, dreams and productivity improvements.

Starting way back in our distant past ... the eighties ... governments across our broad land began a process of microeconomic reform aimied at shaking the shackels of governement owned utilites and achieveing efficiencies in service provision. Collectively our attitudes to government utilities had changed. No longer were we content to sit back and watch public servants sit around on their arses all day.

There was a broad recognition that the private sector was much more efficient and effective in providing people with they wanted when they wanted it. So our governments in a seemingly enlightened state of being jumped to the obvious and quite right conclusion that perhaps the public sector would be better at providing goods and services if it adopted some private sector practices.

The first step in this reform process was corporatisation. Governments from Darwin to Hobart set about corporatising their utilities. They established corporate structures that were separate and independent from government (to varying degrees of success). Thus utilities became corporations.

These new corporations were incentivised to behave in a commercial manner. And surprise surprise ... we got to experience huge bursts of productivity and masive increases in service standards. No matter how annoyed you currently are about customer service with Telstra, electricity retailers or water businesses, none of it compares to the past.

This is going way back (and ill probably lose all the gen y ers) but we should all have some dim memory of what it used to be like dealing with those monolithic old government utilities, of having to queue on phones for hours on end, of having to front up at dank musty offices and stand in lines a mile long waiting to get access to some nose picking genius who would inevitably turn out to be as helpful as an arse full of hemaroids (apologies I'm still carry around some scars).

The days of ping pong playing public servants are well and truly gone. Although they still cop a bit of stick most employees of these businesses now work quite hard and are in most cases just as productive as their fellow counterparts in equivalent private sector positions.

Once business had been corporatised the next step was for them to achieve full cost recovery. The idea being that people should pay for the services that they consume so that they themselves make better more efficient consumption decisions and so that their consumption does not (theoretically at least) infringe too greatly on others by demanding some form of cross subsidisation.

Other commercial practices were imposed on them. They were expected to earn a commercial rate of return, they were expected to face a commercial cost of capital, and they were expected to deliver annual productivity savings ... all good stuff.

In some cases corporatisation led to governments having to face the brutal truth that there was absolutely no reason they should have been in the businesses they were in. Thus we had privatisation. Privatisation still cops a bit of criticism from your leafy suburb types, but the only criticism that can truly be levied is that perhaps in their general rush to off load some of these business governments were a bit hasty and underpriced some of their assets.

But hey, at the end of the day its not the governments job to be entrepreneurial and if there are members of the private sector who are only to happy to provide the requisite goods and services then government has no business in competing with them by operating businesses and should simply get out of the way ... which (ignoring the burden of regulation) by and large they have over the last 20 years. Don’t get me wrong that regulatory burden is quite substantial and ever growing but thats really the subject of another post.

And life was grand ....... .... with one exception.

Our national broadcaster the ABC.

Let’s be upfront here. There is nothing mythical about the ABC. It provides TV broadcasting services. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. But at the end of the day it is just another form of government utility. And while aunty may be a corporation it is not one of the good modern sorts that pays for itself, responds to customers demands and continually seeks to better itself.

No! The ABC is an old school government utility .... one that’s totally dependent on budgetary funding, just as addicted to the public dollar as any addict is to his dealers junk.

The corporatisation of the ABC occurred in 1983, previously the C had stood for commission. with the benefit of hind sight its not actually clear why the utility was corporatised. In its own words it summarises the benefits of corporatisation as:

Since the Corporation was established the ABC has not only forged ahead in the areas of radio and television broadcasting, it has expanded its base to include the introduction and growth of a number of other functions. Major restructuring of the organisation occurred with radio and television being split into separate divisions. Senior management was reorganised and an overhaul of management, finance, property, engineering and equipment areas began

It would appear that the ABC itself sees its main achievements as being

1. doing more stuff

2. shuffling cubicles

There’s nothing in there about productivity gains or achieving some level of cost recovery. Nothing about standing on its own two feet.

And sure as day follows night the place would be full of no-hopers and loafers. The ABC is correctly characterised as a type of collective dole payment for 90% of Australia’s unemployable arts graduates. Although i know absolutely nothing about its expenditure profile, ill bet my little lunch that its in need of a serious haircut.

With the benefit of hind sight you may assume that the point of corporatisation was to provide the broadcaster with a degree of independence so that it would not be just the governments mouth piece. However, since the 80s it has become well and truly partisan. The views, agendas and spin coming out of it are wholeheartedly labour orientated. Point in case, the insiders on Sunday morning... not a bad show, but unarguably subject to systemic bias. There are always without fail two 'left commentators' and only one 'right commentator' thrown into this mix is Barry Cassidy who as an ex advisor to the Hawke government can only be viewed as 'left' ... that makes it three to one. Another example is Q&A, I cant begin to count the number of times I've tuned in only to witness the spectacle of Joe Hockey taking on every other member of the panel including Tony Jones the host.

Above commercialism

So what possible justification could there be for this state of affairs. Well I’m sure some would argue that the ABC needs to leach of the public teat because it is quite simply above having to earn a dollar, that advertising is too grubby and too corrupting. The only response any rational person could possible have to such a contention is GROW UP or #@$% off to North Korea. North Koreans are above grubby commercialism.

Gone are the days when most people were prepared to listen to winging arty wankas. Now days people are more concerned about why they have been put on a waiting list for non elective surgery, why their kids are doing their lessons in demountable class rooms, why there are not enough police on the streets to protect us. For god sake the government has allot more important things to spend our tax money on (ignoring of course the latest round of madness from the stimulus packages). And this issue is not going to go away, the whole concept of the ABC is becoming increasingly at odds with the values of a modern liberal Australia. It is only going to become harder and harder to justify a tax payer funded British content TV channel.

The ABC needs to protect and promote Australian culture.

a;lkszsdrtsdfgdzfgfdgjasfi .... that’s the sound of confused disbelief. Protect and promote our culture? and here i was thinking the ABC was just a franchise of the BBC. Lets see, favourite ABC shows - the bill, the goodies, silent witness, spooks, black books, mis marple, doctor who, life on mars, grand design and on and on and on. Aussie my arse!!

Just exactly what has been the ABCs contribution to culture? The closest it’s come to an iconic Aussie show was sea change. Other than that it’s been a long time between drinks.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter where you sit on culture. If the aim of the government is to fund for whatever reason Australian content in the base belief that to do so somehow promotes our culture it does not follow that the government needs to fund an entire TV channel. It could simple subsidise or provide incentive payments to the privately owned channels to produce the content. This would have to be much cheaper because we could target directly the Australian produced content and could avoid having to spend tax dollars on paying for such crap as Foyle’s War. Given its seemingly never ending British programming our 8 cents a day has probably done more to promote English culture in Australia than it has to preserve and protect our own.

Supporting localised production

Other arguments such as the broadcaster providing a vehicle for more localised programming don’t wash either. If more localised programming is the objective, the Commonwealth would be better served by opening up licensing restrictions on the digital network to allow community channels like channel 31 make the transition from analogue to digital and to provide space for other community groups or enterprises to set up shop.

Given the massive leaps in production savings generated by cheaper good quality cameras and cheap good quality editing software, it would seem that the only remaining obstacle to people setting up local channels is for the commonwealth to removed restrictions on broadcasting. I don’t know about you but my TV has over 300 channels, which begs the question of why I only receive 4. Sorry that’s 5 now that 10 has set up one (a channel that seems to broadcast NASCAR racing 24 hours a day)

Content for children

Another argument relates to the programming of content for children, again as with culture there is no reason the privately owned channels can not provide this material, its not as if they don’t already, and again as with community there are plenty of spare channels floating round.

Universal coverage

The only other argument for the ABC is coverage. You could argue that the ABC has some type of universal service obligation, so that every Australian no matter how remote has access to the Bill. And thus feel connected at some level with the rest of the Australian population. However, this argument doesn’t wash either. Telecommunications is a much more important service and a minimum level of service is provided universally regardless of the fact that there is no national telecommunications company. Universal telecommunications is provided via a USO by Telstra predominantly and is funded by all carriers through a universal service fund. There is no reason this can’t be duplicated for TV services. And I should also say that I don’t really believe that there are parts of Australia that only receive ABC.

Free tv?

So putting aside our inability to justify the ABC. What else can we have a go at? For one thing I think it’s a total misdemeanour for the ABC to include itself in the Free TV group. There is nothing free about it. We pay and we pay allot. Unlike the commercial channels that adopt a negative production function, which sees content being funded through advertising. The ABC relies on us to pay for it. And pay for it we do and have been since amendments to the Broadcasting Act in 1948 meant that the ABC was no longer financed out of licence fees, but directly by a government lump sum appropriation ... by tax.

In the 80s the mantra was 8 cents a day.... the idea being that we should all be happy little farts that were getting such value for so little money. Well 8 cents a day adds up. 8 cents over a population of 20 million gives 1.6 million per day which gives $584 million for a year, over a 10 year period this amounts to $5.84 billion, after discounting the NPV over this period is $4.2 billion. That is quite allot of school rooms, nurses and police we are foregoing to keep aunty alive. And that number is unadjusted for inflation ... so were talking 80s dollars not money of the day.

Of course the actual budgetary spend has moved on since the 80s. In the 2009 budget the total appropriation for the ABC wasn’t $584 million rather it was $912.3 nearly double, this makes it one of the better funded government agencies. Even after taking into consideration inflation you can pretty safely say the ABC has not been able to achieve any significant efficiency over the last 20 years (unlike the vast majority of Australia). This is even more striking when you consider the economies that have been delivered to the sector through technological innovation. By the way the NPV of $912 million per annum over a 10 year period (6% discount rate) is $6.7 billion. The ABC now cost 13 cents per day and it is most definitely NOT free TV.

So why does the ABC exist? You tell me, I can’t work it out ... although I do have a suspicion that it has more to do with the political power of celebrity than it does with good governance. Heaven forbid that Geoffrey Rush might actually say something nasty about big kev.

The endless search for new victims or the raison d’être of the modern leftie (Lone Ranger) 4:26 AM

The constant and growing socialisation from all our lives through the expansion of Government and the ever increasing volume of regulations and laws cannot be separated from the socialist goal of using “equality” (whatever that means) as a way of controlling society. This desire for equality can manifest in a variety of objectives and goals, including:

• High levels of taxes on the middle classes and the “rich” which are then used to subsidise the lifestyles of the poor – the “disadvantaged”, the “less fortunate” and the “victims”
• Ever increasing efforts to legislate thought control, through a variety of “anti-discrimination” legislation (anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-creedism, anti-heightism etc)
• Ironically, the desire to shove the concept of “diversity” down our throats as if it must be a positive. Note that diversity does not run to diversity of thought – what is envisaged is a group of multi-gender, multi-coloured, multi-linguistic and multi-age “diverse” people all thinking exactly the same way
• The growth of more “essential services” without which people will die (e.g. subsidised taxis for the “disabled”). This entails (a) a lot more public servants to administer programs and (b) when Governments decide that more public servants appear to be a bad look, through (entirely publically funded) not for profit agencies
• The growth of the bizarre concept that no aspect of life is taken seriously unless there is a Minister responsible. This helps to explain why the Victorian Government has a Minister for Community Development (can’t communities develop themselves?), a Minister for Financial Services (Minister for the banks and super funds) and a Minister for Innovation (an oxymoron, surely). The problem arises when Ministers want to be seen to be doing something (the need for a press release is strong – call it a substitute for achievement), and hence new and imaginative regulations and programs must be dreamed up and funded

All of which adds up to the need for a constant stream of disadvantaged and victims that the lefties can “help”. This allows them to tax and spend more, provide jobs for their leftie mates in industries deemed socially “aware”, and pretend that, unless we want throw more and more of our hard-earned at a bunch of no-hopers, we are right-wing thugs and so on.

I mentioned Ministerial portfolios earlier. Indeed, the number of portfolios for victims is extensive – Ministers for Women’s Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Multicultural Affairs, old people, youth, children, disabled and veterans. And you do not even need to be human to be a basket case in need of help – Ministers for manufacturing are a case in point.

So what does all this mean? Well, the bitter truth is that, despite all the protestations of love, peace and harmony, the whole leftist approach is driven almost entirely by self interest. The left needs a constant flow of new victims to keep it employed (with public money, of course) and to make the rest of us guilty enough to cough up more and more of our income in the form of tax to fund these whims.

Why do you think leftists love refugees who have almost no hope of integrating into Australian society any time soon? Not because they believe in racial equality – indeed, anything but. The refugees are so helpless, apparently, that they need the help of the lefties to get by. Whole industries are dependent on the constant flow of these people – social services, health services, interpreters and translators, educators, advocates – you name it. And all funded from the public purse either directly or indirectly.

The whole welfare state is, in many ways, a giant scam cooked up by lefties to provide well paid careers for them and their cronies. Government support for the unemployed and “less fortunate” grows over time, thus obviating the need or desire for many to ever work again or take responsibility for their families (helped along by minimum wages locking them out of the workforce). And see what this lack of responsibility causes – broken families, broken societies and a permanent underclass of no-hopers who have come to expect – nay, demand – a constant flow of hand outs from Government. It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about “free” education or “free” health since it might be free for them, but not for the poor sods who have funded it. By what moral right should Governments determine how any of us use our hard earned?

Think of the lack of logic that Government interventions generally have. For instance, Governments tax the billy-o out of gambling, and then use some of the proceeds to assist “problem gamblers”. If gambling is such a problem, outlaw it. Or better yet, get out of the way and let the losers and their families live with the consequences of their actions. Whatever happened to free will and taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

In their search for victims (aka the meal ticket), these people will stop at nothing. You too can be a victim, as long as you are prepared to find an advocate who looks convincing on camera.

Until we collectively stop this rubbish, it will continue to get worse. A better approach can be summed up, I think, in that classic refrain “just get over it”. Liberty is not yet dead, but I think it is on life support.

Why we are against Big Government (posted by Lone Ranger) 3:56 PM

As you may have guessed, none of the contributors to this site are fans of “Big Government”. The concept of “big Government” is difficult to define – but suffice to say, my own preference is for Government to have an absolutely minimal impact on our lives. Personally, I consider that Government functions should primarily focus on the protection of property rights – justice, police and defence. On the other hand, I strenuously object to Government actions which:

1. Are based on making outcomes “fairer” – this requires huge levels of tax, enormous amounts of regulation and thousands of public servants to “ensure” that outcomes are “fairer”. How taxing the productive to give to the unproductive (plus a large commission for the public servants on the way) is fair, I am not sure

2. Are aimed at protecting us from ourselves. I don’t smoke and nor do I like the smell of cigarette smoke, but if someone wants to smoke until they get terminal lung cancer, why should I stop them? (provided I do not then have to fork out for their hospital bills). Also note that recent studies place the revenue earned from tobacco to exceed health related tobacco costs by a factor of 6

3. Are aimed at eliminating all risk from our lives. This is unrealistic and leads to the infantilisation of the population generally. What is wrong with people paying for the consequences of their actions?

4. Reduce our liberty. Every time a Government taxes, legislates and regulates, our liberties are diminished. I want the freedom to succeed or fail by my own merits

5. Use compulsion to achieve its ends. The concept of a free market, a much abused term (not least by Kevin Rudd who we suspect doesn’t even know what a market is) depends on free exchange between free men and women. Why should the state have a role in any form of exchange, be it prices, wages or anything else? For instance, if I am happy to work for $9.98 per hour, but the minimum wage prevents me and my would-be employer from employing me for anything under $10.00 per hour, how is that just?

The trouble is, nearly every action that Governments take will seek to make a situation “fairer”, protect us from ourselves, reduce risk, reduce liberty and /or use compulsion.

In addition to the above, a productive society depends on the creation of wealth, not the consumption of it. Entrepreneurs and capitalists create wealth – Governments consume it. A really useful test on whether or not an activity is wealth creating is as follows. Ask yourself two questions:
. Is the product of my endeavours exportable?
· Is there a secondary market for this product?

If the answer is “no” to each of these questions, the chances are that you are not creating wealth, but, rather, living off the productivity of others. Many activities would answer “yes” to both (e.g. mining), and others to just one (e.g. tourism). For nearly all Government jobs, however, you would answer “no” to both these questions.

The secret of wealth creation and rising living standards is actually not much of a secret. It is, in fact, a no-brainer. Wealth creation depends on:
· The investment of capital in productive, wealth producing enterprises (the source of output and jobs)
· Investment, in turn, occurs as a direct result of the accumulation of capital
· Capital – or “savings” as the more old fashioned amongst us would know it – is accumulated in the way it has always been accumulated, through hard work and thrift (i.e. my out-goings are less than my in-comings).

This simple equation reveals why the Commonwealth Government’s stimulus packages are such a crock. More about them another time.