Search results

Week 79 of Economics.org.au

  1. The third issue of the new international print magazine Capitalism.HK is now online and it supports Westralian secession! Subscribe today.
  2. Two just-found Lang Hancock gems: an interview from 1974 on the gospel of Westralian secession; and an amazing essay from 1976 with many arguments in defence of capitalism that I’d never come across before, and this beautiful quote (among many others): “It is widely accepted in Australia, in communist countries and in most dictatorships that the minerals legally belong to the State.”
  3. Heart-warming Westralian secession violence from 1933-35: “ALLEGED HOOLIGANISM: DECENT CITIZENS RESENT BASE INSINUATIONS,” The Sunday Times (Perth), April 2, 1933, p. 13; and “WEST AUSTRALIA SECESSION: THREAT OF FORCE — ‘Only Means Left To Us’ Says Delegate,” Daily Herald (London), May 27, 1935, pp. 1-2.
  4. Sinclair Hill calls for dropping a neutron bomb on Canberra — in 1993. That’s the same Sinclair Hill who taught Prince Charles (and Kerry Packer) to play polo. And, more impressively, it’s the same Sinclair Hill who led the NSW Workers Party in the 1970s.
  5. Mark Tier with a brilliant 1974 essay on the Canberra Kremlin today.
  6. Viv Forbes with yet another unsurpassable essay he has dug up for us. It begins: “Government has made a new discovery — how to convert coal into paper. Their process is so efficient that I suspect the conversion rate is approaching one tonne of paper per tonne of coal.”
  7. Hans Tholstrup’s Adventures with Telstra Bigpond — a legendary Australian daredevil tried to fix his internet!
  8. Introduction to the Economics of Trust — another in David Sharp’s series of strategic introductions to economics.
  9. Two items from Paddy McGuinness this week:
  • Canberra’s social revolution,” The Australian Financial Review, September 21, 1976, p. 4. Uses Milton Friedman’s softness to justify collecting of statistics. Big contrast to the sentiment on statistics usually associated with Milton Friedman. For example, “I met Cowperthwaite in 1963 … Hong Kong. I remember asking him about the paucity of statistics. He answered, ‘If I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.’ How wise!”
  • Paddy McGuinness in 1994 on the 2012 class size debate — “A new angle on teaching,” The Sydney Morning Herald, December 24, 1994, p. 14. Excerpt: “Do we really need more schoolteachers? Whenever the condition and performance of our schools are debated, the first cry to come from the teachers’ unions and their supporters in the community, and indeed often enough from governments, is that class sizes must be reduced and more teachers must be employed.”

Week 78 of Economics.org.au

Did you know that the founder of Kennards Self Storage, the late Neville Kennard, believed that all tax is theft, all government is criminal, all major political parties are socialist and all the think tanks are unprincipled and soft? All this and more will be discussed at The Establishment Ballroom in Sydney on December 1 and 2 this year, where the 2nd annual meeting of the most radical Australian free-market advocates is being held.

Thanks to Kennard’s sponsorship, Professor Walter Block from the U.S.A. will be the featured speaker. Professor Block is a champion of Ron Paul and privatising everything, and he’s been around so long that a book he wrote in 1976 featured a glowing endorsement by Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek.

Tickets can be purchased at the website for the event: www.mises.org.au. (This announcement was originally published at Menzies House.)

Here are two other announcements of the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar:

  1. An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar
  2. Contrarian Conformism. And don’t forget Liberty Australia’s essay competition. But buy tickets at mises.org.au first!

Here are the other items featured on Economics.org.au this week:

Week 77 of Economics.org.au

  1. Contrarian Conformism, by Benjamin Marks, on whether there will be a 2012 Mises Seminar. Hint: tickets now on sale at mises.org.au!!!
  2. Two important Lang Hancock items this week: “Why WA must go it alone,” The Sydney Morning Herald, November 29, 1973, p. 7; and video of a 1975 Dave Allen interview on Westralian secession.
  3. Three John Singleton rippers this week: “The bold and boring Lib-Lab shuffle,” Nation Review, April 23-29, 1976, p. 681; “The impossible dream,” Nation Review, December 9-15, 1976, p. 187; and “Why can’t I get away with it?,” Nation Review, January 13-19, 1977, p. 303.
  4. Two beauties this week on the minimum wage: John Hyde, “Jobless youth the result of our minimum wage,” The Weekend Australian, September 23-24, 1989, p. 26; and Sudha Shenoy, “What minimum wage laws really do,” World Money Analyst, February 1980, p. 6.
  5. Three ripsnorters by Paddy McGuinness: “To reduce the problems of crime and corruption, legalise heroin,” The Weekend Australia, March 18-19, 1989, p. 2; “Evidence shows heroin policy is not working,” The Australian, October 4, 1989, p. 2; and “Wowsers deny society while killing children,” The Weekend Australian, May 8-9, 1993, p. 2.
  6. Three articles this week on the Olympics: Padraic P. McGuinness, “We should ban Olympics,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 1, 2000, p. 46; John Singleton and Howard in 1977; and David Sharp with a new “Introduction to Olympic Economics.”
  7. Two items on foreign ownership: Singo and Howard in 1977; and a gem from Bert Kelly in 1972.
  8. Some interesting Workers Party history:  Mark Tier, “Up the workers,” Nation Review, February 21-27, 1975, p. 486, as a letter to the editor; Ken Day, “Time for progress,” Nation Review, September 1-7, 1977, p. 2, as a letter to the editor; and William Bartlett “The loonie right implodes,” Nation Review, September 22-28, 1977, p. 9.
  9. Two helpful Maxwell Newton items this week: John Hurst, “Max Newton: Maverick in Exile,” Nation Review, July 21-27, 1977, p. 11; and the untitled “Canberra Observed” column by “Cato” in The Australian Financial Review, August 4, 1960, p. 2, against Menzies.
  10. Three items by the invincible Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition: Greens Rediscover Hydrogen Car, Two Big Climate Taxes and a great essay from 2005 on the Atlas of Australia.
  11. And last but not least, another excerpt from Mark Tier’s new book, which is available free or very cheap for a limited time.

Why WA must go it alone

Lang Hancock, The Sydney Morning Herald, November 29, 1973, p. 7. Which is identical to: “WHY WA MUST GO IT ALONE,” The Herald (Melbourne), October 18, 1973, p. 4; and “Pressure groups call the tune …,” The Courier-Mail, October 23, 1973, p. 4.

Australia’s destiny is not decided by the number of people who vote Labor or conservative at elections. Read the rest of this entry »

Week 74 of Economics.org.au

  1. Announcing a new magazine to rival Time and The Economist — this is the official Australian launch announcement! Big news!
  2. Gina Rinehart, Secessionist — some radical passages from Woman’s Day in 1975. This is the first time they’ve been republished. In 1975, Mrs Rinehart’s passport listed her occupation as “Secessionist”!!!
  3. Dubious Land Title — Ron Manners says Native Title “is of almost no use to Aborigines and an absolute nightmare to investors who must steer clear of uncertainty.”
  4. Another radical libertarian conversation from Mark Tier’s new book Trust Your Enemies
  5. Introduction to Sovereign Wealth Funds — David Sharp with yet another clear introduction to what everyone pretends to know about.
  6. Save the taxpayer — Viv Forbes in The Sydney Morning Herald in 1982 tries to save taxpayers from extinction.
  7. Seven items by or featuring Lang Hancock this week (not including the Gina Rinehart one above): (a) Jenny Archer, “Friends of free enterprise treated to financial tete-a-tete: Lang does the talking but Gina pulls the strings,” The Australian, June 21, 1982, p. 9; (b) Dennis Minogue, “Lang Hancock: giant of the western iron age,” The Age, September 20, 1975, pp. 11-12; (c) the autobiographical Lang Hancock chapter in Neil Lawrence & Steve Bunk’s collection, The Stump Jumpers (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1985), pp. 41-51; (d) Lang Hancock, “The Treasury needs a hatchet man,” The Courier-Mail, January 12, 1978, p. 4; (e) Lang Hancock, “Get the ‘econuts’ off our backs …,” The Australian, April 10, 1978, p. 9; (f) Lang Hancock, “We Mine to Live,” Quadrant, September, 1981, pp. 51-53; and (g) short excerpt from Jonathan Aitken, Land of Fortune (London: Secker and Warburg, 1971), p. 40.
  8. With these two items by Bert Kelly put up this week there are now 121 items featuring Bert Kelly on Economics.org.au: (iBert Kelly “must take some of the blame” — “Fraser’s foolish seven-year feast,” The Bulletin, June 28, 1983, p. 118; and (ii) “Of Sugar Wells and Think-Tanks,” Quadrant, September, 1991, pp. 51-53, based on a speech delivered to the Australian Cane Farmers Association on 9th April 1991.

Week 70 of Economics.org.au

  1. Bury Hancock Week — Lang Hancock used to be hated by everyone in the olden days (as in this discussion of the second week of November, 1966). Great progress everyone!
  2. Does Canberra leave us any alternative to secession? — No, says Lang Hancock in 1974.
  3. Ron Manners on the Workers Party — another brilliant and insightful chapter from Heroic Misadventures.
  4. Greg Lindsay says that state schooling is unjust — In 1975.
  5. Singo and Howard on: Education (they oppose all government involvement in schooling and compare state schools to prisons); and Qualifications. In 1977.
  6. Bert Kelly: “Do we want our money to fly?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 12, 1970, p. 3, against subsidising air travel; and “Can a bear be sure of a feed?,” The Australian Financial Review, July 10, 1970, p. 3, against welfare.
  7. Johnny Cash sings “After Taxes”
  8. Lastly, the great opponent of government, Brisbane’s Liam Warriner, has been fined $750 for mooning the Queen. This is a disproportionate punishment for his “crime”. A proportional punishment would be to sentence Liam Warriner to have the Queen moon him. It is reminiscent of this magisterial Dave Allen sketch. The miscarriage of justice is unsurprising when you consider that the judge was not an independent third party, as he was literally in the pay of the Crown.

Bludgers need not apply

Janet Hawley, “Bludgers need not apply,”
The Australian, November 29, 1975, p. 27.

Adman John Singleton gives Janet Hawley a glimpse at the workings of the Workers Party, the latest of his many creations. Read the rest of this entry »

Week 49

  1. “America” vs “The United States” — Neville Kennard on the evil Abraham Lincoln.
  2. Libertarian science fiction, selected by Mark Tier and Martin Greenberg — great stuff!
  3. A Model Ministry — Viv Forbes with another brilliant essay from 1996; he knew that Howard was not interested in decreasing the size of government.
  4. The Five Point Plan to kill the economy with High Cost Electricity — Forbes today.
  5. Singo and Howard on Murdoch, Packer and Monopolistic Media — in 1977.
  6. Labor: a girl who couldn’t say no — Bert Kelly in 1974 on Julia Gillard and why the Coalition had to call an early election.
  7. A Condensed Case for Secession — by Lang Hancock in 1974.
  8. Secession – And Why — Westralian secession should be the biggest issue today. This is a ripper from 1976.

Bert Kelly

Who was Bert Kelly?

Each appointment became disappointment. Demoted from Coalition frontbench (1967-69). Denied frontbench return. Disendorsed as Federal Liberal Member for Wakefield (1958-77). Dropped by The Australian Financial Review (1969-80), The Bulletin (1980-85) and The Australian (1985-87). His much-anticipated funeral was attended by the high and mighty from all along the political spectrum (1912-97). Consensus opinion — from his uncomplaining long-suffering inner-circle of angelic wife Mavis, neighbourly close confidant farmer Fred and trusted academic adviser economist Eccles — says he was soft, overpaid and lazy.

Bert Kelly has been a staff member of Economics.org.au since 2010. He is a staff member because we employ his work. No one else republished his writings in a generation (until The Bert Kelly Research Centre’s book was published in October 2012, which I discuss here). An item we republished for the first time in 33 years attracted this accolade from world-renowned Bastiat scholar David Hart: “Very nicely written. Bastiat would have been proud to have penned something like this! It is funny AND clever.”

(a.) Bert Kelly’s One More Nail (1978) (14 items)
(b.) Bert Kelly and others on the Modest Members Society (9 items)
(c.) Bert Kelly’s Parliamentary Speeches (2 items, with link to all others)
(d.) Bert Kelly’s Modest Member/Farmer Column (1969-87) (284 items)
(e.) Columns republished in 1982 in Economics Made Easy (96 items)
(f.) Other Bert Kelly works and mentions (44 items)
(g.) Dave’s Diary/Clarkson Says (22 items)
(h.) Bert Kelly’s Economics in Eight Easy Lessons
(i.) Bert Kelly’s 1980 feather bed series (20 items)
(j.) Bert Kelly on the car industry (33 items)

One_More_Nail_Bert_Kelly(a.) Bert Kelly’s One More Nail (1978)

  1. Introduction — Bert Kelly on the Political Process.
  2. Chapter 1 — Writing on the Wall: explains that tariffs equal high prices plus world war.
  3. Chapter 2 — Family History
  4. Chapter 3 — Pre-Parliament Life
  5. Chapter 4 — Into Parliament: Bert Kelly enters Parliament.
  6. Chapter 5 — Northern Territory: Bert Kelly feels a dam coming on at each election.
  7. Chapter 7 — Tariffs Introduced
  8. Chapter 8 — More About Tariffs
  9. Chapter 11 — Journalisma context-setting summary of Bert Kelly’s career in journalism by Kelly himself.
  10. Chapter 12 — Public Works Committee — Excerpt: Bert Kelly admits he should have had less faith in politicians
  11. Chapter 13 — Rural Problems
  12. Chapter 16 — Some Sacred Cows
  13. Chapter 18 — Experiences in Parliament: Bert Kelly outwits Howard.
  14. Chapter 19 — Relationships with the Liberal Party: Excerpt: “Socialism has not been fostered so much by the Labor Party as by the Liberal Party encouragement of policies which are thought to be attractive to the people at election time. Once we have propounded them, these then became part of our doctrine, even if we know that they are in direct conflict with principles of self help and self reliance in which we say we always believe. The main plank in our platform is that it is essential to keep Labor out of government, which is a nicer way of saying keeping us in … I repeat, the main principle in which we believe is the utter necessity of keeping Labor out of government and in the pursuit of this end we are prepared to compete bitterly with the Labor Party in propounding socialist policies.”

If you think the above quote damages Bert Kelly’s Liberal Party credentials, it hasn’t stopped leading Liberals from wholeheartedly praising him, nor at the time did it stop The Australian Liberal, “the official newspaper of The Liberal Party of Australia,” from posting a glowing review of One More Nail in November 1978 (“Bert has been gentle”!) and this ad in December 1978:

(b.) Bert Kelly and others on the Modest Members Society

  1. Gary Sturgess, “Move for a body of Modest Members,” The Bulletin, June 2, 1981, pp. 26-28. Excerpt: “Kelly, modestly, plays down his own importance. He says that the ‘free marketeers’ have a wider vision than he did, and are having more success because of it.”
  2. A Modest Farmer [Bert Kelly], “Striped trousers at the ready,” The Bulletin, June 16, 1981, p. 123. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 191-93, as “Modest Members Association.”
  3. A Modest Farmer [Bert Kelly], “Tariff winds now blowing favourably,” The Bulletin, August 11, 1981, p. 100. Excerpt: “But the most exciting straw in the wind is the proposed launching of The Modest Members’ Society which will take place on August 14. Five years ago it would have been impossible to get such a group together but with the wind coming round from another direction, and the grim examples of the failure of most government interventions so obvious, even the ‘Nervous Nellies’ are trying to screw their courage up to be brave and are hoping to discover minds of their own.”
  4. Michelle Grattan, “Modest Farmer sees his ideas take hold,” The Age, August 14, 1981, p. 13. Excerpt: “The smaller government battle didn’t become the cause it should have with me — I was so busy after the tariff hare. That’s the difference between me and this group. They have a wider vision — I had tunnel vision.”
  5. Peter Shack, “The Society of Modest Members,” Optimism, Sept. 1981, p. 8.
  6. The Impertinent Society: Cheeky MPs take Mr Anthony at his word — John Short, “Cheeky MPs take Mr Anthony at his word,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 17, 1982, p. 3.
  7. Bert Kelly on the unusual self-evident simplicity of the Modest Members Society — “What the market will bear,” The Bulletin, August 14, 1984, p. 124.
  8. modest members society — John Hyde, “Why ideas people should club together,” The Weekend Australian, September 29-30, 1990, p. 20.
  9. Nick Richardson, “Modesty ablaze,” The Bulletin, April 30, 1996, pp. 48-49.

(c.) Bert Kelly’s Parliamentary Speeches

  1. Bert Kelly’s Maiden Parliamentary Speech
  2. Interesting 1964 Bert Kelly Speech: he says he is not a free trader and that he supports protection! — Excerpt: “On this question of protection, I regard myself as the opposition. I deeply regret that members of the Australian Labour Party do not take these tariff debates earnestly. … As I have said, I regard myself as the opposition in these matters.” And: “I have a suspicion that the Government’s real policy is a determination to be loved by all; like Caesar’s wife, to be all things to all men.”
  3. You can read all of Bert Kelly’s parliamentary speeches and parliamentary mentions by searching Bert Kelly here.

(d.) Bert Kelly’s Modest Member/Farmer Column (1969-87)

  1. First Modest Member Column — “That economist may be right, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, November 28, 1969, p. 3.
  2. Second Modest Member Column — “That economist, Mr Eccles, is at it again,” The Australian Financial Review, December 5, 1969, p. 3.
  3. Third Modest Member Column — “Where did the orderly markets go?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 12, 1969, p. 3.
  4. Fourth Modest Member Column — “Oh I’m popular, but am I right?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 19, 1969, p. 3.
  5. Fifth Modest Member Column — “Down at the silos — wheat quotas for sale?,” The Australian Financial Review, January 2, 1970, p. 3.
  6. Sixth Modest Member Column — “Why the wheat industry leaders are no pin-up boys,” The Australian Financial Review, January 9, 1970, p. 3.
  7. Holding a loaded wallet to an economist’s head (a series comprising the following four articles) — “There’s no satisfying Farmer Fred,” The Australian Financial Review, February 20, 1970, p. 3.
  8. “Counting the cost of wool compensation,” The Australian Financial Review, February 27, 1970, p. 3.
  9. “Eccles keep his cool with $100m cheque,” The Australian Financial Review, March 6, 1970, p. 3.
  10. “Economists are queer about money,” The Australian Financial Review, March 13, 1970, p. 3.
  11. Do we want our money to fly?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 12, 1970, p. 3. Against subsidised airports and tourism.
  12. Can a bear be sure of a feed?,” The Australian Financial Review, July 10, 1970, p. 3.
  13. One small step on the compulsory voting landmine — “Compulsory voting — new lesson in letting sacred cows (like sleeping dogs) lie?,” The Australian Financial Review, September 11, 1970, p. 3.
  14. The free and compulsory education sacred cows have no clothes — “Should we continue to educate the unwilling?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 9, 1970, p. 3.
  15. The free and compulsory education sacred cows have no clothes — “Can we judge students by the amount of hair on their heads?,” The Australian Financial Review, November 13, 1970, p. 3.
  16. Is it time to get aboard the tariff band-waggon?,” The Australian Financial Review, November 27, 1970, p. 3.
  17. Why farmers resent tariff protection for motor makers,” The Australian Financial Review, December 4, 1970, p. 3.
  18. Eccles Law of the constant wage share,” The Australian Financial Review, January 22, 1971, p. 3.
  19. How to end that national sport of tax avoidance,” The Australian Financial Review, April 23, 1971, p. 3.
  20. Death duty the death of us all,” The Australian Financial Review, April 30, 1971, p. 3.
  21. Once more unto the (tax) breach,” The Australian Financial Review, May 7, 1971, p. 3.
  22. Fred’s Golden Rule: Keep any government as far as possible from farming — “Will help for farmers get votes?,” The Australian Financial Review, May 14, 1971, p. 3.
  23. Giving the States cash — and power,” The Australian Financial Review, July 16, 1971, p. 3. I think this is the earliest instance of: “Before each election I can always feel a dam coming on.”
  24. Is the Budget a cargo cult?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 13, 1971, p. 3.
  25. Will we end up subsidising one another?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 20, 1971, p. 3.
  26. Subsidising only small farmers means subsidising big banks — “Would Fred fleece the wool subsidy?,” The Australian Financial Review, September 3, 1971, p. 3.
  27. The $2,000 song of the shirt worker,” The Australian Financial Review, September 24, 1971, p. 3.
  28. Tie me kangaroo down, sport?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 17, 1971, p. 3.
  29. No pity for the poor graduates,” The Australian Financial Review, January 14, 1972, p. 3
  30. Why carry a $300m car subsidy?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 10, 1972, p. 3.
  31. Is free priceless healthcare worthless? — “The fruit of specialist sideboards,” The Australian Financial Review, March 30, 1972, p. 3.
  32. The Govt’s helping hand often hurts,” The Australian Financial Review, April 21, 1972, p. 3.
  33. We’ve a duty to knock down the tariff wall,” The Australian Financial Review, June 2, 1972, p. 3.
  34. Tariff feather beds for the foreign giants,” The Australian Financial Review, June 16, 1972, p. 3.
  35. So why not learn now, pay later?,” The Australian Financial Review, July 21, 1972, p. 3.
  36. Bert Kelly in 1972 on Foreign Ownership of Australian Farmland and Warren Truss, Barnaby Joyce and Bill Heffernan in 2012 — “Don’t arrive late at my State funeral,” The Australian Financial Review, September 29, 1972, p. 3.
  37. How best to aid the have-nots,” The Australian Financial Review, October 13, 1972, p. 3. Excerpt: “‘You ought to read Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ he said mournfully. ‘Cripes, not that again,’ I thought!” Another excerpt: “But though it is not hard to demonstrate the reason for doing something, it is far harder to know what we ought to do.” And another: “And if we were worried about the people who lose their jobs because we stopped making shirts, think of all the employment that would be created by spending $45 million a year wisely, say, on schools or hospitals or something!”
  38. Bert Kelly pep talk to politicians — “Why pillory big-eared politicians?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 15, 1972, p. 3. Excerpt: “So unless we change our policies, future elections will turn into a competition to see which party is the most efficient at distributing other people’s money to the most people. Or we will have a change every three or six years, just for the sake of having a change of people to pillory.”
  39. Bert Kelly’s Satirical Prophecy: Minister for Meteorology (tick) and High Protectionist Policies to Result in War Yet Again (?) — “Even Canute couldn’t stem political tides,” The Australian Financial Review, December 29, 1972, p. 3.
  40. Bert Kelly pep talk to politicians — “To pelt or pat the new Government?,” The Australian Financial Review, January 5, 1973, p. 3.
  41. Why take in one another’s washing?,” The Australian Financial Review, January 12, 1973, p. 3.
  42. Too many car men in the feather bed,” The Australian Financial Review, January 19, 1973, p. 3.
  43. Open season on kangaroos makes sense,” The Australian Financial Review, January 26, 1973, p. 3.
  44. Welfare state incentivises bludging and being thrown out of work — “Rationalising unemployment figures,” The Australian Financial Review, February 2, 1973, p. 3.
  45. The problem of principles v popularity,” The Australian Financial Review, February 16, 1973, p. 3.
  46. Gillard’s galley-powered waterskiing — “The handout honeymoon’s nearly over,” The Australian Financial Review, February 23, 1973, p. 3.
  47. Bert Kelly breaks the law, disrespects government and enjoys it — “Farmer Fred found in good spirits,” The Australian Financial Review, March 16, 1973, p. 3.
  48. It’s hard to digest this economic cake,” The Australian Financial Review, March 30, 1973, p. 3.
  49. Heart in right place but head missing — “Pipeline plan can’t be all gas and gaiters,” The Australian Financial Review, June 8, 1973, p. 3.
  50. Fred’s too poor to have principles,” The Australian Financial Review, June 29, 1973, p. 3. Federalism, funding local government, etc.
  51. Bert Kelly on looking to politicians for moral leadership — “A modern Moses for the masses?,” The Australian Financial Review, July 6, 1973, p. 3.
  52. Still plenty of shelter behind tariff wall,” The Australian Financial Review, July 27, 1973, p. 3. On Whitlam’s July 1973 25% across the board tariff cut.
  53. Under Labor, is working hard foolish?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 3, 1973, p. 3.
  54. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “Did the VFL really kick up inflation?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 10, 1973, p. 3.
  55. Mavis wants me to get in for my chop,” The Australian Financial Review, September 28, 1973, p. 3.
  56. Another shot at motor car madness,” The Australian Financial Review, October 19, 1973, p. 3. Excerpt: “Look at this and this and this. What awful things have been done in the name of democracy! There’s so much to write about, and only one column a week. Ask the Editor if you can write one daily. It’s all down here — all the homework is done. You won’t even have to think.” And: “It’s a funny thing about motor cars. They seem to affect the mentality of the people who drive them and also the Governments who meddle with them.”
  57. Should we put up with socialism?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 26, 1973, p. 3.
  58. We’re quick to get sick of socialism,” The Australian Financial Review, November 23, 1973, p. 3.
  59. Kicking the multinationals is too easy,” The Australian Financial Review, December 7, 1973, p. 3.
  60. The inspirational incentivising Dear Leader Gough Whitlam — “Fred puts his sole into new ‘Blue Poles’,” The Australian Financial Review, December 21, 1973, p. 3.
  61. You can’t pull the wool over Farmer Fred,” The Australian Financial Review, January 11, 1974, p. 3. Mocks the constant claim that this-or-that is the result of “research in depth”. Excerpt: “‘Research’ by itself is eminently respectable, but ‘research in depth’ is quite irresistible.”
  62. Moss Cass: “Flood plains are for floods” — “Dr Cass sets a dam(ned) precedent,” The Australian Financial Review, February 1, 1974, p. 3.
  63. Reining in the human rights horse,” The Australian Financial Review, March 8, 1974, p. 3.
  64. Labor: a girl who couldn’t say no,” The Australian Financial Review, April 19, 1974, p. 3. Yes, the title used on Economics.org.au for this article is the same title used in the AFR 37 years ago, before Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership and the suggestions of forcing an early election over the carbon tax. Also of relevance is that six months earlier, in October 1973, a Modest Member column titled “Should we put up with socialism?” suggested that the Whitlam government should stay on, so we would all be forced to learn about the evils of socialism by getting it stuffed in our faces, and so we wouldn’t be able to say that they chickened out and that it would have turned out fine.
  65. It all sounds like bloody politics to Fred — “The trouble with politics is the politicians,” The Australian Financial Review, June 7, 1974, p. 3.
  66. Nip the bud of incentive; mock community spirit into submission — “Socialism’s bite into everyday incentive,” The Australian Financial Review, June 14, 1974, p. 3.
  67. Politicians can resist everything except pressure — “Tears on TV may soon end tariff cuts,” The Australian Financial Review, July 5, 1974, p. 3. On Whitlam’s July 1973 25% across the board tariff cut.
  68. A cow of a car — with dual horns,” The Australian Financial Review, July 26, 1974, p. 3.
  69. Welfare state incentivises bludging and being thrown out of work — “The unknown bludgers are our problem,” The Australian Financial Review, August 9, 1974, p. 3.
  70. A cow that sucks itself — that’s us!,” The Australian Financial Review, August 23, 1974, p. 3.
  71. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “‘Get stuck into those Treasury sods’,” The Australian Financial Review, September 6, 1974, p. 3.
  72. The free and compulsory education sacred cows have no clothes — “‘They would hit you with their halo …’,” The Australian Financial Review, September 20, 1974, p. 3.
  73. ‘I was right’ — but he’s off to hospital …,” The Australian Financial Review, September 27, 1974, p. 3.
  74. The dilemmas of Aboriginal Affairs,” The Australian Financial Review, October 25, 1974, p. 3.
  75. They get the wind up when it changes,” The Australian Financial Review, November 1, 1974, p. 3.
  76. Bert Kelly recommends Ayn Rand — “Leo’s growl descends to a squeak,” The Australian Financial Review, November 8, 1974, p. 3.
  77. Difficult to be fast on your feet when you’ve got your ear to the ground — “It’s footwork that counts, Mavis nags,” The Australian Financial Review, November 22, 1974, p. 3.
  78. It would surprise people to see how sensible MPs behave if they think they are not being watched — “We’re not as silly as we sound,” The Australian Financial Review, November 29, 1974, p. 3.
  79. What is the sense in making the effort to look after yourself? — “You can lead a horse to water, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, December 6, 1974, p. 3. Two years later a column appeared with the same title, by the same author, in the same newspaper — “You can lead a horse to water, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, September 17, 1976, p. 3 —, but it’s different.
  80. Fondling one another’s glass haloes,” The Australian Financial Review, December 20, 1974, p. 3.
  81. Politician sacrifices his … honesty — “RED jobs will put us in the red,” The Australian Financial Review, January 24, 1975, p. 3.
  82. Bert Kelly reduces government to its absurdities — “… then I had a flash of inspiration,” The Australian Financial Review, January 31, 1975, p. 3.
  83. Fire in their guts and wind in ours,” The Australian Financial Review, February 7, 1975, p. 3.
  84. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “It isn’t my fault — it’s the system …,” The Australian Financial Review, February 14, 1975, p. 3.
  85. Fred wants to cull the human herd,” The Australian Financial Review, February 21, 1975, p. 3.
  86. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “Need for more shifts at the money machine,” The Australian Financial Review, April 28, 1975, p. 7.
  87. Handouts for big boys only,” The Australian Financial Review, May 16, 1975, p. 3.
  88. ‘He whom the gods would destroy …’,” The Australian Financial Review, May 23, 1975, p. 3.
  89. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “It’s easy — sack the Treasurer!,” The Australian Financial Review, June 13, 1975, p. 3.
  90. Should free universal healthcare include pets? — “Let’s try it on Fido, says Mavis,” The Australian Financial Review, June 27, 1975, p. 3.
  91. Can we get off the stomach-churning head-spinning tariff merry-go-round? — “The rewards for taking in the washing,” The Australian Financial Review, July 25, 1975, p. 3.
  92. Proverb vs proverb — “Those awful tunes the piper plays,” The Australian Financial Review, August 8, 1975, p. 3.
  93. Mr Clunies-Ross of the Cocos Islands should rule Australia — “Why should they just sit in the sun?,” The Australian Financial Review, September 26, 1975, p. 3.
  94. What if the whole country is swindled?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 10, 1975, p. 3.
  95. Heads roll — Mavis smells an election,” The Australian Financial Review, October 17, 1975, p. 3.
  96. Whitlam & co on the Dismissal — “It’s time to roll out those high principles,” The Australian Financial Review, October 31, 1975, p. 3. Excerpt: “In the present crisis the good and great of both sides have been quick to appeal to points of high principle and this has tended to confuse everyone, including me.”
  97. Why Bert Kelly was not even more publicly outspoken — “Kiss every baby, lick every boot?” The Australian Financial Review, January 23, 1976, p. 3.
  98. No such thing as a free feed …,” The Australian Financial Review, February 6, 1976, p. 3.
  99. Bert Kelly pep talk to politicians — “Mavis more bulging than revealing …,” The Australian Financial Review, February 27, 1976, p. 3.
  100. What’s in it for the little man?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 2, 1976, p. 3.
  101. Good directions when government backseat driving, like reversing down wrong side of road — “Why Govt didn’t throttle car industry,” The Australian Financial Review, June 18, 1976, p. 4.
  102. “Gear change troubles in attitudes to car industry,” The Australian Financial Review, June 25, 1976, p. 4. Included in link immediately above.
  103. Bert Kelly plays with analogies — “Government in command? But we’re not at war,” The Australian Financial Review, July 9, 1976, p. 4.
  104. More funds to train Olympians?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 6, 1976, p. 4. Excerpt: “If we wanted to create goodwill we would ban all Government-backed international sporting events, not encourage them.”
  105. Barriers to imports are barriers to exports — “Tariff aid amounts to $2,000m,” The Australian Financial Review, August 13, 1976, p. 4.
  106. Is Taxmania a politician fetish? — “If you want to be loved, go to Tasmania,” The Australian Financial Review, August 27, 1976, p. 6.
  107. How Bert Kelly repays a free feed — “Why one can’t be a union basher,” The Australian Financial Review, September 10, 1976, p. 6.
  108. Keeping the bucket of worms alive,” The Australian Financial Review, February 18, 1977, p. 3.
  109. Why does Govt wear two faces?The Australian Financial Review, March 18, 1977, p. 3. Excerpt: “Perhaps the Prime Minister had two speech writers and they can’t get on with each other — there must be some such explanation.”
  110. Which comes first, goods or services?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 25, 1977, p. 3.
  111. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “‘You chaps must all pull harder’,” The Australian Financial Review, April 1, 1977, p. 3.
  112. Why Bert Kelly was not even more publicly outspoken — “Rebel wine is a very heady drink,” The Australian Financial Review, April 7, 1977, p. 3.
  113. Health cover needs a $30 excess clause,” The Australian Financial Review, June 10, 1977, p. 3.
  114. The backseat drivers of the Pilbara,” The Australian Financial Review, June 17, 1977, p. 3. On mining.
  115. A Bandaid for the car industry sore,” The Australian Financial Review, July 22, 1977, p. 3.
  116. The emperor has no textiles, clothing and footwear sense — “If Mavis finds out — it’s fatal,” The Australian Financial Review, July 29, 1977, p. 3.
  117. The emperor has no textiles, clothing and footwear sense — “The naked emperor and the PM,” The Australian Financial Review, September 9, 1977, p. 3.
  118. Bert Kelly on Political Football — “The sporting camel in the tent of the taxpayer,” The Australian Financial Review, September 16, 1977, p. 3.
  119. Only blind greed demands both equality and prosperity — “That sod in the Rolls smoking a big cigar …,” The Australian Financial Review, November 4, 1977, p. 3.
  120. How to stand aside when it’s time to be counted,” The Australian Financial Review, November 11, 1977, p. 3.
  121. Undigested morsels in Fraser spew — “… and then you can use those lovely long words,” The Australian Financial Review, November 18, 1977, p. 3.
  122. Holding a loaded wallet to an economist’s head — “If bread fails to rise, cake makers get burnt,” The Australian Financial Review, November 25, 1977, p. 3.
  123. Any cons arguing small business bad but big government good? — “So many pleas … and they are all so hard to please,” The Australian Financial Review, December 9, 1977, p. 3. Quotes Hayek on science funding.
  124. How the Modest Member went back to being a Modest Farmer — “It’s back to the tractor,” The Australian Financial Review, December 16, 1977, p. 3.
  125. My pearls of wisdom were dull beyond belief,” The Australian Financial Review, December 23, 1977, p. 3.
  126. Should facts stand in the way of a good story?,” The Australian Financial Review, January 20, 1978, p. 3. On Whitlam’s July 1973 25% across the board tariff cut.
  127. Trade wars can easily lead to real wars,” The Australian Financial Review, February 3, 1978, p. 3.
  128. Eccles returns to haunt us — “Farmers cowed by tariffs fallout,” The Australian Financial Review, February 10, 1978, p. 3.
  129. Show us how we can twist our MP’s ear …,” The Australian Financial Review, February 17, 1978, p. 3.
  130. How to impress your MP — ambush him,” The Australian Financial Review, February 24, 1978, p. 3.
  131. Don’t feel sorry for him — hang on to his ear,” The Australian Financial Review, March 10, 1978, p. 3.
  132. How a well meaning Govt can be so stupid,” The Australian Financial Review, March 17, 1978, p. 3. Excerpt: “This is where Eccles and Fred disgraced themselves. Fred said there could only be one explanation of the Government’s reprehensible tariff behaviour and that was that the captains of secondary industry must be making generous contributions to party funds.”
  133. Can government kiss it better? — “When I buy cattle, why does Fred start to sell?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 31, 1978, p. 3.
  134. Malcolm Fraser stood tall on the shoulders of the downtrodden — “How a chance to boost our exports goes up in smoke,” The Australian Financial Review, April 21, 1978, p. 3.
  135. The sacred education cow has had her day,” The Australian Financial Review, April 28, 1978, p. 3.
  136. Being loved by all is not always a good thing,” The Australian Financial Review, June 23, 1978, p. 3. On Aborigines, welfare and guilt.
  137. Bert Kelly’s empowering feminism — “‘You must get rid of that wretched law, dear,'” The Australian Financial Review, July 7, 1978, p. 3.
  138. Ludwig von Mises on page 3 of AFR — “The language of power,” The Australian Financial Review, September 8, 1978, p. 3.
  139. Why leading businessmen carry black briefcases,” The Australian Financial Review, September 29, 1978, p. 3. Bert Kelly at his best, on the fact that big business is often against free-markets.
  140. Mavis wants the Modest Member to dedicate his book to her — “A rather crude man got stuck into me at the discussion,” The Australian Financial Review, October 6, 1978, p. 3.
  141. MPs don’t always behave like yahoos and larrikins,” The Australian Financial Review, November 3, 1978, p. 3.
  142. The platitude attitude — “They’ll be stroking their platitudes till they purr,” The Australian Financial Review, November 10, 1978, p. 3.
  143. He’d soon have his feet in a bucket of champagne,” The Australian Financial Review, November 17, 1978, p. 3. Excerpt: “Politicians should have burnt on their breasts or on some broader part of their anatomy, the message that any servant of the government who can correctly foretell the supply and demand situation for any mineral for even one year ahead is not for long working for the government; he is shortly sitting in the south of France with his feet in a bucket of champagne.”
  144. Governments sometimes act like Ginger at the war,” The Australian Financial Review, November 24, 1978, p. 3.
  145. Bert Kelly questions why Australian miners pay royalties — “Farmer gave the parson a very sour reply,” The Australian Financial Review, December 22, 1978, p. 3.
  146. I like my kind acts to get a mention in the press,” The Australian Financial Review, January 19, 1979, p. 3.
  147. Know your proper place if you want the quiet life,” The Australian Financial Review, February 2, 1979, p. 3.
  148. The tide has caught up with Eccles — or has it?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 23, 1979, p. 3.
  149. Tariff cuts are all right if they don’t really happen,” The Australian Financial Review, March 30, 1979, p. 3.
  150. Should we take Japan as a model for control?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 6, 1979, p. 3.
  151. The plotting powers of Mavis nag martyr to snag compo — “Mavis kicks the bucket under govt milch cow,” The Australian Financial Review, May 4, 1979, p. 3.
  152. That welfare State tiger may eat us in the end,” The Australian Financial Review, July 13, 1979. p. 3.
  153. Soft hearted foolish people blinded by their tears,” The Australian Financial Review, August 3, 1979, p. 11.
  154. Mavis writes! — “Anniversary thought — and offer,” The Australian Financial Review, August 17, 1979, pp. 11, 14.
  155. Successful government intervention can [sic] occur — “Successful government intervention can occur,” The Australian Financial Review, August 24, 1979, p. 11.
  156. Country Party policies may not help farmers but do save seats,” The Australian Financial Review, September 7, 1979, p. 11.
  157. Speech only for public — “The C’wealth milks the cow but the State gets the cream,” The Australian Financial Review, September 14, 1979, p. 11.
  158. Don’t confuse plucking heart strings with plucking harp strings — “Economic understanding will triumph in the end,” The Australian Financial Review, October 5, 1979, p. 11.
  159. Government intervention and advice can be harmful, even when right, even for those it tries to help —  “An election must be looming!,” Stock and Land, November 29, 1979, p. 15. I credited that edition because the AFR version was a bit garbled at “Planting compassion on the Apple Isle,” The Australian Financial Review, November 30, 1979, p. 11.
  160. How Bert Kelly repays a free feed — “Colonialism still lingers in shipping circles,” The Australian Financial Review, February 8, 1980, p. 11.
  161. Bert Kelly on the importance of exchange rate movements — “The importance of easing the fear and pain of change,” The Australian Financial Review, February 29, 1980, p. 11.
  162. Bert Kelly on the importance of exchange rate movements — “What to do when market forces control exchange rate,” The Australian Financial Review, March 7, 1980, p. 11.
  163. The Libertarian Alternative — “Book shows Australia the way to the year 2000,” The Australian Financial Review, April 3, 1980, p. 11. On Australia at the Crossroads, which Bert Kelly launched.
  164. Is Anthony ignorant or indifferent on tariffs?,” The Australian Financial Review, May 9, 1980, p. 11.
  165. The following eight items are on feather beds and part of the one series. We collated them at https://economics.org.au/2014/12/1980-bert-kelly-feather-bed-series/. “How many does it take to crowd a feather bed?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 6, 1980, p. 7.
  166. “Once on a feather bed, what to do next?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 13, 1980, p. 9.
  167. “Feather beds are comfortable if the mob is kept off them,” The Australian Financial Review, June 20, 1980, p. 13. On the Canberra taxi racket.
  168. “Conference lines take to plush waterbeds,” The Australian Financial Review, June 27, 1980, p. 13.
  169. “Shipping feather bed attracts large crew,” The Australian Financial Review, July 4, 1980, p. 13.
  170. “Feather beds take to the air,” Stock and Land, June 19, 1980, p. 13. On the two-airline policy.
  171. “Consumers find feather beds a bit hard!,” Stock and Land, June 26, 1980, p. 13.
  172. “Yes … the Wheat Board has a feather bed, too!,” Stock and Land, July 3, 1980, p. 12 and p. 14.
  173. Announcements in The Bulletin of Bert Kelly writing for them — “The Modest Farmer joins us,” The Bulletin, November 4, 1980, p. 20, and, “How The Modest Member came to be,” The Bulletin, November 11, 1980, p. 155, in a section on the same page as his first column in The Bulletin, which was titled “Boring it up the bastards from the bush” and was republished under a different title and a different date in Kelly’s Economics Made Easy. It is on Economics.org.au here. His final column in The Australian Financial Review was “Why should Mavis want me to learn to draw?,” October 17, 1980, p. 17, it included a short note from the editor.
  174. Perish the thawed! — “Cold comfort on a return trip,” The Bulletin, December 23/30, 1980, p. 68.
  175. Animal lib the new scourge of the bush,” The Bulletin, January 13, 1981, p. 91.
  176. Repeal economic laws, force people to buy new cars and enforce tariffs against overseas tennis players — “Protections that nobody needs,” The Bulletin, January 20, 1981, p. 107.
  177. Great ‘freedom of choice’ mystery,” The Bulletin, February 10, 1981, p. 91.
  178. Small government’s growth problem,” The Bulletin, February 17, 1981, p. 123.
  179. Even if lucky, we needn’t be stupid,” The Bulletin, March 17, 1981, p. 121. “About two years ago I was appointed chairman of a committee to advise State and Federal governments how to clean up the meat inspection mess. Our report was signed early in 1980 and because nothing seems to be happening I think I should drag the subject out into the open so that everyone can have a good look at it and see what a ripe old mess we have made of it.”
  180. Enough to drive you to drink,” The Bulletin, March 24, 1981, p. 107.
  181. The Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Krill — “Are whales cruel to kill krill?” The Bulletin, April 7, 1981, p. 108.
  182. Transports of delay,” The Bulletin, April 14, 1981, p. 108.
  183. Feather beds too friendly,” The Bulletin, April 21, 1981, p. 142.
  184. It’s all a matter of principle,” The Bulletin, May 5, 1981, p. 118.
  185. The Playford charade is out of date,” The Bulletin, June 2, 1981, p. 102. On State Premiers pretending they don’t want Federal Parliament to do their dirty work.
  186. Time to stir some sleeping giants,” The Bulletin, July 14, 1981, p. 115.
  187. Tariff winds now blowing favourably,” The Bulletin, August 11, 1981, p. 100.
  188. Against guidance by government — “Telling the country where NOT to go,” The Bulletin, September 15, 1981, p. 115.
  189. A sordid use of scare tactics,” The Bulletin, September 22, 1981, p. 123.
  190. A socialist in Liberal clothing,” The Bulletin, October 6, 1981, p. 94.
  191. The motor industry conundrum,” The Bulletin, November 3, 1981, p. 124. Excerpt: “Under Labor, Hurford and his helpers are going to be in the front seat, helping industry to do the driving. It is not clear if each group are to have a steering wheel or if both will swing on the same wheel. Whichever system they use, there would be a lot of blokes jumping for safety out of that vehicle if ever it went slow enough for them to leave it without getting hurt.”
  192. Never ask the government to help — “Blooming hand-outs in the desert,” The Bulletin, December 22/29, 1981, p. 102.
  193. A case for ministerial inertia,” The Bulletin, January 12, 1982, p. 89.
  194. Why politicians don’t like the truth,” The Bulletin, January 19, 1982, p. 104.
  195. Hurrah for the Gang of Five,” The Bulletin, February 23, 1982, p. 102.
  196. Parliament a place for pragmatists,” The Bulletin, March 9, 1982, p. 107.  He describes the Liberal Party philosophy thus: “We just have to govern Australia badly for fear that Labor might govern us worse.”
  197. Tariffs get the fork-tongue treatment,” The Bulletin, August 10, 1982, p. 108. The Australian Meat Industry Royal Commission unamused.
  198. Better to be popular than right,” The Bulletin, October 12, 1982, p. 150.
  199. Geriatric companies without a minder,” The Bulletin, October 19, 1982, p. 166.
  200. Welfare State Destroys Society — “Problems of a pressure-packed society,” The Bulletin, October 26, 1982, p. 138.
  201. Watchdog barking up the wrong tree,” The Bulletin, November 2, 1982, p. 115. Excerpt: “Ford … seems to spend more time bending its knees than its back.”
  202. Taking Canberra for a ride,” The Bulletin, November 9, 1982, p. 136. On the taxi racket.
  203. Nixon’s puzzling profession of faith,” The Bulletin, November 16, 1982, p. 139.
  204. Clyde Cameron’s weak ways with wise words — “Insider’s view a mixed blessing,” The Bulletin, November 23, 1982, p. 139.
  205. Thoughts on a verse about Balfour,” The Bulletin, November 30, 1982, p. 136.
  206. Why flaunt what others flout? — “The problems of profit prophets,” The Bulletin, December 7, 1982, p. 122. Excerpt: “I am talking about natural laws and Eccles is talking about economic laws. Both tell us what will inevitably happen whether we talk about them or not.”
  207. A free marketeer wary of free trade,” The Bulletin, December 14, 1982, p. 123. Excerpt: “I am getting the impression that [Neil Walford of Repco] is getting just a little bit confused. Or is it me?”
  208. Ominous dark clouds are gathering,” The Bulletin, January 4, 1983, p. 84. On tariffs and war.
  209. Tariff-cut nonsense lives on,” The Bulletin, January 18, 1983, p. 83. On Whitlam’s July 1973 25% across the board tariff cut.
  210. Bert Kelly asks, “How can you believe in free enterprise and government intervention at the same time?” — “A drug on the free market,” The Bulletin, February 15, 1983, p. 99.
  211. Bert Kelly Wants to Secede — “Tassie should cut the painter,” The Bulletin, March 8, 1983, p. 100. Tasmania could be the next Singapore or Hong Kong.
  212. Cunning meets wisdom — “Less is the best government,” The Bulletin, March 29, 1983, p. 122.
  213. Bert Kelly pep talk to politicians — “High and low tide in Canberra,” The Bulletin, April 5, 1983, p. 139.
  214. “Better to lose a poll than morality,” The Bulletin, April 12, 1983, p. 111. Included in link immediately above.
  215. Having your cake and eating it,” The Bulletin, April 26, 1983, p. 108.
  216. Who needs literary licence?,” The Bulletin, May 31, 1983, p. 118. Kelly says Neville Kennard is “splendid” and “speaks my language.”
  217. Government intervention = Agony postponed but death brought nearer — “Anthony to the rescue,” The Bulletin, June 7, 1983, p. 123.
  218. Bert Kelly: “I must take some of the blame” — “Fraser’s foolish seven-year feast,” The Bulletin, June 28, 1983, p. 118.
  219. A touch of Fred’s anarchy,” The Bulletin, July 19, 1983, p. 118. Kelly calls Kennard “brave” and “pigheaded.”
  220. Salvation in a sea of scales,” The Bulletin, August 2, 1983, p. 88.
  221. Unscrambling the egg,” The Bulletin, August 9, 1983, p. 110.
  222. The goose that laid the golden egg,” The Bulletin, August 16, 1983, p. 118.
  223. Running to water on wages,” The Bulletin, August 23, 1983, p. 110.
  224. Centralising confrontation,” The Bulletin, August 30, 1983, p. 96.
  225. Shaking up the feather bed,” The Bulletin, September 6, 1983, p. 120.
  226. Government Intervention vs Government Interference — “Breaking down barriers,” The Bulletin, September 13, 1983, p. 124.
  227. Bert Kelly Destroys the Freeloading Justifies Government Argument — “A thought to make thin blood run cold,” The Bulletin, September 27, 1983, p. 142.
  228. Bert Kelly: “I did not try often or hard enough” — “The problems of stabilisation schemes,” The Bulletin, December 13, 1983, p. 112.
  229. Ken Baxter, “The Gospel according to Bert,” The Bulletin, December 27, 1983 / January 3, 1984, p. 84.
  230. Proud patriotic parasites — “A lean time all round,” The Bulletin, January 10, 1984, p. 83.
  231. Bert Kelly’s 1984 two-article quote-collection on Aboriginal policies — “A new look at Aboriginal policies,” The Bulletin, February 21, 1984, p. 99; and “Focus on ‘the good old ways’,” The Bulletin, February 28, 1984, p. 90.
  232. A look at life without tariffs,” The Bulletin, March 27, 1984, p. 116.
  233. Bert Kelly “lacked … guts and wisdom” — “Let’s have a quota of principles,” The Bulletin, April 3, 1984, 106.
  234. The high cost of protection,” The Bulletin, April 24, 1984, p. 144.
  235. Generosity creates problems,” The Bulletin, May 1, 1984, p. 128. On the Canberra taxi racket.
  236. Case for ministers staying home,” The Bulletin, May 8, 1984, p. 120.
  237. Why costs can’t be guaranteed,” The Bulletin, May 15, 1984, p. 118.
  238. Politics as a be lame game: Passing the torch on passing the buck — “A binge of self-righteousness,” The Bulletin, May 24, 1984, p. 118.
  239. A tottering monument to intervention,” The Bulletin, June 19, 1984, p. 136. On the car industry and his prolific commentary on it.
  240. Hitting out with a halo,” The Bulletin, July 24, 1984, p. 150. On Hugh Morgan and Aborigines.
  241. Intervention is egg-headedness,” The Bulletin, July 31, 1984, p. 134.
  242. Egging on the substitutes,” The Bulletin, August 7, 1984, p. 144.
  243. The unusual self-evident simplicity of the Modest Members Society — “What the market will bear,” The Bulletin, August 14, 1984, p. 124.
  244. The icing on the economic cake — “Sugar — sweet and sour,” The Bulletin, August 21, 1984, p. 135.
  245. The icing on the economic cake — “Sugar not so sweet,” The Bulletin, August 28, 1984, p. 136.
  246. Paying farmers not to grow crops will save on subsidies, revenge tariffs, etc — “Dreams up in smoke,” The Bulletin, September 11, 1984, p. 146.
  247. The icing on the economic cake — “A proper way to behave,” The Bulletin, September 18, 1984, p. 150.
  248. Crying in the wilderness — “Back to the wilderness,” The Bulletin, September 25, 1984, p. 120.
  249. From Shann to Stone,” The Bulletin, October 2, 1984, p. 94.
  250. A sojourn in the real world,” The Bulletin, October 16, 1984, p. 119.
  251. The tariff wind swings,” The Bulletin, October 23, 1984, p. 144.
  252. Bigger Cake = Bigger Slices — “Mavis to the rescue,” The Bulletin, November 6, 1984, p. 140.
  253. Industrial Relations Club shovellers — “A bigger cake but for Bruce,” The Bulletin, October 30, 1984, p. 121.
  254. Ivory tower needs thumping,” The Bulletin, December 11, 1984, p. 135.
  255. Thoughts on how to kill dinosaurs,” The Bulletin, December 25, 1984 / January 1, 1985, p. 89.
  256. Let’s try the chill winds,” The Bulletin, January 22, 1985, p. 97.
  257. Bert Kelly says end compulsory voting to stop donkey vote — “How to stop the donkey vote,” The Bulletin, February 12, 1985, p. 93.
  258. Industrial relations dinosaur, Bruce, chews his cud — “Strike out the picketers,” The Bulletin, February 19, 1985, p. 93.
  259. Hooray for “firmly entrenched”! — “Back to ‘dog and stick’ farming,” The Bulletin, March 5, 1985, p. 90.
  260. Unholy state of taxation,” The Bulletin, March 19, 1985, p. 98. Excerpt: “When I die, I hope people will remember me by the proverb: ‘You can always tell a man who is dining out on an expense account by the enthusiasm with which he summons the waiter.'” Another excerpt: “I flatly refuse to write about different ways of raising more tax money.”
  261. Respect your dinosaurs — “The dinosaurs progress,” The Bulletin, March 26, 1985, p. 140.
  262. What if something is “deeply ingrained” yet harmful? — “Eccles lifts the tone of the argument,” The Bulletin, April 2, 1985, p. 80.
  263. You’re lucky if you escape being helped by government — “Technique good, but the marketing …,” The Bulletin, April 16, 1985, p. 102.
  264. Bert Kelly in 1985 on cars yet again — “Don’t ask the Govt. to drive industry,” Stock and Land, May 2, 1985, p. 18.
  265. Bert Kelly responds to claims he is arrogant and uncredentialed — “Doing what comes naturally,” The Australian, July 1, 1985, p. 11.
  266. Knocking the stuffing out of feather beds,” The Australian, July 8, 1985, p. 7.
  267. Tiny note on Bert Kelly’s column in The Bulletin in 1985 — “The Modest Farmer,” The Bulletin, July 23, 1985, p. 98, in the anonymous “Wildcat” section.
  268. Politicians get undeserved praise, why not undeserved blame too? — “Poor Bruce doesn’t want to be left holding the baby,” The Australian, August 5, 1985, p. 9.
  269. A posse goes after Anthony,” The Australian, October 7, 1985, p. 7.
  270. “Panting in vain for tariff sanity,” The Australian, October 14, 1985, p. 9 — that version of the article has a jumbled and truncated ending, so I instead used the text from the article’s publication in a Victorian rural newspaper where it appeared under the title, “Sorry Doug, subsidies are not the answer, Stock and Land, October 17, 1985, p. 19.
  271. Spectre of the bad old days has Eccles in a flap,” The Australian, October 21, 1985, p. 9.
  272. How a sweet cop turned an industry sour,” The Australian, February 25, 1986, p. 9.
  273. The feather bed on rails sure runs against the grain,” The Australian, June 30, 1986, p. 11.
  274. Recipe for disaster: Freeze! — “Pressure groups are indeed the foes of progress,” The Australian, July 14, 1986, p. 7.
  275. Recipe for government intervention: Gather winners and scatter losers — “How the strident pressure groups beggar everybody else,” The Australian, July 21, 1986, p. 9.
  276. Recipe for industry destruction: Blanket market signals — “How lobbies can do damage to their own causes,” The Australian, July 28, 1986, p. 9.
  277. On Alf Rattigan’s book Industry Assistance: The Inside Story — “Adam Smith’s soothing words,” The Australian, August 11, 1986, p. 11.
  278. On Alf Rattigan’s book Industry Assistance: The Inside Story — “Turning tariff somersaults,” The Australian, August 18, 1986, p. 11.
  279. On Alf Rattigan’s book Industry Assistance: The Inside Story — “How Rattigan took on the protectionists,” The Australian, August 25, 1986, p. 11.
  280. Chicken-hearted feathered friends strange bedfellows on a feather bed? — “The politics of protection,” The Australian, November 10, 1986, p. 17.
  281. Chicken-hearted feathered friends strange bedfellows on a feather bed? — “Bitter experience and learning economic laws,” The Australian, November 17, 1986, p. 9.
  282. Chicken-hearted feathered friends strange bedfellows on a feather bed? — “Same old song from the TCF,” The Australian, November 24, 1986, p. 7.
  283. The Libido for the Miserable — “An answer to island woes,” The Australian, January 12, 1987, p. 7.
  284. Modest column #898 — “When the Member first went on show,” Queensland Graingrower’s “Family Living” lift-out magazine, May 27, 1987, p. 2.

(e.) Columns republished in 1982 in Economics Made Easy

  1. Foreword by Sir Roderick Carnegie
  2. Bert Kelly on “this land of limitless resources” and “great open spaces” — “Critics leave a politician speechless,” The Australian Financial Review, January 16, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 9-10, as “Limited Resources (1).”
  3. Growing bananas at the South Pole — “The ‘growth’ tack — real or hot-house?,” The Australian Financial Review, January 30, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 153-54, as “Growth (1).”
  4. Cold water on government-instigated irrigation schemes — “More cold water on irrigation,” The Australian Financial Review, March 20, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 14-16, as “Irrigation.”
  5. Hooray for Ord River Dam! — “Getting the Ord River into the hit parade,” The Australian Financial Review, March 26, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 16-17, as “The Ord Dam.”
  6. Bert Kelly on the 2011 Budget and Australia’s Pathetic Journalists and Politicians — “Incentive slices for a bigger cake?,” The Australian Financial Review, May 8, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 138-40, as “Equality (1).”
  7. Spending your Money — “Whose hand is in the honeypot?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 19, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 129-31, as “Spending your Money.”
  8. Hooray for Northern Development! — “The search for instant popularity,” The Australian Financial Review, June 26, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 12-14, as “Northern Development.”
  9. Traditional Wheat Farming is Our Birthright and Heritage and Must be Protected! — “Subsidising prosperity on the small farm,” The Australian Financial Review, August 14, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 27-29, as “Small Farmers (1).”
  10. Bert Kelly gets his head around big-headed bird-brained politics — “How to win votes from birds of passage,” The Australian Financial Review, October 2, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 21-23, as “Exporting Birds.”
  11. Decentralisation — or how to alienate both city and country,” The Australian Financial Review, October 30, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 31-33, as “Decentralisation.”
  12. Eccles keeps our nose hard down on the tariff grindstone — “Why we help but don’t buy from cheap labour lands,” The Australian Financial Review, December 11, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 115-17, as “Cheap Labour (1).”
  13. Bert Kelly Destroys the Infant Industry Argument — “Can we still afford a foster mother for the steel industry?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 31, 1970, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 100-02, as “Iron and Steel (1).”
  14. Tariffs: when to wean infant BHP?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 5, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 62-63, as “Tariffs to keep down Prices.”
  15. Inflation breeds moral decay,” The Australian Financial Review, March 12, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 133-34, as “Inflation.”
  16. Bert Kelly on pensions — “Do Australian pensioners get too little?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 8, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 134-36, as “Welfare State (1).”
  17. Who envies equality? — “Equality is all very well but it won’t help India,” The Australian Financial Review, April 16, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 140-42, as “Equality (2).”
  18. Bert Kelly on Small Farmers — “Horse sense about the pony trap,” The Australian Financial Review, May 21, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 29-31, as “Small Farmers (2).”
  19. An Idiot’s Guide to Interventionism — “Beware of silk purses and the sow,” The Australian Financial Review, June 18, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 5-7, as “Supply and Demand (1).” The statist bible.
  20. Bert Kelly on the theory of constant shares and the Fabian Society — “Strikes can mean lower wages,” The Australian Financial Review, August 27, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 131-33, as “Productivity.”
  21. “Don’t you believe in protecting us against imports from cheap labour countries?” — “A punch in the eye for a protectionist?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 8, 1971, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 117-19, as “Cheap Labour (2).”
  22. Has Santa socked it to car makers?,” The Australian Financial Review, December 24, 1971, p. 3. The AFR version is garbled. A better version, which we used, is in Economics Made Easy, pp. 79-81, as “Motor Cars (1),” dated 31 December 1971.
  23. Helping the farmers help themselves,” The Australian Financial Review, February 25, 1972, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 18-19, as “Droughts.”
  24. It’s nonsense to snare the dumping hare,” The Australian Financial Review, March 24, 1972, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 75-76, as “Dumping Duties.”
  25. What the MP could say to the Bishop,” The Australian Financial Review, May 12, 1972, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 158-60, as “Trouble with Bishops.”
  26. The tariff ‘shuttle’ is self-defeating,” The Australian Financial Review, June 9, 1972, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 90-91, as “Textiles (1).”
  27. If you support State Quotas, where will your logic take you? — “Dividing the wheat from the chaff …,” The Australian Financial Review, March 2, 1973, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 33-35, as “State Quotas.”
  28. Fred’s Feeling: Counterpatriotic country contrarian — “Farmer Fred takes it all in his stride,” The Australian Financial Review, March 9, 1973, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 25-27, as “Going Against the Tide.”
  29. Growth — malignant or benign?,” The Australian Financial Review, July 20, 1973, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 154-56, as “Growth (2).”
  30. Can price control really work?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 12, 1973, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 156-58, as “Wages and Income Policy.”
  31. About time the protection racket ended,” The Australian Financial Review, February 8, 1974, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 112-14, as “Electrical Appliances.”
  32. Bert Kelly on Disaster Relief — “‘Calamity Jane’ role for Mavis,” The Australian Financial Review, February 22, 1974, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 19-21, as “Disaster Relief.”
  33. Low tariff torch burnt Eccles’ fingers,” The Australian Financial Review, July 19, 1974, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 60-61, as “Tariff Pressure.”
  34. Bert Kelly on Import Quotas — “Thought was too much for the old sod,” The Australian Financial Review, January 3, 1975, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 71-72, as “Import Quotas (1).”
  35. Bert Kelly on Free Enterprise — “Tell us what to do next, they bleat,” The Australian Financial Review, January 17, 1975, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 149-51, as “Free Enterprise (1).”
  36. “Free enterprise like premarital chastity,” The Australian Financial Review, June 4, 1976, p. 6. Economics Made Easy, pp. 151-53, as “Free Enterprise (2)” under the date June 4, 1975. I included both “Free Enterprise (1)” and “Free Enterprise (2)” in the link immediately above.
  37. I, for one, still support the tariff cut,” The Australian Financial Review, July 4, 1975, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 58-59, as “Twenty-five per cent Tariff Cut.” On Whitlam’s July 1973 25% across the board tariff cut.
  38. How Bert Kelly repays a free feed — “Charlie and the floating feather beds,” The Australian Financial Review, October 3, 1975, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 163-65, as “Shipping and Charlie Jones.” Excerpt: “There was an immediate howl of anguish from the poor pathetic Tasmanian Labor Party members, who came scurrying to Canberra to beg for mercy. But in vain. Then they are reputed to have decided that desperate measures were needed and they ought to arrange another Tasmanian by-election. They were last seen drawing lots to see which of them was to be sacrificed on the altar.”
  39. People not Politics,” October 10, 1975. Economics Made Easy, pp. 127-29.
  40. Can we really get an efficient car industry?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 20, 1976, p. 12. Economics Made Easy, pp. 81-83, as “Motor Cars (2).”
  41. Sound economics calls for quiet from government — “The accent is on the indicative,” The Australian Financial Review, April 23, 1976, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 142-43, as “Indicative Planning.” If you favour smaller government, favour quieter government too.
  42. You gets your tariff, you pays a price,” The Australian Financial Review, July 16, 1976, p. 4. Economics Made Easy, pp. 42-44, as “Tariffs paid by Exporters (1).” Great intro to tariffs.
  43. Bert Kelly Untangles Tariff Torment — “Foster mothering BHP beef bull,” The Australian Financial Review, August 20, 1976, p. 6. Economics Made Easy, pp. 102-04, as “Iron and Steel (2).”
  44. Bert Kelly Destroys the Side Benefits Argument for Government — “You can lead a horse to water, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, September 17, 1976, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 108-10, as “Shipbuilding (2).”
  45. Tariffs Create Unemployment — “The price for protection has to be paid,” The Australian Financial Review, September 24, 1976, p. 6. Economics Made Easy, pp. 51-53, as “Tariffs and Employment (1).” “Tariffs and Employment (2)” is here.
  46. Tariffs — no such thing as a free feed,” The Australian Financial Review, November 12, 1976, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 44-46, as “Tariffs paid by Exporters (2).”
  47. WEATHER IS USUALLY UNUSUAL — “The mixture as before — in capitals …,” The Australian Financial Review, January 28, 1977, p. 3. (References and republishes the Modest Member column titled, “Farming’s only certainty is of being wrong,” The Australian Financial Review, September 8, 1972, p. 3.) Economics Made Easy, pp. 7-9, as “Supply and Demand (2).”
  48. Mavis trying to buy a hand loom,” The Australian Financial Review, March 4, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 145-47, as “Change.” Excerpt: “I know it sounds rather like primitive Ludditism to contend that we should use men to do what machines could do better and cheaper, but change is uncomfortable, politically and socially. I will do what I can to resist it.”
  49. Government wiser than Magna Carta — “A licence to print a quota of money,” The Australian Financial Review, May 6, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 72-74, as “Import Quotas (2).”
  50. How Bert Kelly repays a free feed — “Sweat bands needed — it’s a killing pace,” The Australian Financial Review, July 15, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 165-68, as “Shipping and the Jackson Diagram.”
  51. The emperor has no textiles, clothing and footwear sense — “We may not like it, but times change,” The Australian Financial Review, August 12, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 46-47, as “The Cost of Protection.”
  52. Tariffs are hilariously counterproductive — “If we were English we’d laugh at ourselves,” The Australian Financial Review, August 19, 1977, p. 9. Economics Made Easy, pp. 91-93, as “Textiles (2).”
  53. The emperor has no textiles, clothing and footwear sense — “How do we cure our tariff disease?,” The Australian Financial Review, August 26, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 93-95, as “Textiles (3),” under the date June 24, 1977.
  54. Economic facts and figures are statistics who should speak out — “But please don’t use my name old man …,” The Australian Financial Review, December 2, 1977, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 49-51, as “Boatbuilding.”
  55. Bert Kelly, Hayek and Mencken on the virtues of farmers — “So Fred and I hung up our haloes on a nail,” The Australian Financial Review, January 13, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 3-5, as “The Virtue of Farmers.” The opening column of Economics Made Easy!
  56. A worm’s eye view — “A mixed-up toad knows tariffs are a load,” The Australian Financial Review, January 27, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 48-49, as “Back to the Farm.” Excerpt: “Fred says that if your foot is being crushed by a waggon wheel, it is no comfort to be told that it is difficult to measure the weight of the wheel. What really interests you is that it is crushing your plurry foot.”
  57. The time for being nice to our MPs has gone …,” The Australian Financial Review, March 3, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 53-55, as “Tariffs and Employment (2).”
  58. Our great open spaces … an empty blessing,” The Australian Financial Review, May 19, 1978, p. 3. Reprinted minus the first three paragraphs in Economics Made Easy, pp. 10-12, as “Limited Resources (2).”
  59. Eccles’ thin blood ran cold as the PM spoke,” The Australian Financial Review, May 26, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 56-57, as “Tariffs and Secondary Industry.”
  60. Bert Kelly on the Political Process — The Hon. C. R. “Bert” Kelly, One More Nail (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1978), “Introduction,” pp. xi-xiii; also republished in Economics Made Easy, pp. 95-98, as “Textiles (4)”; first published by A Modest Farmer as, “High and dry for the King and I,” The Australian Financial Review, June 16, 1978, p. 3.
  61. If tariffs are opposed here then why not there? — “The writing is on the tariff wall,” The Australian Financial Review, August 18, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 85-87, as “Motor Cars (4).”
  62. Government Intervention — “The weak must die so the strong can grow,” The Australian Financial Review, September 15, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 144-45, as “Government Intervention.”
  63. Tariff cuts are OK so long as they don’t happen,” The Australian Financial Review, December 1, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 110-12, as “Engines.”
  64. Getting off the welfare tiger could be dangerous,” The Australian Financial Review, December 15, 1978, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 136-38, as “Welfare State (2).”
  65. Unbuckling the hobbles on the motor industry,” The Australian Financial Review, February 16, 1979, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 87-89, as “Motor Cars (5).”
  66. How Bert Kelly repays a free feed — “Pointing a Gunn at shipping conferences,” The Australian Financial Review, March 9, 1979, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 168-70, as “Outlook Conference.”
  67. Anti-freedom pro-tobacco industry lobby harmed Australia — “Can a lowly sheep farmer afford to grow tobacco?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 16, 1979, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 35-36, as “Tobacco.”
  68. Bert Kelly resorts to prayer —  “You can lose more than gain through protection,” The Australian Financial Review, April 12, 1979, p. 3. Economics Made Easy, pp. 104-06, as “Iron and Steel (3).”
  69. Should it be compulsory to buy footwear and clothing?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 12, 1979, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 98-100, as “Textiles (5).”
  70. Bert Kelly on political speech writers — “Political songwriters adept at changing the lyrics,” The Australian Financial Review, October 19, 1979, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 65-67, as “Tariffs and the P.M.”
  71. The Vale of Popularity and the Protection Procession — “Protectionist parade to the Vale of Popularity,” The Australian Financial Review, November 16, 1979, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 183-85, as “The Protection Procession.”
  72. Petrol for Farmers— “Problems in hopping on cheap fuel bandwaggon,” The Australian Financial Review, November 23, 1979, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 38-40, as “Petrol for Farmers.”
  73. The ruthless aspect of the law of supply and demand,” The Australian Financial Review, December 7, 1979, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 147-49, as “Supply and Demand.” Either obey the law of supply and demand or repeal it, but whatever you do, don’t ignore it.
  74. Handouts can buy salvation more easily than idolatry,” The Australian Financial Review, January 11, 1980, p. 5. Economics Made Easy, pp. 215-17, as “Mr Hartley (a).”
  75. Learning to thunder like Elijah in the wilderness,” The Australian Financial Review, January 18, 1980, p. 9. Economics Made Easy, pp. 217-19, as “Mr Hartley (b).”
  76. Beware of crocodiles (and others) at textile meetings,” The Australian Financial Review, January 25, 1980, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 219-21, as “Mr Hartley (c).”
  77. Wanted: textile spokesman, no understanding of economics necessary,” The Australian Financial Review, February 1, 1980, p. 11. Economics Made Easy, pp. 221-23, as “Mr Hartley (d).”
  78. Politics 101: Pay Lip Service to Capitalism and Shoot the Messenger — “If we do tamper with tariffs, let’s do it well,” The Australian Financial Review, March 28, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 185-87, as “Government Intervention.”
  79. Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly — “Tax revolt evades the notice of Mr Howard,” The Australian Financial Review, April 11, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 236-38, as “Canberra School (a),” dated March 11, 1980.
  80. Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly — “Who among us can cast the first gall stone?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 18, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 238-40, as “Canberra School (b),” dated March 18, 1980.
  81. Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly — “Income tax encourages ‘avoision’ schemes,” The Australian Financial Review, April 24, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 240-42, as “Canberra School (c),” dated March 25, 1980.
  82. Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly vs Bert Kelly — “Born again on the issue of death duties,” The Australian Financial Review, May 2, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 242-44, as “Canberra School (d),” dated May 2, 1980.
  83. Bert kelly makes politicians eat their own words on tariffs, then says, “We cannot be blamed for treating the statements of our statesmen with cynical contempt” — “Politicians’ statements worthy only of contempt,” The Australian Financial Review, August 29, 1980, p. 13; …
  84. … and “A many splendoured catalogue of meaningless statements,” The Australian Financial Review, September 5, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 223-25, as “After the Cabinet Decision (a)”; and pp. 225-27, as “After the Cabinet Decision (b).”
  85. Bert Kelly brilliantly defends “theoretical academics” — “Politicians become bully boys over IAC report,” The Australian Financial Review, September 12, 1980, p. 13. Economics Made Easy, pp. 228-30, as “Defence of I.A.C.”
  86. Cartoons of protected industry, the welfare teat and the nanny state — “Why should Mavis want me to learn to draw?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 17, 1980, p. 17. Economics Made Easy, pp. 187-91, as “Two Cartoons.”
  87. Bert Kelly, Bastard or Simple Sod? — “Boring it up the bastards from the bush,” The Bulletin, November 11, 1980, p. 155. Economics Made Easy, pp. 244-46, as “Dr Stretton,” dated 22 October 1980.
  88. Cartoons of protected industry, the welfare teat and the nanny state — “A change of tack from the Big Australian,” The Bulletin, December 9, 1980, p. 123. Economics Made Easy, pp. 230-32, as “The Big Australian.”
  89. The feather bed becomes crowded,” The Bulletin, March 31, 1981, p. 123. Economics Made Easy, pp. 198-200, as “Feather Beds.”
  90. Striped trousers at the ready,” The Bulletin, June 16, 1981, p. 123. Economics Made Easy, pp. 191-93, as “Modest Members Association.”
  91. Don’t listen to economists! — “Beware the popular economist,” The Bulletin, June 30, 1981, p. 131. Economics Made Easy, pp. 233-35, as “Money Supply and Cigarettes.” Snippet: “If you find a really popular economist you should regard him with grave suspicion; he is almost certainly telling lies.”
  92. Running with hares can be exhausting,” The Bulletin, July 28, 1981, p. 115. Economics Made Easy, pp. 193-96, as “Mr Anthony.”
  93. A charabanc called protection,” The Bulletin, August 25, 1981, p. 104. Economics Made Easy, pp. 200-03, as “Charabanc (a).”
  94. Taken for a ride — to nowhere,” The Bulletin, September 1, 1981, p. 147. Economics Made Easy, pp. 203-06, as “Charabanc (b).”
  95. Down hill, in circles, all the way,” The Bulletin, September 8, 1981, p. 114. Economics Made Easy, pp. 206-08, as “Charabanc (c).”
  96. Bad news for bearers of bad news,” The Bulletin, October 13, 1981, p. 180. Economics Made Easy, pp. 195-97, as “I.A.C. Treatment.”

(f.) Other Bert Kelly works and mentions

  1. Liberal Backbencher Hits Govt. Over Import Restrictions,” The Age, April 4, 1962, p. 6.
  2. S. W. Stephens, “Quiet Man Makes An Impact,” The Advertiser, May 14, 1966, p. 2.
  3. Make Slogans Great Again — e.g., “Face Facts and Help Ourselves!” — Bert Kelly, “Agriculture and Public Policy,” speech at the Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, Melbourne, February 18, 1970.
  4. Bert Kelly, “Tariff Protection in Australia,” speech to the Finnish Chamber of Commerce, Sydney, December 4, 1970. Snippet: “The projected new legislation in the U.S.A. is so frightening. If they start to put the shutters up, the world is likely to embark on a trade and tariff war as we did in the 1930s. This will not only make another world war almost inevitable, but it will also mean that living standards will be unnecessarily low in our country and in others.”
  5. Car components tariff protection under fire,” The Australian Financial Review, March 3, 1972, p. 5.
  6. 1976 ABC TV Monday Conference transcript featuring Bert Kelly
  7. C. R. Kelly, “A free feed, indeed!,” The Australian Financial Review, February 13, 1976, p. 12, as a letter to the editor.
  8. Competition, Aussie-style: Who’s the bigger parasite? — Bert Kelly, “You pay millions to prop up workers,” The Australian, July 8, 1976, p. 9; and C. R. Kelly, “One-Sided,” The Australian, July 14, 1976, p. 8, as a letter to the editor.
  9. John Hurst, “Max Newton: Maverick in Exile,” Nation Review, July 21-27, 1977, p. 11 — “The only politician I ever had any time for was Bert Kelly, the Member for Wakefield, SA, who conducted a lone, thankless campaign in favour of low tariffs with no hope of preferment under Menzies.”
  10. Bert Kelly graduates from Parliament — Anonymous “On the hustings” column, “A modest disaster on the way to the polls,” The Australian Financial Review, November 17, 1977, p. 4; Ray Aitchison, “BERT’S EPITAPH — FROM A LOBBYIST,” The Australian Financial Review, November 23, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor; John Martin, “Champion of freer trade,” The Australian Financial Review, November 25, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor; Ian Wearing, “Clarity resented,” The Australian Financial Review, November 25, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor; Lang Hancock, “Sad demise of Bert,” The Australian Financial Review, November 30, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor; Peter S. MacPhillamy, “Bert Kelly: principle before expediency,” The Australian Financial Review, December 7, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor; and R. D. Kelsey, “‘Fight on’ call to Bert Kelly,” The Australian Financial Review, December 14, 1977, p. 3, as a letter to the editor.
  11. SAYINGS OF THE WEEK: “Contemplating my navel. — Mr Bert Kelly, MP, describing his future after losing Liberal preselection for his Wakefield seat.” ~ “SAYINGS OF THE WEEK,” The Sydney Morning Herald, November 19, 1977, p. 10.
  12. Kenneth Graham [Ken Baxter], “The Modest Member must not give up,” The Bulletin, December 17, 1977, p. 112 — “He is one of those rare politicians who actually manages to see the importance of consistent, long-term policies over immediate party advantage.”
  13. Kenneth Graham [Ken Baxter], “Some sound advice from a modest farmer,” The Bulletin, December 12, 1978, p. 123.
  14. Bert Kelly vs The Australian on tariffs in 1977 — C. R. Kelly, “‘I fear for the fate of the IAC’,” The Australian, September 2, 1977, p. 6, as a letter to the editor; and C. R. Kelly, “Protection is not the answer,” The Australian, December 23, 1977, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  15. Bert Kelly, “The silly image of our MPs,” The Advertiser, December 22, 1977, p. 4. Published two days later as “The politician and his image,” The Age, December 24, 1977, p. 10.
  16. Bert Kelly Question Time highlights — Bert Kelly, “Question timing,” The Advertiser, December 23, 1977, p. 4. Published three days later as “A time when the question’s the thing,” The Age, December 26, 1977, p. 7.
  17. C.R. Kelly, “A Modest Farmer looks at the Problems of Structural Change,” Economic Papers, no. 59 (August, 1978), pp. 91-95.
  18. Sacred cow kicker into print,” The Bulletin, August 29, 1978, p. 93, in the “Intelligencer” column.
  19. Bert Kelly, “Tasmania and secession,” The Australian Financial Review, January 4, 1979, p. 3, as a letter to the editor.
  20. Political No Man’s Land — Sir Roderick Carnegie, “Responsibilities,” a talk at Australian Institute of Management Victoria, August 6, 1979. Published as a pamphlet by Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited. Excerpt: “We have to learn the courage of such people as Bert Kelly, who, almost on his own, pursued his mission for long-term economic good sense over twenty years. Twenty years of criticism and ridicule by people in both trenches [left and right] whose major concern was next week or next year. Twenty years of critics who found his defence of a free market incompatible with their short term profits.”
  21. Maxwell Newton, “A ‘spy’ replies,” The Bulletin, December 16, 1980, p. 5, as a letter to the editor — “Bert Kelly was … a close and dear friend in those early days.”
  22. Bert Kelly’s revolutionary strategy — Robert Haupt, “‘Clear-the-room’ Kelly outlasted his critics,” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, 1981, p. 32. “This strategy was revolutionary in 1958 when Mr Kelly entered Parliament, and it is still rare today. It is to decide what one thinks before deciding what one will say.”
  23. Bert Kelly after dinner speech transcript, “Agricultural Development and Tariffs,” for the 6th Annual Northern Development Seminar in Katherine, October 29, 1981.
  24. Government Fails Spectacularly — Bert Kelly, “Monarto … and why it went wrong,” The Bulletin, November 3, 1981, p. 44. This is the first and so far only article in The Bulletin by Bert Kelly that I have found that is not his Modest Farmer column.
  25. Robert Haupt, “This is the wall the Right built,” National Times on Sunday, September 7, 1986, p. 12  — “True, there has long been a free-market faction in the Liberal Party: for many years, its name was Bert Kelly. Kelly carried the standard against the trade-stifling policies of successive Liberal-Country Party governments, and he generally carried it alone. His party colleagues regarded him with amusement; his political career went nowhere.”
  26. Bert Kelly reviews The War Diaries of Weary Dunlop — Quadrant, May 1987, pp. 76-77.
  27. Bert Kelly reviews We Were There — Quadrant, November 1987, pp. 77-78.
  28. Bert Kelly, “Of Sugar Wells and Think-Tanks,” Quadrant, September 1991, pp. 51-53.
  29. Bert Kelly, “Bounties or Tariffs, Someone Pays,” IPA Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, 1992, p. 12.
  30. David Barnett, “Taking the Right’s road,” The Bulletin, July 12, 1988, pp. 32-35. — “Just as much as the valedictory dinner, the government’s structural adjustment committee of cabinet is a tribute to the Modest Member.”
  31. Viv Forbes, “Time to Butcher ‘Aussie Beef’,” Our Sacred Land & Other Essays (first published by Business Queensland and Common Sense in 1994), issue no. 102: “Three major Australian Meat exporters complained again in 1980, this time to Federal Police, about meat substitution (which by then included horse meat). Bert Kelly chaired an investigation which reported that abattoir managers were using gifts to induce meat inspectors to look the other way. Bert’s report was shelved …” For Bert Kelly on meat, see “Even if lucky, we needn’t be stupid,” The Bulletin, March 17, 1981, p. 121, which brings some of the report findings out into the open, and “Tariffs get the fork-tongue treatment,” The Bulletin, August 10, 1982, p. 108, where Bert Kelly tells of his appearance before Royal Commission on Meat Inspection.
  32. John Hyde, “Bert Kelly: the odd man out who’s now in,” The Weekend Australian, June 18-19, 1988, p. 22. Compare tone with following item. Discusses Kelly’s book Merrindie: A Family’s Farm.
  33. John Hyde, “Dries must resist giving up struggle as going gets tough,” The Weekend Australian, January 21-22, 1989, p. 24.
  34. John Hyde, “Reborn Liberals set the agenda,” The Weekend Australian, September 1-2, 1990, p. 20.
  35. John Hyde, “Why ideas people should club together,” The Weekend Australian, September 29-30, 1990, p. 20.
  36. Errol Simper, “Boring economics worth a smile,” The Australian, February 21, 1990, p. 2 — “Mr Cole, who believes a little more efficiency — micro-economic reform — could save us a collective $16 billion a year, is himself fond of telling Bert Kelly stories. Mr Kelly, a former South Australian federal Liberal MP, wrote a column entitled The Modest Member for many years and was one of politics’ most amusing raconteurs.”
  37. Robert Haupt, “Why no-one is nailing the Big Green Lie,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 17, 1990, p. 6 — brilliant article by Haupt, very evocative of Bert Kelly.
  38. Bert Kelly, “The best featherbeds run on rails,” Australian Rural Times, March 29-April 4, 1990, p. 9.
  39. Bert Kelly, “Politics: it’s a very confusing business,” Australian Rural Times, August 2-7, 1990, p. 9.
  40. Ross Gittins Wins Bert Kelly Award — “Award for Ross Gittins,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 15, 1991, p. 2; and Ross Gittins, “Why we must roll back the tyranny of distance,” The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 1990, p. 13.
  41. Bert Kelly, “A Modest Member rakes the embers,” The Australian Financial Review, March 21, 1991, p. 55.
  42. Bert Kelly on LSD — Bert Kelly, “Woolly laws of labour,” The Australian Financial Review, December 9, 1991, p. 15.
  43. Bert Kelly reflects on the Australian car industry in 1992 — “Government car plans going nowhere,” The Australian Financial Review, June 11, 1992, p. 15. Excerpt: “… farmers were too busy to worry about ideology, but we had learned the hard way that governments usually made a mess of business matters because they were more interested in being popular than right.”
  44. Bert Kelly wants reprinted Shann’s Economic History of Australia — “Reflections on a history of farming folly,” The Australian Financial Review, August 11, 1992, p. 15.

(g.) Dave’s Diary/Clarkson Says

  1. Perhaps being smart and insured isn’t all luck — “The Droolings of Dave,” The Adelaide Stock and Station Journal, March 21, 1945, p. 7.
  2. Bert Kelly yearns for Tim Flannery’s powers of prediction — The Adelaide Stock and Station Journal, April 11, 1945, p. 22.
  3. 1959 return of Dave’s Diary announcement — Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, January 28, 1959, p. 5. Excerpt: “It is many years since I wrote the last issue of Dave’s Diary, way back in 1946 it was. Many people have asked me why I stopped them but the reason was a simple one, I ran out of paper.”
  4. Catchy Tariff Circus Extravaganza — Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, March 2, 1960, pp. 52-53.
  5. To save Australian clothing industry women must all wear same uniform — Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, May 30, 1962, pp. 56-57.
  6. Bert Kelly’s empiricism is not kneejerk reaction kind — Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, March 27, 1963, pp. 14-15.
  7. Clarkson crowned Deputy Government Whip — Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, August 26, 1964, pp. 90-91.
  8. Vernon Report upholds Clarkson,” Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, September 29, 1965, p. 87.
  9. Keen to see northern Australia develop …,” Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, February 9, 1966, p. 71. Excerpt: “There may be some sense in this but I can’t see it. And, even if there is, I wish they wouldn’t use my money to make good fellows of themselves doing it.”
  10. Why should dryland farmers subsidise irrigation farmers? — “We have had rain, but not enough!,” Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, March 30, 1966, p. 60.
  11. How much should government decrease incentive for independence from government? — “Governments love to be popular!,” Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, August 24, 1966, p. 83.
  12. Bert Kelly on ApathyStock Journal, February 22, 1967, p. 35.
  13. Bert Kelly in 1967 on “problems of government and things like that” — Stock Journal, July 20, 1967, p. 41.
  14. The last “Dave’s Diary” — Stock Journal, February 29, 1968, p. 14.
  15. Bert Kelly on market predictions — “Schemes fix market needs … no more,” Country Life, February 25-March 2, 1976, p. 32.
  16. Auto industry is in a straitjacket,” Country Life, April 14-20, 1976, p. 36.
  17. Looking after yourself is silly,” Country Life, June 16-22, 1976, p. 32.
  18. Bert Kelly masterpiece on drought, fire, flood and other natural disaster government relief schemes — “Insure one, insure the lot,” Country Life, June 23-29, 1976, p. 40.
  19. Bert Kelly to blame for soaring government healthcare costs — “This solution to Medibank ‘too simple’,” Country Life, August 25-31, 1976, p. 44.
  20. Government can take credit for our car industry mess,” Country Life, July 27, 1977, p. 48.
  21. Why our MP is no longer prone to a good sob story,” Country Life, August 3, 1977, p. 36.
  22. Car makers want the 4wd driven deeper into tariff bog,” Country Life, September, 14, 1977, p. 44.
Bert Kelly image

AFR, 12/3/1964, p. 3.

AFR, 14/11/1969, p. 4.

The Australian, 19/2/1970, p. 3.

John Singleton | Workers Party

Introduction pre-empting accusations of crass materialism
Ted Noffs (co-founder of the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs, Lifeline, the Wayside Chapel and more) on John Singleton in 1977:

John Singleton, perhaps more than any other Australian in the latter part of the twentieth century, has helped Australians not only to discover their identity, but to celebrate it.

To the purists as far as the English language is concerned, John Singleton is public enemy number one. But to ordinary Australians who want to hear issues discussed in their own idiom, John Singleton and his panoply of ‘Australian speaking Australians’ makes a lot of sense.

And yet, to judge John Singleton in terms of his effect upon the Australian language, the advertising industry or new political ideals, is to miss the point of his message altogether. These are all somewhat superficial and passing questions in the life of any nation. The fundamental question is always one of spirituality. I emphasise spirituality and disregard the word ‘religion’. By spirituality I mean the total potential within a human being or within the life of a nation.

John Singleton, with all of his secular and seeming materialistic concerns, constantly demonstrates, to those who know him best, that here is a spiritual man who believes in the potential of this great nation. With his friend and colleague Bob Howard, I believe that John has written a book which will open many minds to the fact that Australia is asleep and it’s about time more of us woke up.

Singleton is a staff member of Economics.org.au, because we employ his work. Bob Howard said in 1975, “John Singleton was the catalyst and driving force behind the formation of the [Workers] Party.” Singo said elsewhere, “I was the catalyst.” This was the Workers Party Platform! What lessons does the Workers Party hold for us? Read this, then browse below.

Does Singleton regret the Workers Party? No: “One of the things I’m proud of is that I was Australia’s most unsuccessful politician. And having met most of the successful ones I reckon that’s the ultimate accolade.” Moreover: “I knew we wouldn’t win an election or probably even a seat, (I was dead right), but the prime objective of the party was to make people think; to become a tool of education and I believe to that degree at least the party was successful. At least most of the public thought and having thought agreed if I wasn’t crazy at least I was a fair way down the track.”

(By the way, if the Workers Party was better known, then it would be true that Gina Rinehart Is Our Least Controversial Celebrity.” The mind boggles to think of anything more conducive to productive attention, especially if there is history to prove its sincerity.)

(a.) Singo and Howard’s book Rip Van Australia (1977) (85 items)
(b.) Workers Party on TV (4 items)
(c.) Workers Party in the print media (53 items)
(d.) Workers Party in freeEnterprise magazine (6 items)
(e.) Party Publications, Speeches and signed letters (31 items)
(f.) Other interesting political John Singleton articles (1969-91) (80 items)
(g.) Other Bob Howard writings
(h.) Historic John Singleton video (2 items — oh, so that interests you!)

(a.) Singo and Howard’s book Rip Van Australia (1977)

  1. Foreword — Lang Hancock’s foreword to Rip Van Australia
  2. Preface — Ted Noffs’ preface to Rip Van Australia
  3. Introduction — Singo and Howard introduce Rip Van Australia
  4. AAA Tow Truck Co. — AAA Tow Truck Co. A funny high-priority message for the opening entry of this alphabetical encyclopedia. Serves as another introduction. In fact, all entries for “A” serve as good introductions.
  5. Aborigines — Singo and Howard on Aborigines
  6. Academics — Holed up, hold-up and holdout
  7. Advertising — The Rip Van Australia advertising entry is almost identical to Singleton’s “Matthew, Mark, Luke & John Pty. Ltd. Advertising Agents,” in his These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 29-32, which he presented during a debate, “Advertising is Immoral,” held during the 1969 Seminar of the A.A.N.A.’s Victorian Branch on October 30. Also published in Advertising & Newspaper News, November 14, 1969, p. 4.
  8. Alternatives — The libertarian alternative vs the socialist status quo — “This new category of libertarianism is a genuine alternative. It eliminates the internal contradictions of both the Left and the Right stands and uses the best of both. It is a true philosophy of freedom — freedom in social affairs and freedom in economic affairs. The position of the Left is to somehow believe that if a person can smoke pot, be a homosexual and speak his or her mind, then that person is free — even though he or she might be told how much to earn, what businesses to start, under what conditions to work, and so on. For its part, the Right makes the opposite mistake (but again only in theory). It believes that if a person has freedom of enterprise then that person is free, and that this remains the case if at the same time his or her private personal behaviour is regulated. These are obvious contradictions, but very pervasive ones. Unfortunately, the situation is not helped by the fact that most people on the Left misunderstand what is meant by freedom of enterprise, and that most people on the Right don’t appreciate the far-reaching consequences of social regulation. We hope that the rest of this book can do something to throw some new light on this confusion.”
  9. Apathy — Singo and Howard on Apathy
  10. Aunty A.B.C. — Singo and Howard on Murdoch, Packer and Monopolistic Media — This is almost identical with what appeared earlier in: John Singleton, “Let the airwaves sing unfettered,” Nation Review, April 9-15, 1976, p. 632; and that was a rewritten version of: John Singleton, “The media mafia,” Advertising News, September 5, 1975, p. 8.
  11. Australia Party — Singo and Howard on the Greens
  12. Ballet
  13. Bureaucracy — Singo and Howard on Bureaucracy
  14. Business — Singo and Howard on Business
  15. Capitalism — Singo and Howard Explain Why Australia is Not a Capitalist Country
  16. Causes, Not Symptoms — Singo and Howard on Striking at the Root, and the Failure of Howard, the CIS and the IPA
  17. Census — The Census Con
  18. Civil Disobedience — Singo and Howard talk Civil Disobedience
  19. Communism — Singo and Howard Oppose Australian Participation in the Vietnam War
  20. Compromise — Singo and Howard on Compromise“The Liberal/N.C., Labor and Communist Parties at base all hold the same principles. They disagree over matters of degree and detail only. They all believe that the function of the State is to regulate the economy and to provide for the welfare of its citizens. In other words, they all accept the principle of government interference in the economy, and the principle of government welfare activity. But obviously, the Communists agree with a far greater degree of both than either the Labor or Liberal/N.C. Parties. Similarly, Labor wants a greater degree of both than the Liberal/N.C. Parties. The alternative principle of course, is not less government activity in these areas of welfare and deregulation, but no government activity. Less concedes the principle and haggles over the degree. No rejects the principle and all degrees.”
  21. Conservation — Singo and Howard Propose Privatising Bondi Beach
  22. Conservatism — Singo and Howard on Conservatism — “There isn’t much similarity between libertarians and conservatives and yet, too many still confuse the two. Probably the worst offenders are the conservatives themselves, who like to think of themselves as libertarians. Ronald Reagan for example, is fond of referring to himself as a libertarian. Malcolm Fraser has expressed his fondness for Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has expressed her fondness of Malcolm Fraser. Obviously neither knows what the other is talking about.”
  23. Consistency — Singo and Howard on Consistency
  24. Consumer Protection — Singo and Howard on Consumer Protection
  25. Context — Singo and Howard on Context
  26. Corporate Capitalism — Singo and Howard on Corporate Capitalism
  27. Crime — Singo and Howard on Crime
  28. Criticism — An Ode to Busybodies — This also appears: without a title on the front page of the May 1977 Progress Party of New South Wales newsletter; with the title, “And God created the rose,” in Advertising News, February 15, 1974, p. 4; plus, according to here, “it was recorded and set to music by close friend John Laws who played it on his radio program on Monday [March 19, 1979].” Anyone have a recording please?
  29. Daylight Saving — Singo and Howard on the big issue of Daylight Saving
  30. Decency — Singo and Howard on Decency
  31. Democracy — Singo and Howard Call Democracy Tyrannical
  32. Discrimination — Singo and Howard on Discrimination
  33. Drugs — Singo and Howard on Drugs!
  34. Education — Singo and Howard on Education
  35. Fascism — Singo and Howard call Australia fascist and worse
  36. Festival of Light — John Singleton and Howard on Fred Nile, Festival of Light, FamilyVoice Australia and the Christian Lobby
  37. Fittest, Survival of the — Capitalism: Survival of the Fittest
  38. Foreign Investment — Singo and Howard Like Foreign Investment
  39. Freedom — Singo and Howard on Freedom from Government and Other Criminals
  40. Gambling — Singo and Howard: Gambling Should Neither Be Illegal Nor Taxed
  41. Government — John Singleton and Howard on Government Largesse — “For anything to be done, however, more and more people need to be educated about the issues involved. As people become aware of the futility of expecting governments to solve problems; of the dangers of increasing the size, cost, and power of governments; of the enormous size and power governments have already; and the alternatives to the simple knee-jerk reflex, then we might start to get somewhere. We also might get nowhere. But it used to be Australian to give it a go. At least we should all do that.”
  42. Guerrilla Warfare — Counterculture must exclude government handouts
  43. Gun Control — Singo and Howard on Gun Control
  44. Health — Singo and Howard Expose how Government Healthcare Controls Legislate Doctors into Slavery“It cannot be said if a government is elected by popular vote on the platform of providing a comprehensive health scheme that it has a ‘mandate’ to do so. The most that could be said is that it has a right to organise one for those who specifically voted for it, and only at their expense.”
  45. History — Singo and Howard Blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbour
  46. Homosexuality — Singo and Howard Engage with Homosexuality
  47. Human Nature — Singo and Howard on Human Nature — “Unfortunately, it is probably true to say that a modern welfare state like Australia is more destructive of human values than an outright dictatorship. At least under a dictator, an oppressed people are united against a clear and common enemy and human values survive and even prosper. But under a welfare State, where everyone competes at the public trough for ‘benefits’, person is pitted against person, group against group, industry against industry. Under these conditions, envy, greed, jealousy, bitterness, hate and fear prosper. There is no united front, no camaraderie, no common struggle. There is only pressure group warfare, and bitter divisiveness.”
  48. Idealism and Crackpot Realism — Singo and Howard Speak Out Against the Crackpot Realism of the CIS and IPA
  49. Inherited Wealth — Singo and Howard on Inherited Wealth
  50. Journalism — Singo and Howard Demand Repeal of Libel and Slander Laws
  51. Justice — Singo and Howard on Justice
  52. Knee-Jerks — Singo and Howard on Knee-Jerks
  53. Labor Party — Singo and Howard on the Labor Party
  54. Law — Singo and Howard Admit that Liberals Advocate and Commit Crime
  55. Liberal/National Country Parties — Singo and Howard Oppose the Liberal Party
  56. Licences — Singo and Howard on Licences
  57. Lobbies — Singo and Howard on Tax Hunts
  58. Mining and Minerals — Singo and Howard Defend Miners Against Government
  59. Monarchy — John Singleton and Howard say monarchy should be funded by monarchists alone
  60. Monopolies — Singo and Howard on Monopolies
  61. Nationalism — Singo and Howard Decry Australia Day
  62. Non-Interference — Singo and Howard on Non-Interference
  63. Olympic Games — Singo and Howard: Australia Should Pull Out of the Olympics
  64. Politicians — Singo and Howard Hate Politicians“We neither like nor trust them, yet we continue to give them more and more power over our lives and property.”
  65. Pollution — Singo and Howard Explain that Pure Capitalism Solves Pollution
  66. Post Office — Return Australia Post to Sender
  67. Profits — Singo and Howard on Profits, Super Profits and Natural Disasters
  68. Qualifications — Singo and Howard on Qualifications
  69. Rights — Singo and Howard on Rights
  70. Roads — Singo and Howard Support Sydney Harbour Bridge Restructure
  71. Secession — Singo, Howard and Hancock Want to Secede — After the third paragraph, this is a reprint of Lang Hancock, “Go West Young Man,” The Australian GP, February, 1977, pp. 10-11.
  72. Socialism — Singo and Howard on Totalitarian Socialism and Voluntary Socialism
  73. State, The — Singo and Howard Smash the State
  74. Taxation — Rip Van Australia on Ripoff Vandals Taxing Australia — Excerpt: “The battle cry of the American Revolution in 1776 was ‘No taxation without representation’. If they could have seen what taxation is like with representation, they might not have bothered!”
  75. Tolerance — Singo and Howard beg for tolerance
  76. Transport, Public — Singo and Howard Demand End to Public Transport
  77. Unemployment — Singo and Howard on Unemployment
  78. Unions — Singo and Howard on Unions
  79. Utilities, Public — Singo and Howard on Public Utilities
  80. Voting — Singo and Howard on Voting“What’s the point of arguing over whether or not the government performs certain operations efficiently or not, when it can be shown that they really have no right to be performing them at all?”
  81. Welfare — Singo and Howard Join Forces to Dismantle Welfare State“No one has a right to welfare, because all welfare is paid for by other people. To admit such a right would, to that extent, turn those who pay it into slaves.”
  82. Women’s Lib — Singo and Howard on Women’s Lib
  83. Workers Party — Singo and Howard Endorse the Workers Party
  84. Xenophobia — Singo and Howard on Xenophobia
  85. Young, The — Singo and Howard on Young People


(b.) Workers Party on TV

  1. ABC TV’s Monday Conference interview with John Singleton and Bob Howard, broadcast on February 1o, 1975. Transcript.
  2. Policy speech delivered by Mr David Russell, leader of the Workers Party Queensland Senate Team, on Brisbane Television, December 6, 1975. Transcript.
  3. VIDEO of the Workers Party Reunion in Sydney, November 2011. Transcript for the intro of that video is here.
  4. Neville Kennard talks a bit about his Workers Party experience.


(c.) Workers Party in the print media

  1. Gavin Souter, “‘A beautiful time to be starting a new party’: Rand fans believe every man for himself,” The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1974, p. 9. (Also this Monday Conference appearance of Maureen Nathan took place after this article and before the Workers Party launch, so I think it is worth mentioning here.)
  2. Guest from the West,” The Australian, January 9, 1975, p. 7.
  3. John Henningham, “New party will not tolerate bludgers: Radical party against welfare state,” The Australian, January 27, 1975, pp. 1-2. On the launch.
  4. Party Promises to Abolish Tax,” The Daily Telegraph, January 27, 1975, p. 4. On the launch.
  5. Govt ‘villian’ in eyes of new party,” The Sydney Morning Herald, January 27, 1975, p. 2. On the launch.
  6. Philip McIntosh, “New party formed ‘to slash controls’,” The Age, January 27, 1975, p. 3. On the launch.
  7. Workers Party is born as foe of government,” The Canberra Times, January 27, 1975, p. 3. On the launch.
  8. Government seen by new party as evil,” The West Australian, January 27, 1975, p. 4. On the launch.
  9. Editorial, “Voices of frustration,” The Australian, January 28, 1975, p. 6. Responded to by Mark Tier in the next item.
  10. Mark Tier, “Policies of Workers Party,” The Australian, February 6, 1975, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  11. Ben Jasper, “A party is born,” National Miner, February 3, 1975, p. 2, 16. On the launch. Interestingly no mention of Singleton or Hancock. Maybe Singleton was not so famous in W.A. and Hancock (publisher of National Miner) might have suggested that his own name be left out.
  12. David Biff, “Workers conned again,” Nation Review, January 31-February 6, 1975, p. 421. Responded to in Mark Tier, “Up the workers,” Nation Review, February 21-27, 1975, p. 486, as a letter to the editor.
  13. Lenore Nicklin, “Introducing the new Workers’ Party …,” The Sydney Morning Herald, February 6, 1975, p. 5.
  14. John Miles, “Workers Party is ‘not just a funny flash in the pan’,” The Advertiser, February 7, 1975, p. 5. John Whiting stars.
  15. Political branch formed,” The Courier-Mail, February 26, 1975, p. 25. On the Brisbane branch of the Workers Party. Starring Viv Forbes.
  16. Lang Hancock, “SPRUCE UP THE LIBERALS OR LET THE WEST SECEDE,” National Miner, March 31, 1975, p. 9. Critically appraises the Workers Party. Excerpt: “Egged on by starry-eyed idealists, imbued with a genuine reforming zeal to retrieve Australia from the present mess, they have launched their new party with a misunderstood name and unfortunately aimed their philosophy over the heads of the average voter.” “However,” says Hancock, “what they lack in political expertise they more than make up for in honesty of intention and enthusiasm, so on this basis they are worth support when one considers that the way is open for them to succeed if for no reason other than by default on the part of the Liberal Party.”
  17. Ailsa Craig, “John Singleton: He believes in the Workers Party (otherwise he wouldn’t be doing this commercial),” Woman’s Day, April 21, 1975, pp. 43-48. Excerpt: “A Workers Party government in Canberra would figuratively nail a notice over the doors of parliament house, informing the people that ‘Taxation is theft’.”
  18. Patricia Johnson, “Singleton: the White Kight of Ockerdom,” Cleo, June 1975, pp. 57-59. Much of that is of interest, in particular: “Our platform is bound to be unpopular in lots of ways but it’s not constructed to be popular or even to win; it’s constructed so that people are educated to know what is really happening under a socialistic government.”
  19. Maxwell Newton student newspaper interview on the Workers Party — “‘Too bloody bad, if anyone gets mangled’: Max Newton talks to Ash Long,” Farrago (Melbourne University Student Union), June 4, 1975, pp. 13-14.
  20. The Bulletin on Maxwell Newton as Workers Party national spokesman on economics and politics — Anonymous “People” column, The Bulletin, July 12, 1975, p. 30.
  21. Harry M. Miller and The Australian disgrace themselves — Harry M. Miller, “Curing our malaise,” The Australian, October 21, 1975, p. 10.
  22. Mark Tier, “Libertarians: Radicals on the right,” Politics, vol. X, no. 2, November, 1975, pp. 164-68. Excerpt: “An example of the world-wide growth of the libertarian movement is the formation of the Workers Party in Sydney on 26 January, 1975. Its platform was partly based on the US LP’s platform. US LPers have had nothing but praise for it — and are now utilising it as the basis for re-writing their own.”
  23. John Singleton on the first election the Workers Party contested — “New party’s chief: Not good enough,” The West Australian, November 3, 1975, p. 12. On the Greenough by-election results. They got 13 percent of the vote, which was only 44 votes less than Labor. It was their first and best result, except for a later election with the same candidate I think.
  24. James Henderson, “The ‘Workers’ speak out,” Nation Review, November 7-13, 1975, p. 83. On the Greenough by-election again.
  25. Niccolo, “Tiny Workers’ Party gives us a hint,” National Miner, November 10, 1975, p. 6. On the Greenough by-election yet again.
  26. Janet Hawley, “Bludgers need not apply,” The Australian, November 29, 1975, p. 27. John Singleton, Sinclair Hill and Mark Tier star.
  27. Philip Cornford, “Hancock’s playing very hard to get,” The Australian, December 2, 1975, p. 4. Excerpt: “Mr Hancock, however, has given his personal support to the Workers’ Party, but only in its campaign outside Western Australia. He likes their economic policy but, for reasons of his own, won’t publicly back them in his home state. Last week he spent four days in the Northern Territory ferrying the WP’s two Senate candidates around at 600 mph and 40,000ft in his seven-seat private plane.”
  28. Malcolm Turnbull says “the Workers party is a force to be reckoned with” — Malcolm Turnbull, “Workers party policy: open slather on the right,” Nation Review, December 5-11, 1975, p. 193.
  29. A few chukkas in the Senate for polo ace?,” North West Magazine (NSW), week commencing December 8, 1975, p. 2. Sinclair Hill stars.
  30. Selwyn Parker, “Giving a chukka to the Workers Party,” The Sydney Morning Herald, December 11, 1975, p. 7. Sinclair Hill stars.
  31. Richard Hall in his regular column in The Bulletin, December 27, 1975-January 3, 1976, p. 18, followed by responses from Mike Stanton and Judith James a few weeks later. This is all archived here. The topic is what the election results mean for the Workers Party.
  32. Graham Williams, “Right-wing anarchists revamping libertarian ideology,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 23, 1976, p. 8. Internal party friction discussed. Response in next item.
  33. Richard Court, “The Workers Party,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 1, 1976, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  34. John Singleton, “The bold and boring Lib-Lab shuffle,” Nation Review, April 23-29, 1976, p. 681. Discusses some of the Workers Party NSW state policies.
  35. Charles W. Russell, Country Crisis (Brisbane, Australia; W. R. Smith & Paterson, 1976), pp. 384-89, ch. 31, “Country Rejuvenation.” On the Workers Party as the best chance for country folk.
  36. Whiting vs Singleton — John Singleton, “The $100-a-plate sleepathon,” The Bulletin, April 23, 1977, p. 14; John Whiting, “Still Workers Party,” The Bulletin, May 14, 1977, pp. 6-9, as a letter to the editor; and Peter Sawyer, “Progress Party replies,” The Bulletin, June 11, 1977, p. 8, as a letter to the editor. On the Workers Party to Progress Party name change.
  37. Elizabeth Riddell, “… OTHERWISE I WOULDN’T DO THESE COMMERCIALS,” Australian MEN Vogue, May/June 1977, pp. 48-50. Profile of John Singleton, discusses the Workers Party.
  38. John Hurst, “Max Newton: Maverick in Exile,” Nation Review, July 21-27, 1977, p. 11. “‘I did that for a mate, John Singleton (Chairman of the Party), who wanted me to give him a hand. It was a real pain. Journalists should be outside the whole political thing.’ (Max fell out with the Workers Party when he referred to Jim Spigelman, secretary of Whitlam’s media department, as ‘a little Jew boy’.)”
  39. Lenore Nicklin, “Why John Singleton can’t keep a straight face,” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 20, 1977, p. 11.
  40. Ken Day, “Time for progress,” Nation Review, September 1-7, 1977, p. 2, as a letter to the editor.
  41. William Bartlett, “The loonie right implodes,” Nation Review, September 22-28, 1977, p. 9. More on the Workers Party-Progress Party “split”.
  42. John Singleton-Ita Buttrose interview — “… yes, but what’s he really like?,” The Australian Women’s Weekly, September 7, 1977, pp. 11-13.
  43. ‘Cannot underestimate’ people’s stupidity,” The Canberra Times, May 19, 1978, p. 9. A write-up of John Singleton’s speech to the annual council of the Australian Liberal Students Association and his critical reflections on the Workers Party. Is there a Liberal Students publication that would have published the speech notes or transcript?
  44. Progress Party and Workers Party lead The Australian — Viv Forbes, “Progress,” The Australian, July 25, 1978, p. 8, as a letter to the editor.
  45. Nancy Berryman, “VIOLENCE, TV BAN, DRINK — SINGO SPEAKS HIS MIND,” The Sun-Herald, March 25, 1979, p. 9. “One of the things I’m proud of is that I was Australia’s most unsuccessful politician. And having met most of the successful ones I reckon that’s the ultimate accolade.”
  46. Elizabeth Johnston, “The Progress Party has rhyme on its side,” The Australian, April 17, 1979, p. 3. Starring Ken Hood and Viv Forbes. Discussed in the editorial on the same day, included in previous link.
  47. Bob Howard, “Up the Workers!: they stood for legalised drugs, no taxation, abolition of government welfare and free education … but somehow the libertarians lost their head,” Australian Playboy, May, 1979, pp. 105-10.
  48. John Hyde’s Progress Party praise — John Hyde, “New conservative party would only sell snake oil,” The Weekend Australian, January 18-19, 1986, p. 31. Excerpt: “The proposal is very different from the Progress Party which never won a seat, but seeded ideas which are now changing politics. The Progress Party concentrated on ideas rather than interests.”
  49. John Singleton’s 1986 reflection on the Workers Party — Errol Simper, “A penchant for parties,” The Australian, July 28, 1986, p. 9. Excerpt: “Singleton looks back on the Workers Party as ‘sheer lunacy’ and ‘the biggest waste of time and money I ever got into’. ‘I don’t regret it,’ he says. ‘I don’t think I regret anything. But it really was total bloody lunacy. I reckon we ended up with about the same number of votes as we had paid-up members. If I helped anyone I helped Malcolm Fraser get in, and what a disaster he was. What a dreadful failure. He ended up adopting most of Whitlam’s policies anyway.'”
  50. Viv Forbes, “The Tide Turning?The Optimist, Nov/Dec 1986, pp. 5-8.
  51. Corrections to typical commentaries on Lang Hancock and the Workers Party — “Hancock and the Workers,” The Australian, April 1, 1992, p. 10, as two letters to the editor; the first by Bill Stacey, the second by Roger Wickham. Excerpt: “Finally, ‘… the misnamed Workers Party’. Misnamed? How? Why? In whose opinion beside yours? Does that mean that the Labor, Liberal and Democrat parties are correctly named — or would you just care to explain what you do mean?”
  52. Sinclair Hill calls for dropping a neutron bomb on Canberra — John Huxley, “SINCLAIR HILL: NOT YOUR AVERAGE BUSHIE,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 12, 1993, p. 39.
  53. Ron Manners, “Our Very Own Political Party,” chapter in his Heroic Misadventures (West Perth: Mannwest Group, 2009), pp. 121-149.


(d.) Workers Party in freeEnterprise magazine

  1. R.A. Howard, “A Real Alternative,” freeEnterprise, December 1974-January 1975, p. 1.
  2. On the writing of the Workers Party platform and the differences between the 1975 Australian and American libertarian movements — Mark Tier, “An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” freeEnterprise, November, 1975, pp. 4-6.
  3. Merilyn Giesekam, “A Farewell to Armchair Critics,” freeEnterprise, March, 1976, pp. 1-2.
  4. Who’s Who in the W.P.,” freeEnterprise, March, 1976, pp. 4-5.
  5. FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH: An interview with Bob Howard,” freeEnterprise, March, 1976, pp. 5-6.
  6. Mark Tier, “The W.P. is a Political Party,” freeEnterprise, March, 1976, pp. 7-8.


(e.) Party Publications, Speeches and signed letters

  1. Workers Party Platform
  2. Workers Party Economic Policy Statement, December 1975, republished with a new introduction in John Singleton, True Confessions (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1979), pp. 140-55, as “The Workers Party (Later Progress Party)”.
  3. Notes from Lang Hancock’s address at the Workers Party Gala Dinner
  4. John Whiting’s Inaugural Workers Party Presidential Address
  5. Duncan Yuille, “Medical monopoly,” The Bulletin, April 19, 1975, p. 7, as a letter to the editor. This, a Paul Hogan letter and a few Ron Manners letters are collected here.
  6. David Russell Leads 1975 Workers Party Queensland Senate Team
  7. Ken Day, “Friedman was right,” The Australian Financial Review, April 1, 1976, pp. 2-3, as a letter to the editor. Mentions Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Milton Friedman and David Friedman.
  8. Viv Forbes, “Vision based on freedom,” The Australian Financial Review, April 20, 1976, p. 10, as a letter to the editor.
  9. Charles Russell, “The last words of Charles Russell,” The Bulletin, November 5, 1977, pp. 28-29, as an anonymous ad. This is the most brilliant and dramatic speech ever made.
  10. Bob Howard, “The Road to Where?,” Libertarian Optimism: Newsletter of the Progress Party of New South Wales, March, 1978, p. 1-2.
  11. Ron Manners, “Thoughts on Land Ownership” and “Such Refreshing Manners!” Workers Party Bulletin (South Australia), June 1978, p. 5.
  12. Viv Forbes, “At a loss,” The Australian, October 12, 1978, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  13. Viv Forbes, “Barriers,” The Australian, November 14, 1978, p. 8, as a letter to the editor.
  14. Paul Rackemann 1980 Progress Party Election Speech
  15. Viv Forbes, “HEALING THYSELF,” The Australian, January 11, 1979, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  16. Viv Forbes, “Mine control,” The Australian, May 4, 1979, p. 8, as a letter to the editor. This and the following three items are compiled here.
  17. Viv Forbes, “Growing big — a public service?,” The Weekend Australian, June 2-3, 1979, p. 12, as a letter to the editor.
  18. Viv Forbes, “Political gifts,” The Australian, August 27, 1979, p. 8, as a letter to the editor.
  19. Viv Forbes, “Better idea,” The Australian, November 21, 1979, p. 8, as a letter to the editor.
  20. Viv Forbes, “Right on the move,” The Bulletin, November 27, 1979, p. 6, as a letter to the editor. Excerpt: “Had you bothered to venture into the frontier States two years ago, you would have noticed the birth of a radical political movement called the Progress Party. You would have seen them get an average 10 percent of the vote across every electorate in the Northern Territory. You would have seen regular grass-roots support of 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent among the farmers of Geraldton, the graziers of Dalby, the dairymen of Gympie and the suburbanites of Mount Coot-tha in Brisbane. You would have seen a new breed of councillors appearing in Shire and City Halls as far apart as Kalgoorlie, Ipswich and Charters Towers. You would have noticed a growing philosophical confidence among the maverick spokesmen for the ratepayers, the taxpayers and the consumers.”
  21. Election ‘illusion’,” The Canberra Times, April 21, 1980. p. 9, starring Viv Forbes.
  22. Viv Forbes, “Limit on ‘free enterprise’,” The Australian Financial Review, July 22, 1980, p. 13, as a letter to the editor.
  23. Viv Forbes, “Govt action hurts business,” The Australian Financial Review, August 6, 1980, p. 13, as a letter to the editor.
  24. Are you a real friend of the ABC? — Viv Forbes, “Money to burn?,” The Bulletin, August 5, 1980, p. 18, as a letter to the editor. Excerpt: “It would seem fairly obvious that most people would prefer not to have their viewing interrupted by advertising. They would also prefer free housing and hot dogs and beer.”
  25. Viv Forbes, “The mouse will roar,” The Australian, September 3, 1980, p. 6, as a letter to the editor, on tax evasion.
  26. Viv Forbes, “Govt stifles business,” The Australian Financial Review, September 18, 1980, p. 11, as a letter to the editor.
  27. Poll speech sets record,” The Courier-Mail, October 7, 1980, p. 3, starring Viv Forbes.
  28. Viv Forbes, “Taxes on all but sex,” The Bulletin, October 14, 1980, pp. 17-18, as a letter to the editor.
  29. Viv Forbes, “Just one memo,” The Australian Financial Review, November 12, 1980, p. 13, as a letter to the editor.
  30. Save the taxpayers,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, 1982, p. 25, “News Digest” section, starring Viv Forbes.
  31. The party that stands by its word,” The Age, February 16, 1983, p. 15. Excerpt: “‘Policy speeches are a non-event for us’, Mr Viv Forbes said. ‘Not one word has changed in our policy since 1977.'”

(f.) Other interesting political John Singleton writings (1969-91)

  1. John Singleton’s first two “Think” columns in Newspaper News, 1969: “Do Admen Know the Rules?,” May 2, 1969, p. 10; and “Ads lack good selling ideas,” May 16, 1969, p. 8. The May 2 was republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), p. 7-8, as “First the rules”.
  2. John Singleton, “Product innovation comes first,” Newspaper News, May 30, 1969, p. 6. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), p. 9-10.
  3. John Singleton schools ad course — John Singleton, “The blackboard jingle,” Advertising & Newspaper News, June 27, 1969, p. 21.
  4. John Singleton, “New improved moon,” Advertising & Newspaper News, August 22, 1969, p. 4. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), p. 16.
  5. John Singleton, “AWARDS SEEKING APPLAUSE,” Advertising & Newspaper News, September 5, 1969, p. 6. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), p. 17.
  6. John Singleton, “Protect who from a ‘mindless’ wife?,” Advertising & Newspaper News, September 19, 1969, p. 4. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 20-21.
  7. John Singleton, “Announcing people … YES, people!,” Advertising & Newspaper News, October 3, 1969, p. 4. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 22-23.
  8. Creativity in advertising must be pointed dead on target — John Singleton, “A Parade of skills … but not of Products,” Advertising & Newspaper News, October 17, 1969, p. 4. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 24-25.
  9. John Singleton in 1971 on the 2010 Federal Election — John Singleton, These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 26-28, as “At Last the 1948 Show.” Originally published as “At last the 1948 show …,” Advertising & Newspaper News, October 31, 1969, p. 4.
  10. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John Pty. Ltd. Advertising Agents — John Singleton, These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 29-32, which is an address by John Singleton during a debate, “Advertising is Immoral,” held during the 1969 Seminar of the A.A.N.A.’s Victorian Branch on October 30. Also republished in: Advertising & Newspaper News, November 14, 1969, p. 4; and Rip Van Australia (Stanmore, NSW: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 6-9, as “Advertising”.
  11. John Singleton on barriers to, and opportunities for, effective communication — John Singleton, “Barriers to effective communication,” Advertising & Newspaper News, November 28, 1969, p. 4; and John Singleton, “Opportunities for effective communication,” Advertising & Newspaper News, December 19, 1969, p. 4. Republished in Singleton’s These Thoughts are Genuine (Kensington, NSW: Blake & Batcheler, 1971), pp. 33-36.
  12. John Singleton, “Gortlam rides again,” Advertising & Newspaper News, November 27, 1970, p. 4. Excerpt: “the marketing of both these major political products is so badly done that either or both could be replaced by another product.”
  13. John Singleton, “Thou shalt know the facts … before thou shoot off thou mouth,” in These Thoughts are Genuine, pp. 41-44. Explains why the Reverend Barrie Howard did TV ads for Norman Ross discount stores.
  14. John Singleton, “Charity: An Aesop Fable,” in These Thoughts are Genuine, pp. 95-96. Excerpt: “I have come to the conclusion that the people who do least good for the community are those who would pretend to do the most.”
  15. John Singleton, “CANCER COUNTRY,” Advertising & Newspaper News, May 14, 1971, p. 4. On cigarette advertising. Republished in These Thoughts are Genuine, pp. 107-08.
  16. John Singleton, “I think that I shall never see a telegraph pole as lovely as a tree,” Advertising & Newspaper News, July 9, 1971, p. 4. Best autobiographical article.
  17. John Singleton on the ad industry, consumerism and innovation — John Singleton, “The days of miracles: have they passed?,” Advertising & Newspaper News, July 23, 1971, p. 4.
  18. John Singleton mocks university students on civil liberties and freedom of choice — John Singleton, “Freedom of Choice,” Advertising News, October 22, 1971, p. 4.
  19. John Singleton on trading stamps, idiot housewives and government — John Singleton, “Remember trading stamps?,” Advertising News, November 26, 1971, p. 4.
  20. John Singleton vs Ralph Nader on Consumer Protection — John Singleton, “Mr. Ralph Nader,” Advertising News, August 20, 1971, p. 4; and John Singleton, “Mr. Ralph zzzzzz,” Advertising News, July 7, 1972, p. 20.
  21. John Singleton on 1972’s Cigarette Legislation — Excerpts from John Singleton’s column in Advertising News, April 28, 1972, pp. 4, 19.
  22. John Singleton, “The Death of the Newspaper,” Advertising News, May 26, 1972, p. 4.
  23. John Singleton, “AND NOW McWHITLAM,” Advertising News, November 24, 1972, p. 4. On Australian political advertising.
  24. John Singleton, “See you later, Bryce,” Advertising News, December 8, 1972, p. 4. Upon Bryce Courtenay leaving Australian advertising.
  25. John Singleton, “Censorship should be banned,” Advertising News, March 30, 1973, p. 4.
  26. John Singleton on Advertising — John Singleton, “Like the garage attendant picture, it isn’t true,” The Australian, March 5, 1974, p. 23.
  27. John Singleton, “The great Labor Party platform: first or last, everybody wins a prize,” Advertising News, April 26, 1974, p. 4. Excerpt: “It would probably be good to have an intelligent alternative. A chance to register a protest vote against both parties.”
  28. John Singleton, “The politics of marketing – laugh now, pay later,” Advertising News, June 21, 1974, p. 4.
  29. “Listen, mate, a socialist is a bum” — Phil Cornford, “MILLIONAIRE TELLS WHY HE PLANNED LIB TV ADS,” Daily Telegraph, May 2, 1974, p. 3.
  30. Phillip Adams, “Simpleton sells his poll philosophy,” The Age, May 11, 1974, p. 9 — typical Phillip Adams journalism, avoids addressing any of Singleton’s arguments and shows no interest in genuine debate.
  31. Dennis Minogue, “How those Liberal ads came to life,” The Age, May 16, 1974, p. 8. An interview with John Singleton about his commercials for the 1974 Federal Election. Excerpt: “If anybody can satisfactorily define the difference between socialism and communism I will retract everything I’ve done.”
  32. Singleton vs Snedden — John Singleton, “Liberal Party commercials,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 13, 1974, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
  33. John Singleton and Gordon Alexander, “These Elections Were Genuine,” Quadrant, January-February, 1975, pp. 36-96. On his 1974 Federal Liberal Election Campaign Ads, their production, content and reception. A similar version is in John Singleton, True Confessions (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1979), pp. 95-111, as “The 1974 Federal Elections: Authorised by Sir Robert Askin on Behalf of the Liberal Party”.
  34. John Singleton on refusing to do business with criminals and economic illiterates — John Singleton, “If I were a client,” Advertising News, May 2, 1975, p. 4. Excerpt: “How can my agency possibly consider competing for the Labor Party account to help promote this Socialist Party back into power?”
  35. How John Singleton Would Make Tony Abbott Prime Minister — John Singleton, “How Malcolm Fraser will become Prime Minister: A two-year non-marketing programme,” Quadrant, June, 1975, pp. 33-35.
  36. John Singleton, “The Sir Robert Askin Story, Slippers and All,” Quadrant, September, 1975, pp. 75-77.
  37. John Singleton defends ockerism — John Singleton, “Ockers triumphant — they are us,” Nation Review, April 2-8, 1976, p. 608.
  38. John Singleton, “The bold and boring Lib/Lab shuffle,” Nation Review, April 23-29, 1976, p. 681.
  39. John Singleton, “The great consumer protection trick,” Nation Review, May 28-June 3, 1976, p. 802. An earlier version titled, “The consumer protection confidence trick,” was published in 1975 over two issues of Advertising News: October 3, pp. 6-7; and October 17, pp. 8-9. Also in John Singleton, True Confessions (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1979), pp. 68-73, as “And Now Announcing Consumer Protection”.
  40. Shit State Subsidised Schooling Should Cease Says Singo — John Singleton, “The day the parents became citizens,” Nation Review, August 6-12, 1976, p. 1044.
  41. John Singleton, “How the whores pretend to be nuns,” Nation Review, August 27-September 2, 1976, p. 1116.
  42. John Singleton, “How many tits in a tangle?,” Nation Review, September 10-16, 1976, p. 1162.
  43. Wayne Garland, “Wayne Garland on John Singleton on Advertising,” Quadrant, October, 1976, pp. 27-29.
  44. Singo Incites Civil Disobedience — John Singleton, “Twisting the tail of paper tigers,” The Bulletin, October 30, 1976, pp. 82-83. Read to the end of that document for the glorious outpouring of hate and rebellion from Ron Manners and others that this article brought forth. And at the very end is republished Singleton’s restatement a few years later from Singleton, True Confessions (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1979), p. 64, the chapter titled “Some of the Joys of Running a Business”.
  45. John Singleton, “The impossible dream,” Nation Review, December 9-15, 1976, p. 187.
  46. John Singleton, “Why can’t I get away with it?,” Nation Review, January 13-19, 1977, p. 303.
  47. John Singleton wants the Post Office sold and anti-discrimination legislation scrapped — John Singleton, “Two novels for the price of one,” The Australian, March 2, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box, which is a featured opinion piece or letter to the editor, on the same page as the editorial and the letters to the editor.
  48. John Singleton, “A speech from the Titanic,” The Australian, March 9, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box.
  49. John Singleton, “A crime must have a victim,” The Australian, March 16, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box.
  50. John Singleton vs Australia Post — John Singleton, “Why every post’s a loser,” The Australian, March 24, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box.
  51. John Singleton, “Minimum wages the killer,” The Australian, March 31, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box.
  52. Mike Agostini, “Promoter sees profit in Games,” The Sun-Herald, April 17, 1977, p. 93. Singo’s pitch to head the Sydney 1988 Olympics and to run it for profit.
  53. John Singleton, “Has Fraser got his priorities all wrong?,” The Australian, May 23, 1977, p. 6, in the “Forum” box.
  54. John Singleton says “the royal family should be flogged to the U.S.” — John Singleton, “While the empire sinks into the east,” The Australian, May 30, 1977, p. 6, in the “Forum” box.
  55. John Singleton vs Don Chipp and the Australian Democrats — John Singleton, “Don’s party is a fancy-dress affair that’s just a bit more trendy,” The Australian, June 6, 1977, p. 6, in the “Forum” box. Excerpt: “The best thing we can hope for is that with all the parties in the middle of the road one day, they might all have a head-on collision and with any luck there may be no survivors.”
  56. Don Groves, “Ocker Singo Seeks Another Super Sell on New TV Show With Some Mates,” The Sun-Herald, January 21, 1979, p. 11. See also Clyde Packer, No Return Ticket (North Ryde, NSW; Angus & Robertson Publishers, 1984), pp. 127: “John Singleton, who was running a sort of interview programme on Sydney’s Channel Ten at that time, asked [Maxwell] Newton to become a permanent guest.”
  57. John Singleton vs Don Lane — Pip James and Suellen O’Grady, “On the Lane to Singleton,” The Weekend Australian Magazine, February 16-17, 1979, p. 6.
  58. John Singleton, True Confessions (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1979), pp. 65-67, the chapter titled “Talking of Government Stupidities,” which talks about anti-discrimination laws. Excerpt: “Like, I personally couldn’t give a stuff whether people were black, blue, brindle or where they come from or where they’re going. But if someone, say a Jewish person, doesn’t want to employ, say an Australian, because the last 25 Aussies he has employed haven’t bothered to lob, surely that is his right. Like it is his money. And Australians have become a race of bludgers.”
  59. Mr Singleton Goes to Canberra for Australian Playboy — John Singleton, “Is there an MP in the House?,” Australian Playboy, July 1979, pp. 62-66. Singo on baby-kissers for Playboy.
  60. Undeserved handouts make Australia the lucky country — John Singleton, “The real story behind WA’s ‘race riots’,” The Bulletin, October 9, 1979, pp. 22-24.
  61. John Singleton, “A happy story about Aborigines,” The Bulletin, November 13, 1979, pp. 76-81.
  62. Bill Mellor, “How Singo coaxed Big Mal to smile,” The Sun-Herald, March 16, 1980, p. 15.
  63. King Leonard of Hutt River Declares Defensive Just War Against Australia the Aggressor — John Singleton, “It’s King Len, the Lionheart,” Daily Mirror, June 11, 1980, p. 11.
  64. Singo asks two prickly questions,” The Sun-Herald, October 12, 1980, p. 69.
  65. Singo says Lang Hancock violated Australia’s 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Succeed — John Singleton, “KEEP ON FIGHTING,” Daily Mirror, January 7, 1981, p. 11.
  66. Harry Robinson, “Singo’s lingo an ocker shocker,” The SMH See-Hear, March 9, 1981, p. 1, in The Sydney Morning Herald of that date.
  67. John Singleton on his TV career for Australian Playboy — John Singleton, “My own ‘brilliant’ career (so far),” Australian Playboy, April 1981, pp. 61-65.
  68. Bob Carr in 1981 on John Singleton’s political bent — Bob Carr, “Complaints end up on compost heap as profits rise,” The Bulletin, December 15, 1981, pp. 30-32.
  69. John Singleton. Horseracing. Why? — John Singleton, “Inside the turf dream,” The Bulletin, July 20, 1982, pp. 44-48.
  70. John Singleton on Political Advertising — John Singleton, “A brand new market leader,” The Bulletin, March 15, 1983, pp. 26-28.
  71. John Singleton, “Come back Bob — It was all in fun!,” Matilda, May 1985, pp. 14-15. On Bob Askin’s friendship with John Singleton and a good libertarian take on corruption and vice.
  72. John Singleton, “Not a bad time to make a comeback,” Australian Business, October 30, 1985, p. 143. On his return to advertising after eight years.
  73. John Singleton, “Save Parramatta Road,” Australian Business, November 13, 1985, p. 162. Mocking Heritage Orders and supporting Hugh Morgan.
  74. John Singleton got sacked for telling the truth about Medicare — John Singleton Advertising full page ad for Western District Health Fund, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, 1986, p. 11.
  75. John Singleton, “Meat’s future on the chopping block,” Australian Business, April 23, 1986, p. 125. Starring Sinclair Hill.
  76. Singo in 1987: “Joh doesn’t go far enough … I want absolute deregulation of the economy” — Harry Robinson, “The larrikin grows up,” The Sydney Morning Herald, February 28, 1987, p. 41.
  77. John Singleton on why he did the Hawke re-election campaign — John Singleton, “Singo returns the slings and arrows,” Times on Sunday, August 2, 1987, p. 16.
  78. Did John Singleton oppose the mining industry and privatising healthcare in 1990? — John Singleton, “Labor’s Hard Sell,” The Independent Monthly, April 1990, pp. 3-4; and Leon Gettler, “John Singleton is expected to join Fairfax board,” The Age, December 26, 1991, p. 5.
  79. John Singleton on elections: “a Massive One-Day Sale!” — Neal Travis, “How to revel in hard times, by John Singleton,” The Bulletin, September 4, 1990, pp. 126-27.
  80. Why John Singleton Defends Smokers Rights — Ruth Ostrow, “Singo fights for game, not money,” The Australian, November 18, 1991, p. 4; and John Singleton, “Singo’s smokin’ gun,” Australian Business Monthly, February 1992, pp. 64-66.

(g.) Other Bob Howard writings

  1. Bob Howard in Reason 1974-77
  2. Bob Howard, “The Road to Where?,” Libertarian Optimism: Newsletter of the Progress Party of New South Wales, March, 1978, p. 1-2. Excerpt: “For the first time in Australian history (to my knowledge), this country has an explicit libertarian movement. That in itself is a quite extraordinary fact. For the first time, the classical liberal heritage — the ideology of men like Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine — has found expression in a serious political movement in this country.”
  3. Bob Howard, “Up the Workers!: they stood for legalised drugs, no taxation, abolition of government welfare and free education … but somehow the libertarians lost their head,” Australian Playboy, May, 1979, pp. 105-10.
  4. Bob Howard, “The Discipline of Necessity,” The Optimist, July-August, 1985, p. 9.

(h.) Historic John Singleton video

Governments Consume Wealth — They Don’t Create It

Notes from Lang Hancock’s address at the Workers Party Gala Dinner, October 23, 1975. (With thanks to the legendary John Zube and his LMP.)

I have said it many times and I will say it again, “Governments consume wealth — they do not create it.”

Any politician who claims that his government is acting in the national interest is either a fool or a knave, a rogue or an idiot.

Governments only act for the benefit of those in government and not for the benefit of the people they govern nor for the nation as a whole. Therefore, the less we are governed, the better off the nation will be.

Those in government like to perpetuate the myth that the interests of the government and the interests of the nation are synonymous: whereas in fact, the government and the people’s interest are poles apart. Read the rest of this entry »

Wake Up Australia: Excerpts Part 2

Excerpts from Lang Hancock’s Wake Up Australia (Sydney: Dwyer, 1979).

Corporate Support for Bureaucracy

Having understood the basis on which our civilisation rests, it is also necessary to understand that Canberra’s power structure is largely sustained by Australia’s leading companies and institutions who, whilst loudly proclaiming their belief in “free enterprise” and decrying the heavy cost of government, are constantly pressuring the Cabinet for all forms of handouts, privileges and monopoly protection.

Unfortunately, under the present constitution, Messrs. Hayden-Fraser must give way to these pressures if they wish their parties to be elected to government. This is easy to understand and it must always remain so unless it is made constitutionally impossible to buy votes, but a phenomenon which is hard to understand is the blind, unthinking belief (which amounts almost to religious fervour) that Australians have in a magic crystal ball type of all-seeing wisdom with which they credit their governments. Such is the faith in the Solomon like wisdom of government that they encourage the government to intercede in every aspect of their lives. They ask Canberra to lay down guidelines for instance, when in fact the government are the least capable of doing so. So much so that our national anthem could well be called “the government oughta.”

Any thinking person should know that no government relying on the ballot box for its life can have any concern for the national welfare. When government talks of acting in the public interest, they mean their own interest.

Unfortunately, instead of sticking by “free enterprise”, most principals of organisations in Australia give lip service to free enterprise but “chicken out” when they come up against Canberra. For instance, in the words of the Australian Mining Industry Council: “The industry is subject to bureaucratic controls over many day to day matters and the maintenance of a certain amount of good will is necessary for our survival”. In other words, people keep feeding the crocodile in the hope that he will devour them last. Read the rest of this entry »


Welcome message

by Murray Rothbard

On the market, in society in general, we expect and accommodate rapidly to change, to the unending marvels and improvements of our civilization. New products, new life styles, new ideas are often embraced eagerly. But in the area of government we follow blindly in the path of centuries, content to believe that whatever has been must be right. In particular, government, in the United States and elsewhere, for centuries and seemingly from time immemorial has been supplying us with certain essential and necessary services, services which nearly everyone concedes are important: defense (including army, police, judicial, and legal), firefighting, streets and roads, water, sewage and garbage disposal, postal service, etc. So identified has the State become in the public mind with the provision of these services that an attack on State financing appears to many people as an attack on the service itself. Thus if one maintains that the State should not supply court services, and that private enterprise on the market could supply such service more efficiently as well as more morally, people tend to think of this as denying the importance of courts themselves.

The libertarian who wants to replace government by private enterprises in the above areas is thus treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial. If the government and only the government had had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry:

How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?

These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be and are with regard to the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other government operation.

Similarly, here are three quick quotes.
Frédéric Bastiat said in 1850:

[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, [defenders of government intervention claim] that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the state — then we are against education altogether. We object to a state religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the state then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the state.

and Herbert Spencer said in 1884:

Each generation is made less familiar with the attainment of desired ends by individual actions or private combinations, and more familiar with the attainment of them by governmental agencies; until, eventually, governmental agencies come to be thought of as the only available agencies.

Lastly, here's Lew Rockwell in 2010:

It would appear that the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work. It's a fascinating thing to behold. ...

The idea of privatizing roads or water supplies sounds outlandish, even though we have a long history of both. People even wonder how anyone would be educated in the absence of public schools, as if markets themselves didn't create in America the world's most literate society in the 18th and 19th centuries.

This list could go on and on. But the problem is that the capacity to imagine freedom — the very source of life for civilization and humanity itself — is being eroded in our society and culture. The less freedom we have, the less people are able to imagine what freedom feels like, and therefore the less they are willing to fight for its restoration.

Welcome Back Message

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Just as in today's complex economy we do not produce our own shoes, suits, and telephones, however, but partake in the advantages of the division of labor, so it is to be expected that we will also do so when it comes to production of security, especially the more property a person owns and the richer a society as a whole. Hence, most security services will without doubt be provided by specialized agencies competing for voluntarily paying clients: by various private police, insurance, and arbitration agencies.

If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference and advantage of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be this: contract. The state, as ultimate decision maker and judge, operates in a contractless legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the "customer" of such "service" must pay.

Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this:

I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you — but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.

Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers. Each private, freely financed security producer instead must offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Moreover, each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party.

And as for this third party, it too is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the insured, expect of it that it come up with a verdict that is recognized as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market.

Our High-Profile Research

Sorted by "policy areas" in the "news":
Sport | Aborigines | Education | Healthcare | Drought/Fire/Flood | Arts | Free Speech/ABC | Church&State | Taxi/Uber | Car Industry | IP
Sorted by "subject":
BertKelly.info (350+ items)
GregLindsay.info (9 items)
JohnSingleton.info (250 items)
KerryPacker.info (we were first to put any and all online; our edit is still the best)
LangHancock.info (115 items)
PaddyMcGuinness.info (200 items)
— Ron Manners (mannwest.com)
VivForbes.info (lost count, sorry)
NevilleKennard.info (65 new items) Sample:

The think tanks are timid. Either that or they are unaware of the essence of the problem — The State and its very nature.

Think tanks do research that analyses the adverse effects of this or that policy and they advocate change. Seldom if ever do they analyse the fundamental issue of the very nature of The State. Instead the think tanks tend to actually legitimise The State by pointing out its failings here and its misdirection there. The think tanks thus become part of the problem.

———>>> Our Reasoning! <<<———

Most political commentators claim to provide full disclosure, yet fail to declare and make easily accessible the reasoning hiding behind their rhetoric, affiliations and avowed beliefs. Instead, as far as they let their audience know, they base their arguments on unplumbed premises. They appear to agree with Wilde, that, “to be intelligible is to be found out.” If they outed themselves and admitted their reasoning, then the world would be less misleading, mistaken and mystifying. At Economics.org.au, we put our reasoning front and centre. In brief, our argument is Gustave de Molinari’s:

I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.

But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole suffers a loss.

Either this is logical and true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid.

Either communistic production is superior to free production, or it is not.

If it is, then it must be for all things, not just for security.

If not, progress requires that it be replaced by free production.

Complete communism or complete liberty: that is the alternative!

(Those who need a more popular authority to be swayed will be relieved to know that Molinari is following Adam Smith here.)

To spell out some of this: Monopolies tend to produce an inferior quality product at higher cost compared to if they had competition to contend with. If they had competition to contend with, then:

— they would have greater incentive to improve how they cater to customers, for if they did not, they would lose business; and

— they would tend to better cater to customers, since anyone would be allowed to compete by improving the price or quality of the service offered to customers, and to benefit from the increased custom attracted by their superior service.

It follows that monopolies in areas like law and order, money and banking, and education and roads, tend to provide products of inferior quality and higher cost compared to if the free market was allowed to provide those services.

It also follows that a monopolist of law and order, who did not allow free market competition in those areas, would tend to allow itself to get away with crimes and inefficiencies that free market law and order agencies would not.

In the words of Albert Jay Nock:

[T]he State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime … [I]t makes this monopoly as strict as it can … It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants.

In the lively words of Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

To the extent that intellectuals have deemed it necessary to argue in favor of the state at all, their most popular argument, encountered already at kindergarten age, runs like this: Some activities of the state are pointed out: the state builds roads, kindergartens, schools; it delivers the mail and puts the policeman on the street. Imagine, there would be no state. Then we would not have these goods. Thus, the state is necessary.

At the university level, a slightly more sophisticated version of the same argument is presented. It goes like this: True, markets are best at providing many or even most things; but there are other goods markets cannot provide or cannot provide in sufficient quantity or quality. These other, so-called public goods are goods which bestow benefits onto people beyond those actually having produced or paid for them. Foremost among such goods rank typically education and research. Education and research, for instance, it is argued, are extremely valuable goods. They would be under-produced, however, because of free riders, i.e., of cheats, who benefit via so-called neighborhood effects from education and research without paying for it. Thus, the state is necessary to provide otherwise un-produced or under-produced (public) goods such as education and research.

These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of three fundamental insights: First, as for the kindergarten argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it.

Third, as for the more sophisticated statist argument, it involves the same fallacy encountered already at the kindergarten level. For even if one were to grant the rest of the argument, it is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that states provide public goods that only states can do so.

More importantly, however, it must be pointed out that the entire argument demonstrates a total ignorance of the most fundamental fact of human life: namely scarcity. True, markets will not provide for all desirable things. There are always unsatisfied wants as long as we do not inhabit the Garden of Eden. But to bring such un-produced goods into existence scarce resources must be expended, which consequently can no longer be used to produce other, likewise desirable things. Whether public goods exist next to private ones does not matter in this regard, the fact of scarcity remains unchanged: more public goods can come only at the expense of less private goods. Yet what needs to be demonstrated is that one good is more important and valuable than another one. This is what is meant by economizing. Yet can the state help economize scarce resources? This is the question that must be answered. In fact, however, conclusive proof exists that the state does not and cannot economize: For in order to produce anything, the state must resort to taxation (or legislation) which demonstrates irrefutably that its subjects do not want what the state produces but prefer instead something else as more important. Rather than economize, the state can only re-distribute: it can produce more of what it wants and less of what the people want and, to recall, whatever the state then produces will be produced inefficiently.

Finally, the most sophisticated argument in favor of the state must be briefly examined. From Hobbes on down this argument has been repeated endlessly. It runs like this: In the state of nature before the establishment of a state permanent conflict reigns. Everyone claims a right to everything, and this will result in interminable war. There is no way out of this predicament by means of agreements; for who would enforce these agreements? Whenever the situation appeared advantageous, one or both parties would break the agreement. Hence, people recognize that there is but one solution to the desideratum of peace: the establishment, per agreement, of a state, i.e., a third, independent party as ultimate judge and enforcer.

Yet if this thesis is correct and agreements require an outside enforcer to make them binding, then a state-by-agreement can never come into existence. For in order to enforce the very agreement which is to result in the formation of a state (to make this agreement binding), another outside enforcer, a prior state, would already have to exist. And in order for this state to have come into existence, yet another still earlier state must be postulated, and so on, in infinite regress.

On the other hand, if we accept that states exist (and of course they do), then this very fact contradicts the Hobbesian story. The state itself has come into existence without any outside enforcer. Presumably, at the time of the alleged agreement, no prior state existed. Moreover, once a state-by-agreement is in existence, the resulting social order still remains a self-enforcing one. To be sure, if A and B now agree on something, their agreements are made binding by an external party. However, the state itself is not so bound by any outside enforcer. There exists no external third party insofar as conflicts between state-agents and state-subjects are concerned; and likewise no external third party exists for conflicts between different state-agents or -agencies. Insofar as agreements entered into by the state vis-à-vis its citizens or of one state agency vis-à-vis another are concerned, that is, such agreements can be only self-binding on the State. The state is bound by nothing except its own self-accepted and enforced rules, i.e., the constraints that it imposes on itself. Vis-à-vis itself, so to speak, the state is still in a natural state of anarchy characterized by self-rule and enforcement, because there is no higher state which could bind it.

Further: If we accept the Hobbesian idea that the enforcement of mutually agreed upon rules does require some independent third party, this would actually rule out the establishment of a state. In fact, it would constitute a conclusive argument against the institution of a state, i.e., of a monopolist of ultimate decision-making and arbitration. For then, there must also exist an independent third party to decide in every case of conflict between me (private citizen) and some state agent, and likewise an independent third party must exist for every case of intra-state conflicts (and there must be another independent third party for the case of conflicts between various third parties) yet this means, of course, that such a state (or any independent third party) would be no state as I have defined it at the outset but simply one of many freely competing third-party conflict arbitrators.

Let me conclude then: the intellectual case against the state seems to be easy and straightforward. But that does not mean that it is practically easy. Indeed, almost everyone is convinced that the state is a necessary institution, for the reasons that I have indicated. So it is very doubtful if the battle against statism can be won, as easy as it might seem on the purely theoretical, intellectual level. However, even if that should turn out to be impossible at least let's have some fun at the expense of our statist opponents. And for that I suggest that you always and persistently confront them with the following riddle: Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose.

This section contains a brief explanation of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics (excerpted from this):

Whether or not something is true, false, or undecidable; whether or not it has been justified; what is required in order to justify it; whether I, my opponents, or none of us is right — all of this must be decided in the course of argumentation. This proposition is true a priori, because it cannot be denied without affirming it in the act of denying it. One cannot argue that one cannot argue, and one cannot dispute knowing what it means to raise a validity claim without implicitly claiming at least the negation of this proposition to be true.

With the a priori of argumentation established as an axiomatic starting point, it follows that anything that must be presupposed in the act of proposition-making cannot be propositionally disputed again. It would be meaningless to ask for a justification of presuppositions which make the production of meaningful propositions possible in the first place. Instead, they must be regarded as ultimately justified by every proposition-maker. And any specific propositional content that disputed their validity could be understood as implying a performative contradiction […], and hence, as ultimately falsified.

The law of contradiction is one such presupposition. One cannot deny this law without presupposing its validity in the act of denying it. But there is another such presupposition. Propositions are not free-floating entities. They require a proposition maker who in order to produce any validity-claiming proposition whatsoever must have exclusive control (property) over some scarce means defined in objective terms and appropriated (brought under control) at definite points in time through homesteading action. Thus, any proposition that would dispute the validity of the homesteading principle of property acquisition, or that would assert the validity of a different, incompatible principle, would be falsified by the act of proposition-making in the same way as the proposition "the law of contradiction is false" would be contradicted by the very fact of asserting it. As the praxeological presupposition of proposition-making, the validity of the homesteading principle cannot be argumentatively disputed without running into a performative contradiction. Any other principle of property acquisition can then be understood — reflectively — by every proposition maker as ultimately incapable of propositional justification.

(Note, in particular, that this includes all proposals which claim it is justified to restrict the range of objects which may be homesteaded. They fail because once the exclusive control over some homesteaded means is admitted as justified, it becomes impossible to justify any restriction in the homesteading process — except for a self-imposed one — without thereby running into a contradiction. For if the proponent of such a restriction were consistent, he could have justified control only over some physical means which he would not be allowed to employ for any additional homesteading. Obviously, he could not interfere with another's extended homesteading, simply because of his own lack of physical means to justifiably do anything about it. But if he did interfere, he would thereby inconsistently extend his ownership claims beyond his own justly homesteaded means. Moreover, in order to justify this extension he would have to invoke a principle of property acquisition incompatible with the homesteading principle whose validity he would already have admitted.)

My entire argument, then, claims to be an impossibility proof. But not […] a proof that means to show the impossibility of certain empirical events so that it could be refuted by empirical evidence. Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to propositionally justify non-libertarian property principles without falling into contradictions. For whatever such a thing is worth […], it should be clear that empirical evidence has absolutely no bearing on it. So what if there is slavery, the Gulag, taxation? The proof concerns the issue that claiming that such institutions can be justified involves a performative contradiction. It is purely intellectual in nature, like logical, mathematical, or praxeological proofs. Its validity — as theirs — can be established independent of any contingent experiences. Nor is its validity in any way affected […] by whether or not people like, favor, understand, or come to a consensus regarding it, or whether or not they are actually engaged in argumentation. As considerations such as these are irrelevant in order to judge the validity of a mathematical proof, for instance, so are they beside the point here. And in the same way as the validity of a mathematical proof is not restricted to the moment of proving it, so, then, is the validity of the libertarian property theory not limited to instances of argumentation. If correct, the argument demonstrates its universal justification, arguing or not.

Five economics truths are (via here):

1. “Whenever two people A and B engage in a voluntary exchange, they must both expect to profit from it. And they must have reverse preference orders for the goods and services exchanged so that A values what he receives from B more highly than what he gives to him, and B must evaluate the same things the other way around.”

2. “Whenever an exchange is not voluntary but coerced, one party profits at the expense of the other.”

3. “Of two producers, if A is more productive in the production of two types of goods than is B, they can still engage in a mutually beneficial division of labor. This is because overall physical productivity is higher if A specializes in producing one good which he can produce most efficiently, rather than both A and B producing both goods separately and autonomously.”

4. “Whenever minimum wage laws are enforced that require wages to be higher than existing market wages, involuntary unemployment will result.”

5. “Whenever the quantity of money is increased while the demand for money to be held as cash reserve on hand is unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall.”

Here’s another nice passage from Hoppe.

Government is Criminal!?

by Lysander Spooner

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.

It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid.

On the same topic, here's Saint Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans, ed. and trans. R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), bk. IV, ch. 4, pp. 147-48:

Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers? What are bands of robbers themselves but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is governed by the authority of a ruler; it is bound together by a pact of association; and the loot is divided according to an agreed law. If, by the constant addition of desperate men, this scourge grows to such a size that it acquires territory, establishes a seat of government, occupies cities and subjugates people, it assumes the name of kingdom more openly. For this name is now manifestly conferred upon it not by the removal of greed, but by the addition of impunity. It was a pertinent and true answer that was made to Alexander the Great by a pirate whom he had seized. When the king asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: "The same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor."

And here's Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

Taxes are never, at no level of taxation, consistent with individual freedom and property rights. Taxes are theft. The thieves — the state and its agents and allies — try their very best to conceal this fact, of course, but there is simply no way around it. Obviously, taxes are not normal, voluntary payments for goods and services, because you are not allowed to stop such payments if you are not satisfied with the product. You are not punished if you do no longer buy Renault cars or Chanel perfume, but you are thrown into jail if you stop paying for government schools or universities or for Mr. Sarkozy and his pomp. Nor is it possible to construe taxes as normal rent-payments, as they are made by a renter to his landlord. Because the French state is not the landlord of all of France and all Frenchmen. To be the landlord, the French state would have to be able to prove two things: first, that the state, and no one else, owns every inch of France, and second, that it has a rental contract with every single Frenchman concerning the use, and the price for this use, of its property. No state — not the French, not the German, not the US-American or any other state — can prove this. They have no documents to this effect and they cannot present any rental contract. Thus, there is only one conclusion: taxation is theft and robbery by which one segment of the population, the ruling class, enriches itself at the expense of another, the ruled.

Why Supporters of Government For Defence are Impractical Utopians

Murray Rothbard said:

[Defenders of government usually say] freedom of the market should be upheld and that property rights must not be invaded. Nevertheless, they strongly believe that defense service cannot be supplied by the market and that defense against invasion of property must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government. In arguing thus, they are caught in an insoluble contradiction, for they sanction and advocate massive invasion of property by the very agency (government) that is supposed to defend people against invasion! [...]

The [defender of government] assumes that there must be a single compulsory monopoly of coercion and decision-making in society, that there must, for example, be one Supreme Court to hand down final and unquestioned decisions. But he fails to recognize that the world has lived quite well throughout its existence without a single, ultimate decision-maker over its whole inhabited surface. The Argentinian, for example, lives in a state of “anarchy,” of nongovernment, in relation to the citizen of Uruguay — or of Ceylon. And yet the private citizens of these and other countries live and trade together without getting into insoluble legal conflicts, despite the absence of a common governmental ruler. The Argentinian who believes he has been aggressed upon by a Ceylonese, for example, takes his grievance to an Argentinian court, and its decision is recognized by the Ceylonese courts — and vice versa if the Ceylonese is the aggrieved party. Although it is true that the separate nation-States have warred interminably against each other, the private citizens of the various countries, despite widely differing legal systems, have managed to live together in harmony without having a single government over them. If the citizens of northern Montana and of Saskatchewan across the border can live and trade together in harmony without a common government, so can the citizens of northern and of southern Montana. In short, the present-day boundaries of nations are purely historical and arbitrary, and there is no more need for a monopoly government over the citizens of one country than there is for one between the citizens of two different nations.

It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while [defenders of government] should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government, so that no one will live in a state of “anarchy” in relation to anyone else, they almost never are. And once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

The role of freely competitive judiciaries has, in fact, been far more important in the history of the West than is often recognized. The law merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most accurate and efficient.

Let us, then, examine in a little more detail what a free-market defense system might look like. It is, we must realize, impossible to blueprint the exact institutional conditions of any market in advance, just as it would have been impossible 50 years ago to predict the exact structure of the television industry today. However, we can postulate some of the workings of a freely competitive, marketable system of police and judicial services. Most likely, such services would be sold on an advance subscription basis, with premiums paid regularly and services to be supplied on call. Many competitors would undoubtedly arise, each attempting, by earning a reputation for efficiency and probity, to win a consumer market for its services. Of course, it is possible that in some areas a single agency would outcompete all others, but this does not seem likely when we realize that there is no territorial monopoly and that efficient firms would be able to open branches in other geographical areas. It seems likely, also, that supplies of police and judicial service would be provided by insurance companies, because it would be to their direct advantage to reduce the amount of crime as much as possible.

One common objection to the feasibility of marketable protection (its desirability is not the problem here) runs as follows: Suppose that Jones subscribes to Defense Agency X and Smith subscribes to Defense Agency Y. (We will assume for convenience that the defense agency includes a police force and a court or courts, although in practice these two functions might well be performed by separate firms.) Smith alleges that he has been assaulted, or robbed, by Jones; Jones denies the charge. How, then, is justice to be dispensed?

Clearly, Smith will file charges against Jones and institute suit or trial proceedings in the Y court system. Jones is invited to defend himself against the charges, although there can be no subpoena power, since any sort of force used against a man not yet convicted of a crime is itself an invasive and criminal act that could not be consonant with the free society we have been postulating. If Jones is declared innocent, or if he is declared guilty and consents to the finding, then there if no problem on this level, and the Y courts then institute suitable measures of punishment. But what if Jones challenges the finding? In that case, he can either take the case to his X court system, or take it directly to a privately competitive Appeals Court of a type that will undoubtedly spring up in abundance on the market to fill the great need for such tribunals. Probably there will be just a few Appeals Court systems, far fewer than the number of primary courts, and each of the lower courts will boast to its customers about being members of those Appeals Court systems noted for their efficiency and probity. The Appeals Court decision can then be taken by the society as binding. Indeed, in the basic legal code of the free society, there probably would be enshrined some such clause as that the decision of any two courts will be considered binding, i.e., will be the point at which the court will be able to take action against the party adjudged guilty.

Every legal system needs some sort of socially-agreed-upon cutoff point, a point at which judicial procedure stops and punishment against the convicted criminal begins. But a single monopoly court of ultimate decision-making need not be imposed and of course cannot be in a free society; and a libertarian legal code might well have a two-court cutoff point, since there are always two contesting parties, the plaintiff and the defendant.

Another common objection to the workability of free-market defense wonders: May not one or more of the defense agencies turn its coercive power to criminal uses? In short, may not a private police agency use its force to aggress against others, or may not a private court collude to make fraudulent decisions and thus aggress against its subscribers and victims? It is very generally assumed that those who postulate a stateless society are also naive enough to believe that, in such a society, all men would be “good,” and no one would wish to aggress against his neighbor. There is no need to assume any such magical or miraculous change in human nature. Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property. When a State exists, there does exist such a built-in channel, namely, the coercive taxation power, and the compulsory monopoly of forcible protection.

Why Supporters of Parliamentary Democracy are Impractical Utopians

Murray Rothbard said:

[P]roponents of government intervention are trapped in a fatal contradiction: they assume that individuals are not competent to run their own affairs or to hire experts to advise them. And yet they also assume that these same individuals are equipped to vote for these same experts at the ballot box. We have seen that, on the contrary, while most people have a direct idea and a direct test of their own personal interests on the market, they cannot understand the complex chains of praxeological and philosophical reasoning necessary for a choice of rulers or political policies. Yet this political sphere of open demagogy is precisely the only one where the mass of individuals are deemed to be competent!

Ludwig von Mises said:

[I]t is not easy to silence the voices of those who ask whether it is not paradoxical to entrust the nation’s welfare to the decisions of voters whom the law itself considers incapable of managing their own affairs; whether it is not absurd to make those people supreme in the conduct of government who are manifestly in need of a guardian to prevent them from spending their own income foolishly. Is it reasonable to assign to wards the right to elect their guardians?

Edmund Burke said:

Observe, my Lord, I pray you, that grand Error upon which all artificial legislative Power is founded. It was observed, that Men had ungovernable Passions, which made it necessary to guard against the Violence they might offer to each other. They appointed Governors over them for this Reason; but a worse and more perplexing Difficulty arises, how to be defended against the Governors? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Juvenal's who will govern the governors?] In vain they change from a single Person to a few. These few have the Passions of the one, and they unite to strengthen themselves, and to secure the Gratification of their lawless Passions at the Expence of the general Good. In vain do we fly to the Many. The Case is worse; their Passions are less under the Government of Reason, they are augmented by the Contagion, and defended against all Attacks by their Multitude.

David Hume said:

The same interest … which causes us to submit to magistracy, makes us renounce itself in the choice of our magistrates.

John Locke said:

As if when Men quitting the State of Nature entered into Society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of Laws, but that he should still attain all the Liberty of the State of Nature, increased with Power, and made licentious by Impunity. This is to think that Men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what Mischiefs may be done them by Pole-Cats, or Foxes, but are content, nay think it Safety, to be devoured by Lions.

Why Supporters of Constitutional Government are Impractical Utopians

Albert Jay Nock said:

The idea of a self-limiting or temporary collectivism impresses me as too absurd to be seriously discussed … [N]o one call fall out of a forty-storey window and stop at the twentieth storey … [T]here can be no such thing as a ten-per-cent collectivist State for any length of time. One might just as sensibly speak of a ten-per-cent mammalian pregnancy.

Murray Rothbard said:

The libertarian is realistic because he understands that government tends to expand. The “limited government realist” is the utopian, learning nothing from the failure of the 1789 constitution to restrain government. He who puts all the guns and decision-making power into the hands of government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is the impractical utopian. [paraphrased]

Ludwig von Mises said:

The bureaucrat is not only a government employee. He is, under a democratic constitution, at the same time a voter and as such a part of the sovereign, his employer. He is in a peculiar position: he is both employer and employee. And his pecuniary interest as employee towers above his interest as employer, as he gets much more from the public funds than he contributes to them … This double relationship becomes more important as the people on the government’s payroll increase. The bureaucrat as voter is more eager to get a raise than to keep the budget balanced. His main concern is to swell the payroll … This is one of the antinomies inherent in present-day constitutional issues. It has made many people despair of the future of democracy. As they became convinced that the trend toward more government interference with business, toward more offices with more employees, toward more doles and subsidies is inevitable, they could not help losing confidence in government by the people.

Lysander Spooner said:

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

But government is ok, at least at “X”

Lysander Spooner counters:

If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others?

Frédéric Bastiat continues:

You must observe that I am not contending against their right to invent social combinations, to propagate them, to recommend them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk; but I do dispute their right to impose them upon us through the medium of the law, that is, by force and by public taxes.

I would not insist upon the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Proudhonians, the Academics, and the Protectionists renouncing their own particular ideas; I would only have them renounce that idea which is common to them all, — viz., that of subjecting us by force to their own groups and series to their social workshops, to their gratuitous bank, to their Greco-Roman morality, and to their commercial restrictions. I would ask them to allow us the faculty of judging of their plans, and not to oblige us to adopt them, if we find that they hurt our interests or are repugnant to our consciences.

To presume to have recourse to power and taxation, besides being oppressive and unjust, implies further, the injurious supposition that the organized is infallible, and mankind incompetent.

And if mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they talk so much about universal suffrage?

What about freeloaders, free riders, externalities, the public goods problem and the necessities of life and markets?

Bert Kelly said:

Bill listened to Fred’s case more than I expected in a young man. “But what about the freeloaders, Dad?” he asked at the end. “It surely isn’t fair that they should get the advantages we pay for.” I thought that this had Fred cornered, but he replied, “Well, what about the freeloaders? I suppose that about half the people that parsons bury are freeloaders, people who have not gone to church for years and have not paid a cent towards the church’s upkeep. Do you think we ought to have a compulsory levy to sustain churches so that there will be no freeloading there?”

Murray Rothbard said:

[S]ome services can be financed only “jointly,” and will serve many people jointly. Therefore, [it is argued] that individuals on the market cannot provide these services. This is a curious position indeed. For all large-scale businesses are “jointly” financed with huge aggregations of capital, and they also serve many consumers, often jointly. No one maintains that private enterprise cannot supply steel or automobiles or insurance because they are “jointly” financed. As for joint consumption, in one sense no consumption can be joint, for only individuals exist and can satisfy their wants, and therefore everyone must consume separately. In another sense, almost all consumption is “joint.” Baumol, for example, asserts that parks are an example of “collective wants” jointly consumed, since many individuals must consume them. Therefore, the government must supply this service. But going to a theater is even more joint, for all must go at the same time. Must all theaters therefore be nationalized and run by the government? Furthermore, in a broad view, all modern consumption depends on mass production methods for a wide market. There are no grounds by which Baumol can separate certain services and dub them “examples of interdependence” or “external economies.” What individuals could buy steel or automobiles or frozen foods, or almost anything else, if enough other individuals did not exist to demand them and make their mass-production methods worthwhile? …

These services (protection, transportation, and so on) are so basic, it is alleged, that they permeate market affairs and are a prior necessary condition for its existence. But this argument proves far too much. It was the fallacy of the classical economists that they considered goods in terms of large classes, rather than in terms of marginal units. All actions on the market are marginal, and this is precisely the reason that valuation and imputation of value-productivity to factors can be effected. If we start dealing with whole classes rather than marginal units, we can discover all sorts of activities which are necessary prerequisites of, and vital to, all market activity; land, room, food, clothing, shelter, power, and so on — and even paper! Must all of these be supplied by the State and the State only?

Stripped of its many fallacies, the whole “collective wants” thesis boils down to this: certain people on the market will receive benefits from the action of others without paying for them. This is the long and short of the criticism of the market, and this is the only relevant “external economy” problem. A and B decide to pay for the building of a dam for their uses; C benefits though he did not pay. A and B educate themselves at their expense and C benefits by being able to deal with educated people, and so on. This is the problem of the Free Rider. Yet it is difficult to understand what the hullabaloo is all about. Am I to be specially taxed because I enjoy the sight of my neighbor’s garden without paying for it? A’s and B’s purchase of a good reveals that they are willing to pay for it; if it indirectly benefits C as well, no one is the loser. If C feels that he would be deprived of the benefit if only A and B paid, then he is free to contribute too. In any case, all the individuals consult their own preferences in the matter.

In fact, we are all free riders on the investment, and the technological development, of our ancestors. Must we wear sackcloth and ashes, or submit ourselves to State dictation, because of this happy fact?

Rothbard again:

Those economists and others who espouse the philosophy of [minarchism] believe that the freedom of the market should be upheld and that property rights must not be invaded. Nevertheless, they strongly believe that defense service cannot be supplied by the market and that defense against invasion of property must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government. In arguing thus, they are caught in an insoluble contradiction, for they sanction and advocate massive invasion of property by the very agency (government) that is supposed to defend people against invasion! For a [minarchist] government would necessarily have to seize its revenues by the invasion of property called taxation and would arrogate to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over some arbitrarily designated territorial area.

The [minarchist] theorists (who are here joined by almost all other writers) attempt to redeem their position from this glaring contradiction by asserting that a purely free-market defense service could not exist and that therefore those who value highly a forcible defense against violence would have to fall back on the State (despite its black historical record as the great engine of invasive violence) as a necessary evil for the protection of person and property. [They believe] that defense must be supplied by the State because of the unique status of defense as a necessary precondition of market activity, as a function without which a market economy could not exist. Yet this argument is a non sequitur that proves far too much. It was the fallacy of the classical economists to consider goods and services in terms of large classes; instead, modern economics demonstrates that services must be considered in terms of marginal units. For all actions on the market are marginal.

If we begin to treat whole classes instead of marginal units, we can discover a great myriad of necessary, indispensable goods and services all of which might be considered as "preconditions" of market activity. Is not land room vital, or food for each participant, or clothing, or shelter? Can a market long exist without them? And what of paper, which has become a basic requisite of market activity in the complex modern economy? Must all these goods and services therefore be supplied by the State and the State only?

The [minarchist] also assumes that there must be a single compulsory monopoly of coercion and decision-making in society, that there must, for example, be one Supreme Court to hand down final and unquestioned decisions. But he fails to recognize that the world has lived quite well throughout its existence without a single, ultimate decision-maker over its whole inhabited surface.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe said:

Now, it is certainly correct that a market presupposes the recognition and enforcement of those rules that underlie its operation. But from this it does not follow that this task must be entrusted to a monopolistic agency. In fact, a common language or sign-system is also presupposed by the market; but one would hardly think it convincing to conclude that hence the government must ensure the observance of the rules of language. Just as the system of language then, the rules of market behavior emerge spontaneously and can be enforced by the “invisible hand” of self-interest. Without the observance of common rules of speech people could not enjoy the advantages that communication offers, and without the observance of common rules of conduct, people could not enjoy the benefits of the higher productivity of an exchange economy based on the division of labor.

What about drugs, gambling, etc?

by Ludwig von Mises

[O]nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs … If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

If you don’t like it, why don’t you leave?

Answer #1: This is an attempt to paint libertarians as hypocrites for staying under the self-proclaimed jurisdiction of a government we never consented to. One can flip this around and accuse the government of agreeing with and endorsing libertarians, since the government does not shut down Economics.org.au. If they don't like it, why don't they ban/censor/expel it?

Answer #2: Why should libertarians leave, and not statists? So libertarian views are unpopular at the moment, but the status quo has been known to change occasionally, and there’s no contradiction in libertarians staying in the country trying to effect change, or, as the case may be, staying in the country doing other things and hoping that others effect change.

Answer #3: We are not able to leave the country with all our property. Even if we sell it, the government will then confiscate part of the proceeds. Moreover, there are similarly criminal organisations called government in most other countries. And preferring one criminal to another does not make the preferable criminal not a criminal at all, which is precisely what the if-you-don't-like-it-then-leave argument entails.

Answer #4: Staying within this government’s borders no more means we approve of or consent to government's domestic fiscal, monetary, environment, education, healthcare and workplace policies than leaving the country would mean we approve of their foreign aid, trade and military intervention policies, which, by virtue of us being out of Australian territory, we would be subject to, and according to your logic, because we do not leave the area where Australia applies its foreign policies, we therefore approve of and consent to them, because we could always return to within Australia’s borders where its foreign policy does not apply. But what if we oppose both Australia’s domestic and foreign policies; are we meant to leave the planet? So leaving the country does not mean we’ll cease to be subject to the policies of this country’s government. What staying in the country may well mean is that we prefer a government’s domestic policy to its foreign policy.

Answer #5: Libertarians staying in the country and obeying this government’s laws does not prove consent. What it proves is that we take their threats seriously, respect their shows of force and do not want to risk having them restrict more of our liberties and confiscate more of our property. Acquiescence, via, say, paying taxes we never consented to pay and being threatened with fines and imprisonment if we evade paying, no more proves consent than paying a ransom to a kidnapper transforms the kidnapping into mere babysitting.

All this and more can be found here.

But anarchism will never be accepted!

Stephan Kinsella (here also) responds:

[C]riticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved — I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that’s an impractical view" or "but that won’t work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime — that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights — does not mean that it’s "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won’t work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur." The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.

In other words, it just won’t do ... to attack anarcho-libertarianism by arguing we haven’t shown that "a fully-fledged free-market private property based social order can be realised and maintained without [whatever]". In fact, since anarcho-libertarianism just means stringent opposition to aggression, to attack anti-aggressionism just is to defend aggression. And you can’t justify aggression by alleging that libertarians have not proved that a private property order can "work." What kind of argument is that? "Sir, why are you robbing me? Why are you entitled to do this?" "Why, because you haven’t proved that a private property order can work, that’s why!"

Individual rights explored and answer to whether libertarianism is a cult

by Auberon Herbert

And now let us look a little more closely into the rights of the individual. I claim that he is by right the master of himself and of his own faculties and energies. If he is not, who is? Let us suppose that A having no rights over himself, B and C, being in a majority, have rights over him. But we must assume an equality in these matters, and if A has no rights over himself, neither can B and C have any rights over themselves. To what a ridiculous position are we then brought! B and C having no rights over themselves, have absolute rights over A; and we should have to suppose in this most topsy-turvy of worlds that men were walking about, not owning themselves, as any simple-minded person would naturally conclude that they did, but owning some other of their fellow-men; and presently in their turn perhaps to be themselves owned by some other. Look at it from another point of view. You tell me a majority has a right to decide as they like for their fellow-men. What majority? 21 to 20? 20 to 5? 20 to 1? But why any majority? What is there in numbers that can possibly make any opinion or decision better or more valid, or which can transfer the body and mind of one man into the keeping of another man? Five men are in a room. Because three men take one view and two another, have the three men any moral right to enforce their view on the other two men? What magical power comes over the three men that because they are one more in number than the two men, therefore they suddenly become possessors of the minds and bodies of these others? As long as they were two to two, so long we may suppose each man remained master of his own mind and body; but from the moment that another man, acting Heaven only knows from what motives, has joined himself to one party or the other, that party has become straightway possessed of the souls and bodies of the other party. Was there ever such a degrading and indefensible superstition? Is it not the true lineal descendant of the old superstitions about emperors and high priests and their authority over the souls and bodies of men?

Let us look again at it from another point of view. You say a majority has a right to decide all questions. You perhaps do not like my words when I say, “to own the souls and bodies” of all who are outside that majority, but that is what is really meant; for once accept the doctrine that the bigger crowd is supreme over the smaller crowd, and you will find, as I have already said, that it is impossible to draw a line to limit the authority which you thus confer. But, now, let me ask this question. If the fact of being in a majority, if the fact of the larger number carries this extraordinary virtue with it, does a bigger nation possess the right to decide by a vote the destiny of a smaller nation? Such an exceedingly artificial matter as an invisible boundary line between two countries cannot suddenly deprive numbers of the sacred authority with which you have clothed them. Inside a country the bigger crowd is possessed of all rights, the smaller crowd is disfranchised of all rights; why not also outside a country? They are queer rights these, which appear and disappear, after the fashion of the supple articles which a conjurer orders into and out of existence.

Let us follow this same consideration a little further. … You deny the rights of the individual to regulate and direct himself. But you suddenly acknowledge and exaggerate these rights as soon as you have thrown the individual into that mass which you call the majority. Then you suddenly discover that men have not only rights to own themselves, but also to own their fellow-men. But where have these rights come from? By what hocus-pocus, by what magic have they been brought into existence? A man who makes one of the exactly equal half of a crowd has no rights, either as regards himself or as regards others; if he makes one in that part of the crowd which is larger by the tenth or the hundredth or the thousandth part, then he is clothed with absolute powers over himself and others. Did Central Africa ever produce a more absurd superstition?

Moreover, here’s Tom Woods:

Libertarianism is “cultish,” say the sophisticates. Of course, there’s nothing cultish at all about allegiance to the state, with its flags, its songs, its mass murders, its little children saluting and paying homage to pictures of their dear leaders on the wall, etc.

And here’s Thomas DiLorenzo:

Not to mention, Tom, the black-robed deities of the “supreme” court dressed in black capes, surrounded by a giant mural of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments; a national capital littered with statues of all the state’s former henchmen on horseback, its political bloviators in full bloviation; the Temple to Zeus (er, I mean, Lincoln), complete with fasces inscripted on the front; and of course the Roman-style “motorcades” for our emperors whenever they step out for an ice cream cone after dinner.

Lastly, here’s Murray Rothbard:

In the private sector, a firm’s productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government’s “productivity” is measured – mirabile dictum – by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public – because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government need to do in order to increase its “productivity” is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats, and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.

MinimumWage=CompulsoryUnemployment

by Murray Rothbard

[T]here is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment.

If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers? Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100? $1,000?

It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do not pursue their own logic, because if they push it to such heights, virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed. In short, you can have as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority.

and here's John Hyde:

Many government programs, such as the Australian Traineeship System (ATS), by subsidising the employer to take on ATS employees, recognise the value of on-the-job training and admit that the young, very unskilled employee is overpriced.

Why isn’t a young person permitted to gain experience by accepting any wage an employer will pay? This freedom should replace the anomalous situation whereby it is legal to give a kid unpaid work experience, but illegal to pay him/her less than an award set by an industrial tribunal which is dominated by unions.

The unions are, in turn, dominated by adults who do not want their salaries pulled down by a ready supply of up-and-coming employees ...

Far from preventing exploitation, these minimums are the instrument by which adult workers, who do not wish to face competition, exploit the young.

This conspiracy against the young is, arguably, the strongest single indictment of the way we run Australia.

Here's all that in a cool video. And here is Bob Day with a brilliant short speech on the unemployment prison that is government legislation.

Without government, won’t warlords take over? Just look at Somalia!

by Robert Murphy

For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized ... It is true that Rothbardians should be somewhat disturbed that the respect for non-aggression is apparently too rare in Somalia to foster the spontaneous emergence of a totally free market community. But by the same token, the respect for "the law" was also too weak to allow the original Somali government to maintain order.

See also this history of foreign government intervention into Somalia.

Doesn’t business need government?

“I believe that any system which places enterprise in leading strings, in order that it may become bold and adventurous, which represses commerce in order that it may thrive, which tears Industry in its infancy from the generous breast of Nature to suckle it on duties of Customs, and compels it in youth to lean on crutches that it may become strong in mature age, is as disastrous in its consequences as it is contradictory in its principles.”
~ G.H. Reid, Five Free Trade Essays (Melbourne: Gordon and Gotch, 1875), p. 3.

“Now, it is certainly correct that a market presupposes the recognition and enforcement of those rules that underlie its operation. But from this it does not follow that this task must be entrusted to a monopolistic agency. In fact, a common language or sign-system is also presupposed by the market; but one would hardly think it convincing to conclude that hence the government must ensure the observance of the rules of language. Just as the system of language then, the rules of market behavior emerge spontaneously and can be enforced by the ‘invisible hand’ of self-interest. Without the observance of common rules of speech people could not enjoy the advantages that communication offers, and without the observance of common rules of conduct, people could not enjoy the benefits of the higher productivity of an exchange economy based on the division of labor.”
~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“To the extent that the new spending causes a spending response from investors and consumers, this is more evidence of an uneconomic use of scarce resources. If the money is used to prop up failing companies, that’s particularly bad since it is an attempt to override market realities, an attempt that is about as successful as trying to repeal gravity by throwing things up in the air.”
~ Lew Rockwell

“The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. The individual is always ready to ascribe his good luck to his own efficiency and to take it as a well-deserved reward for his talent, application, and probity. But reverses of fortune he always charges to other people, and most of all to the absurdity of social and political institutions. He does not blame the authorities for having fostered the boom. He reviles them for the inevitable collapse. In the opinion of the public, more inflation and more credit expansion are the only remedy against the evils which inflation and credit expansion have brought about.”
~ Ludwig von Mises

Why do you call yourselves Misesians when Mises wasn’t an anarchist?

The arguments Mises used to defend government conflict with the arguments he used to defend the market. As Mises himself said:

"The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution."
[Mises, Socialism (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), p. 492, or here.]

"It is inconsistent to support a policy of low trade barriers. Either trade barriers are useful, then they cannot be high enough; or they are harmful, then they have to disappear completely."
[Mises, Money, Method, and the Market Process, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), p. 135-36.]

"Whatever some people may consider as just and fair, the only relevant question is always the same. What alone matters is which system of social organization is better suited to attain those ends for which people are ready to expend toil and trouble. The question is market economy, or socialism? There is no third solution. The notion of a market economy with nonmarket prices is absurd. The very idea of cost prices is unrealizable. Even if the cost price formula is applied only to entrepreneurial profits, it paralyzes the market. If commodities and services are to be sold below the price the market would have determined for them, supply always lags behind demand. Then the market can neither determine what should or should not be produced, nor to whom the commodities and services should go. Chaos results."
[Mises, Human Action (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998), pp. 393-94.]

"[O]nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs … If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters."
[Ibid., pp. 728-29.]

"People can consume only what has been produced. The great problem of our age is precisely this: Who should determine what is to be produced and consumed, the people or the State, the consumers themselves or a paternal government? If one decides in favor of the consumers, one chooses the market economy. If one decides in favor of the government, one chooses socialism. There is no third solution."
[Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 1990), p. 47.]

So, if we are wrong to call ourselves Misesians, you can blame Mises. See this also.


Libertarianism in One Word

Contract.” ~ Prof Dr HHH (video)

"Property." ~ Ludwig von Mises

Self-ownership. (Well, it's less than two words. Click here for Neville Kennard on self-ownership. On libertarianism in two words, here's Stephan Kinsella.)

The Most Neglected Word in Political Science: Acquiescence. More info here.

Libertarianism in One Sentence

"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property."
~ Frédéric Bastiat

From the same:
"Economists believe that property is a providential fact, like the human person. The law does not bring the one into existence any more than it does the other."

"Other people are not your property."
~ Roderick Long

“[I]f you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.” ~ Murray Rothbard

Tax is theft. Click here for info.

Libertarianism in Two Sentences

“The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution.”
~ Ludwig von Mises

Libertarianism in One Paragraph

“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant or pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
~ H.L. Mencken

"[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily 'private' owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For ultimately, there is no entity called 'government'; there are only people forming themselves into groups called 'governments' and acting in a 'governmental' manner. All property is therefore always 'private'; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners."
~ Murray Rothbard

"The most absurd public opinion polls are those on taxes. Now, if there is one thing we know about taxes, it is that people do not want to pay them. If they wanted to pay them, there would be no need for taxes. People would gladly figure out how much of their money the government deserves and send it in. And yet we routinely hear about opinion polls that reveal that the public likes the tax level as it is and might even like it higher. Next they will tell us that the public thinks the crime rate is too low, or that the American people would really like to be in more auto accidents." ~ Lew Rockwell, Speaking of Liberty, p. 281.

"A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms — an expropriating property protector — and will inevitably lead to more taxes and less protection. Even if, as some — classical liberal — statists have proposed, a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of pre-existing private property rights, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated (like everyone else) by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but endowed with the unique power to tax, a government agent’s answer will invariably be the same: To maximize expenditures on protection — and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection — and at the same time to minimize the production of protection." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Libertarianism in One Book

Murray Rothbard's Power and Market

Libertarianism in One Film, Image, Joke and Poem

One film: Announced here.

One joke: See the joke featured here.

G.K. Chesterton's "The Horrible History of Jones"

Libertarianism in One Question

Read this attempt by Economics.org.au to ask just one question of Australian political "intellectuals". So far, they have all shown themselves to be immature, dogmatic, arrogant, ignorant and scared to engage.

Libertarianism for Parents

by Joseph Sobran

Because I write about politics, people are forever asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.

In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child's mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.

For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT. In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is "fair". Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being "selfish" and "greedy". Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven't yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court's concept of the U.S. Constitution as a "living document".

Promise often to take him to the movies or the zoo, and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with a newspaper and tell him you have changed your plans. When he screams, "But you promised!", explain to him that it was a campaign promise.

Every now and then, without warning, slap your child. Then explain that this is defense. Tell him that you must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate, not right at that moment, maybe, but later in life.

At times your child will naturally express discontent with your methods. He may even give voice to a petulant wish that he lived with another family. To forestall and minimize this reaction, tell him how lucky he is to be with you the most loving and indulgent parent in the world, and recount lurid stories of the cruelties of other parents. This will make him loyal to you and, later, receptive to schoolroom claims that the America of the postmodern welfare state is still the best and freest country on Earth.

This brings me to the most important child-rearing technique of all: lying. Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing — or rather that the meanings of words are continually "evolving", and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

Some readers may object that this is a poor way to raise a child. A few may even call it child abuse. But that's the whole point: Child abuse is the best preparation for adult life under our form of GOVERNMENT.

Unconvinced and refuse to engage?