The Liberty Party, the only federal political party which genuinely believes that the interests of Australians are the most important consideration in policy-making, has released its policies for the Australian federal election due by May this year.
The policies cover the big issues for Australian individuals and enterprises: jobs, job security, wages, home affordability, health care, manufacturing/value-adding prospects, regulatory strangulation and compliance costs. Further important policies include Indigenous Australian peoples, Rural and Regional Australia, transparency, freedoms, taxes, spiralling government debt, broadband and education.
“It is surreal that so many Australian governments in the last 50 years have done so much damage to our manufacturers and people. It’s reaching the point where people are prevented from buying a home. This betrayal by our leaders must be reversed,” Liberty Party leader John Prohm said.
https://libertypartyaustralia.org/liberty-party-policies
The policies cover the big issues for Australian individuals and enterprises: jobs, job security, wages, home affordability, health care, manufacturing/value-adding prospects, regulatory strangulation and compliance costs. Further important policies include Indigenous Australian peoples, Rural and Regional Australia, transparency, freedoms, taxes, spiralling government debt, broadband and education.
“It is surreal that so many Australian governments in the last 50 years have done so much damage to our manufacturers and people. It’s reaching the point where people are prevented from buying a home. This betrayal by our leaders must be reversed,” Liberty Party leader John Prohm said.
https://libertypartyaustralia.org/liberty-party-policies
Liberty Party
Liberty Party Policies
For 50 years the Liberal and Labor parties have been taking you backwards. Sounds insane, doesn’t it? And yet it is true. Certainly there have been some advances, welcome and overdue. Women are less unequal than they were.…
https://twitter.com/AusElectoralCom/status/1480699874337333250?s=20
A Liberty Party government will update the Electoral Act to prohibit untrue or deceptive statements in electoral communications.
A Liberty Party government will update the Electoral Act to prohibit untrue or deceptive statements in electoral communications.
Twitter
AEC ✏️
@sedvitae The AEC has no legislative role in regulating the political content of electoral advertising and communication, except that is be properly authorised. We do however urge people to not be misled and to check the source of information to ensure it…
What consent looks like:
" Consent to vaccination
Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated."
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/covid-19/vaccine.html
" Consent to vaccination
Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated."
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/covid-19/vaccine.html
A Liberty Party government absolutely will support Australian manufacturing. #auspol #AusPol2022 @AMTIL_AUS
https://amtil.com.au/weldaustralia-manufacturing-amtil/
https://amtil.com.au/weldaustralia-manufacturing-amtil/
AMTIL
The decline of Australian manufacturing… and the impact of COVID-19 - AMTIL
What are rights?
Two weekends ago, Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) were deployed during the anti-mandate protests outside Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, despite being known to have caused hearing loss and permanent nerve damage ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-18/coronacheck-sonic-weapons-lrad-police-canberra-protests/100839612 ). One of the legal concerns with these devices is that, unlike a gun which can point at and injure or kill only one person at a time, LRADs can injure multiple people indiscriminately, including innocent bystanders.
What “right” do police have to deploy such a weapon? Don’t members of the public have the “right” to participate in a protest or to spectate without being injured by police?
What are “rights”? What does that really mean?
Let’s say you assert a right against me. What happens if I don’t magically agree, how then do you get satisfaction? Perhaps you take me to court. Let’s say you win. What happens if still I disagree? Perhaps the police arrest and gaol me. And if I disagreed throughout this process? They use physical force to lift me into the police van and carry me into the cell. In short, a right is a claim that can be defended by force. In our society, however, you yourself may not use force; only the state may do that. So, what if the state decides not to enforce your right? You have no right.
Let’s say I assert a right against you. Put another way, I am imposing an obligation upon you: in asserting a right against you, I am claiming that you are obliged to do that thing. Similarly, if I have an obligation to you, you have that right against me. Rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin. However, the two are not identical.
As mentioned, a purported right that is not backed by force is not in reality a right. By contrast, an obligation requires no force. If you feel an obligation to me, who "enforces" your obligation? You do. Your sense of honour impels you to discharge your obligation.
The second difference is one of scale. Let’s say you have a “right” against the world, say, a right to free speech. That means you can say a thing in public and everybody must let you. What if they don’t let you? That’s a lot of enforcing you will have to do. It will be time- and money-consuming, and it will require the co-operation of the state. Too bad if it's the state not doing the letting! The entire exercise will be unpleasant or worse. Now let’s take the other perspective and say you have an obligation to let someone speak. Not only do you have your honour impelling you to discharge your obligation, you in fact have the easiest obligation in the world to discharge. You literally do nothing — and you’re done. Wow. Now go back to the first perspective of you saying a thing in public. You have a multitude of people all discharging their obligation to you by doing literally nothing. Easy and pleasant for them, easy and pleasant for you. What a beautiful world.
So, while obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, obligation is a much more powerful and fulfilling approach than right.
If you’ve heard of positive and negative rights and wondered what is the difference, we’ll talk about that next time. In the meantime, please do feel free to ask questions and discuss the issues.
Two weekends ago, Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) were deployed during the anti-mandate protests outside Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, despite being known to have caused hearing loss and permanent nerve damage ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-18/coronacheck-sonic-weapons-lrad-police-canberra-protests/100839612 ). One of the legal concerns with these devices is that, unlike a gun which can point at and injure or kill only one person at a time, LRADs can injure multiple people indiscriminately, including innocent bystanders.
What “right” do police have to deploy such a weapon? Don’t members of the public have the “right” to participate in a protest or to spectate without being injured by police?
What are “rights”? What does that really mean?
Let’s say you assert a right against me. What happens if I don’t magically agree, how then do you get satisfaction? Perhaps you take me to court. Let’s say you win. What happens if still I disagree? Perhaps the police arrest and gaol me. And if I disagreed throughout this process? They use physical force to lift me into the police van and carry me into the cell. In short, a right is a claim that can be defended by force. In our society, however, you yourself may not use force; only the state may do that. So, what if the state decides not to enforce your right? You have no right.
Let’s say I assert a right against you. Put another way, I am imposing an obligation upon you: in asserting a right against you, I am claiming that you are obliged to do that thing. Similarly, if I have an obligation to you, you have that right against me. Rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin. However, the two are not identical.
As mentioned, a purported right that is not backed by force is not in reality a right. By contrast, an obligation requires no force. If you feel an obligation to me, who "enforces" your obligation? You do. Your sense of honour impels you to discharge your obligation.
The second difference is one of scale. Let’s say you have a “right” against the world, say, a right to free speech. That means you can say a thing in public and everybody must let you. What if they don’t let you? That’s a lot of enforcing you will have to do. It will be time- and money-consuming, and it will require the co-operation of the state. Too bad if it's the state not doing the letting! The entire exercise will be unpleasant or worse. Now let’s take the other perspective and say you have an obligation to let someone speak. Not only do you have your honour impelling you to discharge your obligation, you in fact have the easiest obligation in the world to discharge. You literally do nothing — and you’re done. Wow. Now go back to the first perspective of you saying a thing in public. You have a multitude of people all discharging their obligation to you by doing literally nothing. Easy and pleasant for them, easy and pleasant for you. What a beautiful world.
So, while obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, obligation is a much more powerful and fulfilling approach than right.
If you’ve heard of positive and negative rights and wondered what is the difference, we’ll talk about that next time. In the meantime, please do feel free to ask questions and discuss the issues.
www.abc.net.au
Did 'sonic weapons' make demonstrators sick during Canberra's protests?
Videos circulated this week claimed to show convoy to Canberra protesters complaining of nausea as a result of the presence of a "sonic weapon". RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.
"Primitive man probably thought very much as a child thinks, that is to say in a series of imaginative pictures. He conjured up images or images presented themselves to his mind, and he acted in accordance with the emotions they aroused. So a child or an uneducated person does to-day. Systematic thinking is apparently a comparatively late development in human experience ; it has not played any great part in human life until within the last three thousand years. And even to-day those who really control and order their thoughts are but a small minority of mankind. Most of the world still lives by imagination and passion."
HG Wells, A Short History of the World 1922 (non-fiction)
HG Wells, A Short History of the World 1922 (non-fiction)