LDP on GW

A light hearted look at the route to cap and tax measures that should be taken. From Carbon Sense.

The LDP does not have a policy on global warming and it would be rather silly to adopt one given that it is still being argued in the scientific community and both sides seem polarised to the degree where any sort of consensus is unlikely. Whenever the issue is raised on Thoughts on Freedom or elsewhere we seem to have the same protagonists making the same arguments, thus it is reasonable to assume that neither side will budge unless there is a massive cooling or warming in the near future in which one side will argue that they were right all along, and the other will argue that it is a short term trend and they were right all along.

It is necessary however to have policies on the likely imposition of punitive measures for carbon emissions.

Policy on gambling

Following is a draft policy on gambling, published for comment by members and supporters. Although it has been approved as a draft, it is subject to change prior to finalisation.

LDP Gambling Policy

The LDP believes gambling is like any other form of entertainment – a matter of choice for responsible adults. Just as we may turn off the television or refuse to enter a cinema, we may also leave a casino or decline to bet on a horse race.

The LDP therefore rejects the nanny-state belief that the potential hazards of excessive gambling justify government control of the gambling industry.

The LDP also believes the current approach of State governments to gambling control is completely inefficient and delivers sub-optimal outcomes to Australian gamblers and the economy.

Policy

The LDP has not developed a specific plan of institutional change. However, it commits to the following broad principles:

1. The LDP will not ban or make further restrictions on any individual’s gambling unless they lack the capacity to make a rational decision whether to participate.
2. The LDP will remove monopoly privileges over all aspects of the gambling industry, allowing competition between providers to lower house margins, commissions and other prices for gambling entertainment.
3. The LDP will not favour or disadvantage any particular form of gambling over any others. The LDP will also not adopt discriminatory policies or taxes to favour a particular venue or enterprise.
4. Problem gambling, which affects a small number of individuals, should not be the basis for gambling policy. The LDP will protect the right of individuals to access information about dealing with problem gambling (i.e. about Gambler’s Anonymous meetings etc).
5. The LDP favours a reduction in gambling taxes as with all taxes. It also supports the internalising of any external costs that are clearly imposed by the gambling industry. However, the LDP will not support the use of gambling as a social scapegoat, a political football to be attacked in order to generate votes, or an issue to be managed on the basis of personal moral beliefs.

Media and Image.

The press release I mentioned over at “Thoughts on Freedom,” which was published in AFR’s “rear window” page, regrettably was spoiled somewhat by someone in that organization deciding to have a slap at Lisa Milat. They have been contacted by Peter Whelan and now know of our displeasure regarding their action. The press contains a number of good serious reporters; unfortunately I have met more intelligent hill-billys than some of the rest of them. Lisa’s candidacy brought out the worst in some of them.

 I sometimes wonder if, when some of them go back and look at the stuff that they have done in the past, they shake their heads and ask; “Did I really write that crap.” On the other hand, I doubt that those who write it have the intelligence to see anything wrong with it. The executive will not tolerate further smears on Lisa, we will not ignore them, and we will fight back. Lisa is a responsible and respectable member of the community and does not deserve this.

 While checking back on the controversy on the coverage of this I came across the post, “A Current Affair v Lisa Milat,” and looking through the comments it seems that we tend to get too tied down on minor details of fringe issues, to the point where we never seem to get the big picture across. At least half of the 124 comments seemed to be on the gay issue. Basically as long as they have equal protection under the law, and there is no state discrimination against them, gays are a non-issue.

LDP draft policy on motorcycles

This is a draft policy on motorcycles, posted for comment by members and supporters. It is subject to change in response to feedback here and elsewhere.

Draft Policy

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) believes those who choose to use motorcycles and scooters should not be discouraged by government policies.

The use of motorcycles and scooters is a matter of individual choice. So long as nobody else is likely to be involuntarily harmed by that choice, it is not appropriate for the government to interfere in it.

Motorcycles and scooters represent an economical, convenient and environmentally favourable means of transport that also places fewer demands on roads and other infrastructure.

The LDP will implement the following measures:

Gippsland By-Election

The LDP achieved 4.6% of the primary vote in the Gippsland by-election at the close of counting on 28 June. The final figure will vary a little as postal and absentee votes come in. Results can be monitored here.

That vote propels the LDP from “micro” to “minor” status on the Australian political landscape. The difference is significant, as the preferences of minor parties determine election outcomes.

National President of the LDP, Peter Whelan, in Gippsland working on the “Give Buckley a Chance” campaign,  is confident that the right foundation has been laid for the LDP membership drive in Victoria.

“This is a really great result” Whelan said, “and I would like to thank the people of Gippsland who put their faith in the LDP and Ben. I would also like to thank all our supporters who helped at one quarter of the polling stations across the electorate.”

Ben Buckley worked tirelessly from the start of this long campaign, addressing community forums from Yarrum, through Sale and Heyfield, to Omeo, as well as numerous TV, radio and press interviews.

The LDP’s low cost TV campaign on free-to-air and YouTube.com was well received as it did not engage in fear politics or denigrate the other candidates. It focused on low taxes and less government interference.

The party’s next priorities are to achieve state registration in Victoria and NSW, plus the ACT Legislative Assembly election later in the year. Details on the ACT campaign are here.

The Gippsland By-Election

The Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) will be contesting the June 28th Gippsland by-election. The LDP’s candidate is well known Gippsland identity, Ben Buckley.

Describing how the LDP will appeal to Gippsland voters, Ben said, “The LDP stands for low taxes, small government and individual freedom. That’s also what I believe in, and I think a lot of Gippsland people do too.”

2020 in Hindsight

Well without going too much into detail (as that has already been done in numerous places) I found most of the resolutions coming out of 2020 to be quite predictable. The ALS provides a nice round up of key points, and Senator Andrew Bartlett’s blog provides a good compilation of the various opinions found around the blogosphere. Views range from highly unimpressed (those on the extreme left and extreme right) to more supportive (generally the “moderate” [populist?] commentators). Most suggestions involved the government “fixing” some kind of problem (real or perceived) so naturally the LDP opposes most of the measures suggested. It isn’t that the ideas were without merit (though some- such as banning smoking for people born in 2008 or later and revoking citizenship for those unable to pass a “climate test”- fall into this category) but rather that the entire weekend seemed to be focused on encouraging the government to engage in social engineering.

Take an example that is close to my heart- that is the study of Asian Languages. The final goal was listed as being “To ensure that the major languages and cultures of our region are no longer foreign to Australians but are familiar and mainstreamed into Australian society.” Now this statement in itself is fairly innocent, I guess. And broadly I am supportive of it. But how exactly will Kevin and his government go about achieving this goal? Compulsory subjects and centralised curriculum come to mind…

Now, I’ve studied Japanese for a number of years, I’m now studying Chinese. I was frustrated that in grade 5-6 I studied Indonesian, 7-8 studied German and 11-12 studied Japanese. I have wished that languages could be taught in Australia at a less superficial and more immersive level. But I definitely don’t think that a centralised curriculum is the way to do it. Forcing compulsory subjects onto schools and students isn’t the best way to ensure Australians gain a greater understanding of Asian languages. For a start I don’t trust the government to pick the right language winners (should we teach Mandarin? Indonesian? Japanese? Cantonese? Which Asian language should be learnt?) and secondly I don’t think that a centralised government curriculum is going to care about teaching languages so much as providing voting parents with warm fuzzy feelings that their children are learning through stricter assessment based “learning”. Currently Australian high schools might as well not even be teaching foreign languages for the fluency it gives students- I feel a freer education market would be far more likely to solve this problem than government intervention.

A number of the other suggestions are valuable in so far as they are things I find “ethical” (companies should consider environmental and human concerns, not just profits) but not things I think the government should be enforcing. The government is hardly the way to solve all the world’s ills. Individuals free from government coercion will, in time, solve a lot of their own problems. While values such as tolerance, eco-friendliness and compassion are things I hold in high-regard I believe eventually that they will prosper in the free-market of ideas. Most of the time the government is just following social trends rather than leading anyway.

Why Democracy?

There has been an interesting discussion recently over at the Australian Libertarian Society Blog regarding democracy. A lot of people seem to have some naïve views about democracy that I would like to dispel. It’s actually not that uncommon- I’ve had people in the past question the LDP’s name saying, “liberty, that’s all well and good, but why democracy? Isn’t that just mob rule and contradictory to freedom?” Well, yes and no, depending on how one views democracy. Taken in isolation democracy can be seen as to put it bluntly “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner” but the reality of democracy, particular the tradition of liberal democracy seen in Western nation states is far removed from such a crude analogy. So I’d like to take some time to highlight why democracy is not just a “necessary evil” but rather a good that we should strive for.

Give us R18+

It might seem contradictory to hear a libertarian asking for more regulation but in the case of video games it is entirely necessary.

At present in Australia games have a maximum rating of MA15+. What this means in games that should be classified as R18+ (and would be if they were films) are either denied classification (becoming illegal) or are shoved into the MA15+ rating, even when their content is substantially more “adult”.

Now, part of me thinks that parents should have the responsibility to screen what their children play and watch, but on a practical level ratings do make the job of parenting a lot easier. But provided that the government needs to “protect the children”™, an R18+ rating for video games would provide another level of protection for parents who currently may allow their teenagers an MA15+ game that has slipped through “under-classified”.

And for adults, well, I really don’t believe there is any reason for censorship of games that would be legal if they were films instead. Why should companies have to make the decision between not releasing a game in Australia and having to bear the financial burden of releasing a separate version their adult-targeted game just so it is “teen safe”? Video games are not just for children, they are an interactive medium of entertainment that, just like film, should be allowed to target any audience from 0-100 (and older!) If a game company wants to confront particularly adult themes in their game let them and give them the classification to do so while still helping parents decide what material their children can watch/ play.

Article inspired by news of GTA IV being censored in Australia: http://www.cnet.com.au/games/xbox/0,239029621,339288114,00.htm

GG, Mr. Rudd, GG!

(Sorry about the gamer humour for those who don’t get it.)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/first-female-viceregal/2008/04/13/1208024989606.html

Australia’s set to get our first female Governor General. It seems barely noteworthy that she is female, which goes to show that gender is less important in the modern world than qualifications. It is in breaking with a long tradition and considering we’ve had a female monarch since 1952 it does actually seem a little strange that this is the first female representative of the Crown.

It’s also a little interesting that given Rudd’s alleged commitment to a republic that he should pick the first female Governor General to be, potentially, the last one.

Personally, my biggest annoyance isn’t with her gender, but rather with the fact that it’s another damn Queenslander.