Stewart Glass

Liberty does not mean all services provided

2008-07-30T09:34:00.002+09:30

"The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment ... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."

Claude Helvetius
French Philosopher (1715-1771)

In other words, abuses of liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity. When we talk about "rights", they are rights to be protected from others, not to be provided for our every need. Helping others provide for themselves the basics of life is a moral necessity, but should never be a legal obligation.

ART06: Rights of the Community

2008-07-25T21:38:00.005+09:30

Some Australians have adopted the view that if the majority of citizens want some policy or another, then their numbers legitimise the claim. This is not what the freedom of western society is built on.

A community only has rights in communal areas. For example, take life - does a person need permission from the community to live? Only a nutter would say "yes".

Can this unalienable right to live be extended to individual liberty? It should.

Does the majority have a right to control a citizen's personal decisions? No - unless that citizen is forcibly denying other individuals of their life, liberty, or property. If an individual is reclusive, unsociable, uncompassionate or eccentric - the community has no moral mandate to control that citizen. This is the nature of freedom.

A person's labours are also not owned by the community. People live in communities for their mutual benefit, and the trade and donation of their labour must be freely given. A person's property and goods are the product of their labour, and so even when a citizen may have an abundance the community does not have inherent rights to it.

If then, an individual has natural rights to life, liberty and property, what are the communal areas the society does have claim to control?

The communal domain should be as small as possible and should only include areas that it is impossible for individuals control by themselves (or by voluntary co-operation with each other ie associations, charities, co-ops etc). Such areas as national defence, policing, the courts, roads, oceans are and should remain in communal control.

Communal areas should also be controlled and financed by the community closest to the individual - ie local roads by councils, intra-state road by the state, and national highways by the Federal Government.

When a citizen's rights are stolen - even if by the majority - that whole society is damaged, for without the individual a society is nothing.

save then control

2008-05-09T22:02:00.001+09:30

Every government that offers to take the consequences for its citizens' individual decisions, eventually and inevitably assumes the right to control their choices too.

Urban Sprawl: A Definition

2008-04-15T15:38:00.004+09:30

Urban sprawl is what some people call new homes.

They commonly live in the urban sprawl created 20 - 50 years ago.

Liberty

2008-03-04T21:50:00.002+10:30

In society there is no function more valuable than liberty - for with liberty people can earn their own happiness.

The Road Ahead

2007-12-25T11:09:00.000+10:30

With the Federal Election behind us, I thought to give you an idea on my future plans.

I plan on being informed and active in politics for a very long time. In the near future I will particularly be focusing on reforming the State Government in the areas of home affordability, water and main roads.

To pursue these objectives, I am likely to run as a candidate for the South Australian Parliament in 2010.

Thank-you for your on-going support in helping me reform Australian government.

VID001 - Taxes for Political Parties

2007-11-26T22:23:00.000+10:30

The Senate Wrap-Up

2007-11-26T11:29:00.000+10:30

A big thank-you to all of my supporters and people who voted for my efforts for freedom and a limited government.

It looks like the 6 senators from South Australia will be:

1 Don FARRELL (ALP)
2 Cory BERNARDI (Liberal)
3 Nick XENOPHON (Independent)
4 Penny WONG (ALP)
5 Simon BIRMINGHAM (Liberal)
6 Sarah HANSON-YOUNG (Greens)

In July 2008 when the new Senators take there place, there will be a close balance:

Liberal/National Coalition : 37
Australian Labor Party : 32
The Greens : 5
Family First : 1
Nick Xenophon : 1

Source: ABC

All-in-all we could have done worse. If the Greens and Labor join on a bill and Liberal oppose, they will still have to rely on Family First or Xenophon to get it through.

I will still be active in politics, particularly harassing the State Government on land supply and home unaffordability, and commentary on various issues.

Cheers to all supporters of liberty out there!

Stewart Glass

PS You can get updates by subscribing to this blog on my website www.stewartglass.net

The Sunday Mail - Journalism with an Agenda

2007-11-24T10:53:00.000+10:30

Commentry on the Article in The Sunday Mail:
Why Mr X does not deserve your vote 11 Nov 2007

I was very disappointed to see the Sunday Mail discard even the appearance of media impartiality recently when it called for voters to reject rival Senate candidate Nick Xenophon.

This was not an editorial, not did it name the article's author. It was talking on behalf of the newspaper:

"The Sunday Mail firmly believes South Australians should not vote for him [Xenophon] this time around."

and

"For all these reasons, the Sunday Mail cannot endorse Mr Xenophon's bid to be elected to the Senate"

This is not a case of my support of Mr Xenophon (as he is a rival candidate for the Senate), this is a case of a newspaper with an agenda.

Newspapers should present the facts to the public without intention to persuade. Too much media coverage is commentry on the news, rather than the news itself.

This one article has tarnished the reputation of this paper. How many other news items also have an agenda, when we really think they are unbias and impartial?

The Road to Serfdom (in Cartoons) by Hayek

2007-11-24T09:24:00.000+10:30

Festival of Light

2007-11-07T12:41:00.000+10:30

Responds to Festival of Light Questionaire and Reasoning

1. Prayers in parliament
Prayers in parliament are an important daily reminder that we must all ultimately answer to the higher authority of Almighty God. The prayers, which consist of the Lord's Prayer and a request for God's guidance, are an expression of the Christian foundation and character of our nation. According to the latest census, 64% of Australians identify as Christians.
Do you support the current practice of opening each day of parliament with Christian prayers?
Probably. I have no problem with Christian prayers in parliament, nor with the occasional prayer by members of non-Christian beliefs. I assume these would be proportial to the percentage of parlimentarians from different beliefs.

2. Relationship registers
In 2004 the Parliament amended the Marriage Act 1961 to reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman and to prevent courts recognising same sex marriages. The homosexual lobby is now seeking to gain legal recognition for same sex relationships through state or territory legislation setting up civil unions or registered relationships. The Commonwealth's constitutional marriage power enables it to further amend the Marriage Act 1961 to invalidate these state laws in order to protect and defend the unique status of marriage.
Would you vote to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to prevent states from giving legal recognition to couple relationships other than marriage, including homosexual, lesbian and de facto relationships?
Probably. It depends what implications come from the legal recognition. I oppose adoption by gay couples as I feel this infringes on the right of the child.

3. Abortion funding
A national opinion poll conducted in 2005 by Market Facts (Qld) found that 67% of Australians are opposed to Medicare funding of abortions performed in the second trimester (14-26 weeks). Children born as early as 21 weeks are now surviving thanks to the wonderful advances in modern medicine. Second trimester abortions can result in a live born child who is then left to die. 49 such abortions were recorded in Victoria alone in 2005. Some second trimester abortions are performed by the partial birth abortion method which has now been banned by the US Congress, a ban upheld by the US Supreme Court. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for these abortions.
Would you support a change to the Medicare schedule so that taxpayers are no longer forced to pay for second trimester and late term abortions?
Yes Definitely. I am totally opposed to abortion (except in rare circumstances) particularly when funded by tax.

4. Illicit drugs
Harm minimisation has been one of the key principles of Australia's drug strategy since 1985. Harm minimisation measures include needle and syringe exchanges, injecting rooms, heroin prescription, methadone substitution, liberal cannabis laws and drug testing kits. In 2003 the House of Representatives "Roads to Recovery" report called for the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a new focus on harm prevention and treatment. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Sweden has shown that "drug free" policies can dramatically reduce the use of illicit drugs.
Would you support the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation and harm reduction strategies with a new focus on achieving a drug free society?
Probably. Firstly I think drug problems should be address by charities instead of governments. I don't support taxpayer funded harm minimalisation measure like injection rooms.

5. Internet filtering
The internet provides many benefits but also carries many dangers. Unfiltered, the internet can bring explicit pornography and material that promotes terrorism, crime or suicide into the family home. Voluntary PC based filtering systems will not protect children in vulnerable situations such as the 9-10 year olds reported by the Canberra Hospital for sexually abusing even younger children after exposure to internet pornography. Mandatory filtering at the ISP level is essential for the protection of Australian children and for a healthy society.
Would you support mandatory filtering of the internet at ISP level to exclude all explicit pornography as well as material which promotes crime, suicide or terrorism?

Definitely Not. I oppose any government control of information. Child pornography, specific terrorism activities should of course be pursued by police. It is the parents role to filter and watch out for what children access via the internet, not the governments.

6. Benefits supporting marriage
Over many centuries, governments have granted marriage a privileged status not given to other types of relationships, for two key reasons. Only marriage provides the best environment for raising children with stability plus complementary male and female role models (Mum and Dad). Men and women complement each other in marriage, benefiting each other and society. Homosexual and lesbian relationships do not have these characteristics and should not be given the benefits given to married couples.
Would you oppose any measure which seeks to extend to homosexual and lesbian couples the benefits currently given to married couples?

Yes Definitely. I believe that the family is the fundament unit of society, though I should say that I don't believe in government welfare for anyone.

7. Cloning
In 2002 federal parliament unanimously banned all forms of human cloning. In 2006 a private member's bill lifted the ban on the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in destructive research. It is wrong to create a human life with the intention of using him or her for research and then destruction. Cloning for research is scientifically unnecessary as the hoped for benefits from cloning are being more effectively and more safely obtained using stem cells derived in an ethically uncontroversial way from adults or from umbilical cord blood.
Would you vote to repeal those laws which permit the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in destructive research?

Yes Definitely. I believe human life, in whatever form, should be protected from others.

8. Child care benefits
Surveys indicate that a large majority of parents would prefer one parent (usually the mother) to care for their children full-time at home if they could afford it. Current child care benefits are much more generous to mothers who place their children in child care centres than to those who care for their own children at home. All parents should be treated equally, receiving the same childcare benefit. They should be free to spend it as they choose - on childcare or on helping one parent stay at home.
Would you support legislation requiring equal child care benefits to be paid directly to all parents of young children, whether the children are cared for at home or in a child care centre?

Yes Definitely. If child caring benefits are to be paid, we should not discriminate against stay at home Mums and Dads. Once again, I don't believe in government subsidies.

9. Access Card
A mandatory smart card for access to all government social services including Medicare is an unjustifiable intrusion into individual privacy and a possible step towards a national identity card. While there may be a need to rationalise the processes used to access social services, there is no need to include Medicare in this scheme. For millions of Australians, Medicare is the only Commonwealth benefit they access. Once billions of dollars are invested in a smart card which will be mandatory for any Australian unwilling to opt out of the Medicare system and forego any entitlements to social services, there will be a natural 'function creep' until the access card becomes a de facto national identity card.
Would you oppose the introduction of a mandatory smart card for access to all government social services including Medicare?
Yes Definitely

10. Vilification legislation
Laws which prohibit vilification on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality are an unwarranted interference with free speech and religious liberty. Those who point out the health risks of homosexual behaviour, or who question claims and practices of a particular religion such as Islam, should not be penalised.
Would you vote to oppose laws which would prohibit vilification on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality?

Yes Definitely. I oppose discrimation laws from the private sector. Some discrimation is definately immoral, but this is best resolved within society rather than government.

It is not the critic who counts...

2007-10-14T21:05:00.000+09:30

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause;

who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt
Citizenship in a Republic (a speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, 1910)

Everything you want...

2007-10-12T20:25:00.000+09:30

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Gerald Ford
Presidential address to a joint session of Congress 12 August 1974

Governments and the Economy

2007-09-13T19:47:00.000+09:30

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronald Reagan
US President (1911 - 2004)

Simple Facts 03: Population of Australia by States

2007-09-08T22:32:00.000+09:30

VID01 - Taxes for Political Parties

2007-09-05T13:40:00.000+09:30

Did you know the Australian Taxpayer funds some political parties and candidates?

Interest Rates under the PMs of Australia

2007-08-18T12:50:00.000+09:30

I have added the first of a series of quick facts.

This one links to a graph that shows at a glance the standard variable home loan interest rate as under the various governments.

The backhand of Socialism

2007-08-17T14:08:00.000+09:30

The invisible hand is actually more kind than socialism. At least with the free market and liberty the interaction is voluntary. With socialism, unions and lobby groups still seek thier own self-interests, and if they can make those interests into law, then force is also used to enforce it.

Money and Elections

2007-07-25T08:39:00.000+09:30

No politician can buy votes unless the people are first ready to sell them.

Radio Adelaide Interview

2007-07-23T08:21:00.000+09:30

Had a 5 mins interview on The Wire recently. The Wire is a program on Radio Adelaide (FM 101.5) and had been interviewing senate candidates each week.

Download it here (1 MB)

Educate to Preserve Liberty

2007-04-10T17:30:00.000+09:30

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty

Thomas Jefferson

a Founding Father of the United States of America

1743-1826

Verify Yourself!

2007-04-03T06:02:00.000+09:30

The Australian Electoral Commission has a handy feature to verify your details are up-to-date on the electoral roll. (ie eligible to vote in your area)

Take a second and check it out here

Remember if you are enrolled anywhere in SA you can vote for me!

Donate to Our Cause!

2007-03-28T09:04:00.000+09:30

Why money, and what will it be used for

If you agree with what I stand for, help me get elected. Here are some ways...

The most pressing need is to run on a "ticket" for the Senate. This is where you vote "above the line" in a single box. 95% of voters do this. To run on a ticket I need a fellow candidate - which will cost an extra $1000. All initial donations for this will go solely to this priority. I am using my own pocket money for my candidacy.

You can make donations under $200 anonymously if you please. Pay now via PAYPAL, send a cheque, or email me for bank deposit details.

to donate and for more info: www.stewartglass.net/help

Holloway calls for abolishment of SA Upper House

2007-03-20T19:10:00.000+10:30

Article from Adelaide Now - 20 Mar 2007 (italics my own):

Council is 'wasting our cash'

SOUTH Australian taxpayers have been told to watch members of the Legislative Council in action to see how their taxes "are being misspent".

A bitter row has erupted between the State Government and the Opposition and independents in the Upper House over the way it is operating.

Government Leader in the Council Paul Holloway said if taxpayers watched the chamber in action on Wednesdays "they would be calling for its abolition as soon as possible".
"Just come and see how your money is being misspent," he said. Mr Holloway's frustrations boiled over at the weekend, as the result of a move by the Opposition to ensure select committees of the Upper House were chaired by independents instead of a Government MP.
The Opposition has claimed that because Government MPs are chairmen, they are restricting the committees' operations.
Mr Holloway slammed the move as a breach of time-honoured political conventions. "The Legislative Council is reaching crisis point," he said. "The sooner it is abolished the better." He said the Government had a "big legislative program" and it did not receive any consideration.
"Yet we have nearly a whole day each week being devoted to private member's business," he said. Mr Holloway said that one sitting day in three, not a single piece of Government business was being discussed.
He said that last week, on one of those days the chamber had sat until after midnight "yet they are never ready to discuss Government Bills".
Opposition Leader in the Council, Rob Lucas, said it was a bit rich of Mr
Holloway to attack the Opposition for not debating legislation when it had to force the Government to sit on Tuesday last week after the Adelaide Cup day holiday.

When Mr Holloway calls for the abolishment of the Upper House because it misspends money, does that mean that he would support the abolishment of the Lower House if it is the same?

Proportional representation, as is in the Upper House, helps keep give SA some political diversity, could be said to more accurately represent the voters and helps keep us from a being 2 party system - like you see in the USA.

The Rann Government still has twice as many days as private members bills to debate, and to suggest that you have a mandate for a "big legislative agenda" (when you don't actually have the numbers to do it) is a little silly. I guess we will see if the electorate supports Mr Holloway's suggestion when Premier Rann has a referendum on abolishing-reforming the Upper House in 2010.

Housing Unaffordability by Land Shortage or Taxes?

2007-03-06T12:00:00.000+10:30

My thoughts on an article where it is presented that home prices are due to government taxes not land supply.

(bolding and italics added by me)

No land shortage, blame taxes by Anthony Klan
26 Feb 2007 - news.com.au
MORE than 150,000 housing lots are available for development in the nation's three biggest cities, refuting the Howard Government's claims of a land shortage.

The figures, compiled by The Australian, show there are 155,500 lots across Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne zoned for residential development - between three and eight years' supply - despite John Howard's claims last week that a shortage of land was contributing to the housing crisis and driving up rents.
In Sydney, where housing affordability is the lowest in the nation and continuing to deteriorate, developers have thousands of housing blocks ready to sell, and are sitting on tens of thousands more.
"Every time I see John Howard blaming land supply I see red because it's just not true - there are literally thousands of lots available," said Peter Icklow, chief executive of one of Sydney's biggest developers, Monarch.
Mr Icklow said rather than land shortages, it had been increases in property taxes - levied by all levels of government since the beginning of the property boom - that had led to the affordability crises. He said there was plenty of land available for sale and for development, but there were no buyers at current prices and developers could not drop prices any further without losing money.
"I've got about 3000 lots of land and I can't develop any of them until they take some of these taxes off or we get a 20 per cent lift in prices," he said. "And we're not doing this to be greedy, we just need to make a return. The bank won't lend me money if we can't show a return."

Residential Development Council executive director Ross Elliott said governments at all levels had used the property boom as an easy cash cow, but now that the boom had receded the effect of the new taxes had come into stark focus.
He said inflated taxes were stifling any recovery in the property market and in turn driving the rental shortage. Starting with the Howard Government's introduction of GST on all new homes, and culminating with the NSW Government's infrastructure levy on new homes introduced last year, property taxes had ballooned since 2000.
Taxes associated with a typical house-and-land package have grown by an average of $77,000 nationally in the past six years, with the problem most pronounced in Sydney's northwest, where government costs have ballooned by $115,000 in that time, according to research by consultants Urbis JHD. The group said taxes and red tape cost more than the land.
Illustrating the amount of zoned land available for development across the nation, Stockland, Australia's second-biggest property group, controls 66,600 housing lots, which it will gradually feed to the market as conditions improve. But lot sales are expected to remain low until at least next year in the face of poor rental
returns and low housing affordability. Of the 1900 blocks Stockland sold in the past six months, just 96 - or 5 per cent - were in NSW. And ANZ senior economist Paul Braddick said there was no historical evidence to suggest lack of land supply had significantly driven up prices.

Maybe it is just my skeptical side but the land triumvirate seems to be:

State Governments (who generate land tax revenue and money from land sales via the LMC)
Banks (higher mortgages mean more profits from interest) and
Large Developers (whom the LMC seems to sell the state land to).

You might possibly add in newspapers (who do a heck of a lot of real estate advertising).

Now I don't dispute that the unfair land tax and the GST have contributed to housing inflation, but even if they were removed entirely, houses would still be priced far above their true market value.

It is interesting that the 2 of the land triumvirate are the ones that fail to acknowledge land supply as a root problem. Why would they? They are a main beneficiary! Until other developers (including private land holders like farmers) are able to enter the market, they can (and will) sit on their land til it sells at astronomical prices.