Journalism, and newspapers in particular, provide an interesting example of the need for business people to concern themselves about long-term consequences. Newspapers and journalists today enjoy a very low reputation, because for too long they have sought to take short-cuts and promote sales through distortions, exaggerations, sensationalism and half truths.

Few people today would be surprised when, after being tempted to buy an afternoon paper by a provocative display dodger, they find that the dodger statement was only ambiguously true and, in fact, deliberately misleading. It has happened so often that the sucker reader merely calls himself a fool for being caught yet again, and mentally relegates newspapers another notch lower in his estimation. And the same is true of advertising.

Everyone in this life should do what they’re good at. And what Australia is good at is raw resources: food and minerals. So naturally, what our governments have us do instead is concentrate on what we are lousy at — labour intensive industries like making cars and trousers. This lunacy can only be maintained through the coercive actions of governments working in cahoots with big business in much the same way as the Mafia protects its gambling interest from honest competition.

This situation goes on year after year because the government buys votes with its protectionist policies in the areas where most voters live: Sydney and Melbourne. But gradually the residents of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia are beginning to realise that without the lead weight of the dying States around their neck, they would become, together or singularly, one of the richest nations on earth.

Events such as Watergate have made one thing clear: we, the public, know very little about what really goes on in the dirty world of politics. And that little that we do know usually finds its way into circulation by devious and painful means.

The veil of secrecy that surrounds the operations of governments all over the world makes life very difficult for historians. They may know that a certain event occurred, but usually can only guess at how. Their guesses, of course, are very likely to be influenced by their particular point of view. Thus, a Marxist may interpret an event one way, a conspiracy-theory adherent may find another, and an apologist for a particular government may find yet another. There are almost as many theories as there are historians.

 Read more

The issue of conservation arises in three different areas: natural resources (iron ore, uranium, coal, oil, timber); nature itself (“national” parks, beaches, wildlife); and man-made structures (bridges and buildings). In the area of resources the genuine conservationists’ concern is with ensuring future supplies of natural resources while allowing current uses; whereas in the areas of nature and man-made structures the concern is to ensure the continued existence of things that could otherwise be destroyed for all time.

 Read more

We define pollution as the transfer of matter or energy to the body or property of another without that persons consent.¹ Because it is done without consent, pollution violates the rights of the person whose body or property is polluted. It is important to note that the very fact that such transfer takes place is sufficient for it to be pollution. It need not cause danger, nor need it be beyond a certain arbitrary, specified amount. Any such transfer is pollution.

A frequent criticism levelled at laissez-faire economics is that under such a system it wouldn’t be long before a few greedy people control everything. In other words, unless the government steps in to stop them, monopolies will rear their ugly heads. These, we are told, are bad, for three reasons: (1) they charge very high prices with im[p]unity; (2) they don’t have to offer a fair or good service; and (3) they are powerful enough to forcefully prevent competition. Because they have a monopoly, they do not have competition to worry about, and therefore can hold the helpless consumer over the proverbial barrel. In addition, so low has the reputation for businessmen sunk (and not without some justification), it is claimed that should someone try to compete, the monopolist will stop at nothing to bankrupt them. Read more

Education is the modern cure-all. It is thought of as the barrier that has to be smashed through before poor or underprivileged kids can make good. Because of this too much emphasis is placed on qualifications and education in our society today. We are so concerned with force feeding education to our kids that we’ve forgotten something. We’ve forgotten that our children aren’t mindless robots, but real, living, flesh-and-blood human beings. They have minds, needs, and wills of their own. But we, in our wisdom, have managed to construct an education system that mounts a brutal attack on all three.We then have the hide to turn around and resent the fact that our children don’t don’t appear to appreciate what it is we are doing for them. It’s probably because they are so painfully aware of what we are doing to them, that children are a little confused about what it is we are supposed to be doing for them.

 Read more

It is, perhaps, the ultimate contradiction for a supposedly free and democratic society to be founded on a system of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is a blatant violation of an individual’s right to freedom, voluntary action and free choice, and as such is totally immoral. It should be repealed immediately.

As has already been mentioned elsewhere, voting only assumes the importance it has today when governments possess the power they currently hold. Strip governments of that power, and remove it from their grasp by constitutional change, and it won’t particularly matter who votes, or who is elected. In this regard, arguments over the merits of various types of voting, or over allocation of electoral boundaries in order to achieve a more efficient voting system so as to make for more efficient government, entirely miss the essential point. They are arguments over details which concede erroneous fundamental principles.