Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Liberty

My next TOI blog article: Time for Big Tech to respect liberty or be forced to do so

I sent my article to the Times of India many hours before the massive communist purge that took place yesterday. But what I’ve said in this article is now even more important:

Time for Big Tech to respect liberty or be forced to do so

I’ve already discussed the common counter-arguments in this article. But there are some essential ones that I would like to note here:

a) People establish their presence on the understanding that they can speak their mind. The idea that particular views can be censored. This is a consumer contract issue.

b) The broadest principle is that there can be no contract to slavery. One can’t get an agreement from someone to be a slave on one’s private property.

A speech service must allow all opinions unless a court intervenes.


Since when did Big Tech get the legal right to decide that some content is inflammatory (e.g. Trump asking people to go home in peace)? Are they part of the law & order machine?

They ought to at least get legal & police experts to determine whether something is inflammatory.

And these legal and police experts ought to provide a speaking order, i.e. a direction to Facebook/Twitter (to be published) that contains justifications that Trump could then appeal in court.



Continue Reading

No, Scott Morrison or Alan Tudge CAN’T FORCE Australians to take a COVID-19 vaccine in order to travel internationally

Daniel Andrews is living in a world of delusion. He said on 4 July 2020:

At that point we will not be returning to normal because there will be no vaccine in the weeks ahead, some argue even in the months ahead. It is a long way off. And unless and until that vaccine is developed, and then administered to every single Victorian, we will have to live with and embrace a COVID normal.[i] (emphasis mine.)


That’s because the Australian Constitution prohibits such compulsion:

Scott Morrison has been trying his best to make this mandatory (source)

In the meanwhile, Alan Tudge has been trying a “backdoor way to force the vaccine:


“The Digital Passenger Declaration (DPD) will facilitate information being collected and shared more efficiently while still using the same authority for collection. The DPD will also allow certified COVID vaccination certificates to be digitally uploaded and connected if and when they become available.” [Source]

Clearly this needs to be FOUGHT. For a vaccine like smallpox I’d be willing to accept a mandatory shot – but this virus is barely worse than the flu. It is ridiculous for the national and State government to think of compelling Australians in such a matter.



[i]The New Daily, “Victoria’s COVID crisis grows: Two more postcodes locked down, 108 fresh cases”, 4 July 2020. Short URL: The video of Daniel Andrews’s statement is found in a Tweet by @YellowCube7 on 3 October 2020. Short URL:





Continue Reading

A “My Will” letter to MPs in Victoria

Someone shared this template. I’m sharing – please consider writing to your MP.

Mr Russell Broadbent MP

46C Albert Street,

Warragul VIC 3820

cc The Hon Greg Hunt MP Minister for Health

Dear Mr Broadbent

I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament in the future.

It has come to my attention that the Federal Government is intending and may attempt to make vaccination mandatory for the purposes of controlling future outbreaks of COVID-19.

I do not consent or agree with any such action and it is MY WILL that you make it known to the Federal Parliament that it is THE WILL of this constituent

(1) that every vaccination always be made subject to the free, fully informed consent of the recipient

(2) that any vaccination never be made a prerequisite for access to any services or payments or employment, or the ability to travel freely to any location or venue domestically or internationally, or made a prerequisite for anything or any activity whatsoever.

(3) That no vaccine manufacturer ever be granted indemnity from liability in this country for causing injury due to the use of their vaccine.

I wish you to note to the Parliament that MY WILL is consistent with

(1) The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) Section 83.4 which states that “any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person of any political right or duty shall be guilty of an offence”.

(2) The Commonwealth Constitution Section 51xxiiiA which allows the Federal Parliament to legislate as to “the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (BUT NOT SO AS TO AUTHORISE ANY FORM OF CIVIL CONSCRIPTION), benefits to students and family allowances”.

Yours faithfully,

Declared in front of a court exercising summary jurisdiction being a Justice of the Peace

Signed …………………………………………………………………………… Signed ………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………. Witness……………………………………………………………….

Dated ……………………………………………………………………………. Dated………………………………………………………………….

Continue Reading

Notes in preparation for a paper and presentation to the Samuel Griffith society on Thursday

This is work in progress – to help me track relevant info.

Stocktake of what is going on in Victoria.

Legal protections for fundamental rights and freedoms: European Lessons for Australia? Timothy Jones

Australian Constitution

Judgement striking down lockdown in Pennsylvania.

Lockdowns are unconstitutional – list of US judgements

The HC has apparently decided to take a relevant legal case against lockdowns and banning interstate travel on constitutional grounds in November [comment here]

TRANSCRIPT OF Robert Barnes’s talk:

What he required was a full trial and a complete record and where finally the evidence would be tested

What is the evidence in support of these lockdown provisions what is the counter evidence what does this evidence look like

Under cross-examination and what we found was there was almost no evidence at all

What the judge found was that the this was more like in his own words a theoretical white paper where you basically have the white lab coat crowd doing a live Milgram experiment on its population

As this judge noted a sort of a corporate woke virus that somehow knew the difference between church and Walmart or church in a casino yet these were the rules that were being laid down by our governors and mayors all across the country, rules that simply confounded not only common sense but constitutional sense, but when he looked at the evidence he said there was no evidence for the lockdowns

He pointed out that in our entire American history we had never ever locked down we had never suspended all constitutional rights and liberties for any period of time anywhere for all the local population for any reason

He pointed out that in fact the evidence that could be produced by the state was weak to non-existent while the counter evidence was often overwhelming, that there was serious doubts about whether any of these “mitigation measures” mitigated anything at all

It was on that basis that he rejected their decision he noted their logic was internally contradictory externally contradictory to existing evidence

It didn’t even make sense within its own rules and it was often nothing more than a theoretical white paper being imposed on the population of Pennsylvania to their great expense and detriment

He noted that in fact there was no evidence that public gatherings of the kind that they were trying to be suspended or prohibited or assembly that was being restricted and listed as unlawful had caused any form of super spreading event that led to any mass deaths of any kind

Indeed, the only kind that that had been was the nursing home policies the governors of Pennsylvania and Michigan and New York and new jersey had done where they forced people who are sick and elderly back into the nursing home to infect the rest

But it wasn’t lawful assembly that posed any degree of health threat by any of the documented or detailed evidence yet it had been suspended throughout Pennsylvania not for days not for weeks as originally promised but for months and months and months with no end

As he pointed out a quarantine is supposed to be sick specific the person who has you have clear and convincing evidence that a particular person presents an imminent risk to other people within the community fits the same constitutional due process standards we’ve had for involuntary institutionalization of the mentally ill the same standards apply to the medically ill

These lockdown orders were not consistent with any form of public quarantine and the state would admit during the proceedings that in fact it could not meet the definition statutorily or as constitutionally permitted of a quarantine

Instead, they came to a different defense

What was their defense – there’s no fundamental right to make a living period that was their argument and they expected a court to accept it adopt it and impose it on the rest of us that no American no Pennsylvanian in that case had any fundamental right to make a living to support their family to support themselves

Despite the fact that the right to make a living was fundamental and established as such from the very inception of our constitution and repeated as such going back to decisions from the 1800s somehow that was completely ignored and wished to be obliterated by the new democratic regime in the state of Pennsylvania

They admitted that their definition of “life-sustaining businesses” which were given an exception and an exemption from the gathering provisions and the assembly provisions had no definition at all there was no standard for it there was no policy behind it changed day to day week to week

It was like something the stasi or the polar borough would have come up with

Indeed as the court noted it failed to meet even the most basic constitutional standards of governmental action and it was for that reason that the court determined and rejected what the governor of Pennsylvania said.

He said there is indeed a right to make a living there is indeed a right to assemble and that these rights cannot be suspended in the name of an emergency they cannot be declared invalid unilaterally by the actions of the executive branch of any government

And he concluded in this way and it’s a conclusion we should all remember as we move forward in the cases that I and other lawyers will be bringing across the country in the name of this case

And this is here is his final quote “the liberties protected by the constitution are not fair-weather freedoms the constitution cannot accept a quote new normal where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures the constitution sets lines and these actions cross those lines let it be so across the country”


Continue Reading