The ‘missing’ op-eds

I’m out of town doing the theme park thing with the offspring. As such I’ve been unable to write a couple of op-eds that editors have approached me to write. Pity. Anyway I thought I’d quickly sketch out what I would have argued.

Op-ed 1 – the Coalition will repeal redundant regulation. Yes, good; I suppose. But it isn’t just the redundant regulation that needs to be be repealed – its all the value-destroying initiative-sapping regulation that actually constrains business (and private behaviour too) that needs to be repealed. I would have proposed a mandatory sunset clause on all legislation and regulation (either 5 or 10 years) that would require the Parliament to reconsider any and every piece of legislation.

Op-ed 2 – No boat arrivals for 3 weeks. Here the editor wanted an argument that the Coalition boat policy could be described as having being successful. Here my view is that we’ve obviously lowered our expectations so low that three weeks of no boat arrivals is a good thing. Maybe it is – I suspect, however, that it will be a temporary thing. It is true that the government policy of suppressing information will have played some role in that blip. It has increased the information costs associated with people smuggling – but I have no doubt that information brokers will emerge (as they do in most markets to reduce information costs problems) and the boats will soon be on their way again (perhaps after the monsoon season). Reducing the traffic from Indonesia to Australia will have to take policy innovation along the lines of an immigration auction (for example) or policies so draconian that the Australian public will ultimately baulk.

This entry was posted in Economics and economy, Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to The ‘missing’ op-eds

  1. Viva

    I suspect, however, that it will be a temporary thing

    .

    Sorry to say Sinclair – but this sounds a little like a warmist reacting to global temperature flatlining.

  2. twostix

    How does an auction stop the flow without a system to prevent the losers from simply coming anyway?.

  3. A sunset clause in all legislation should be implemented, plus term limits for MPs and Senators, the direct election of some judges (especially those on the High Court), the introduction of qualification requirements for Ministers, the re-introduction of the death penalty, a complete re-write of the tax codes, a complete re-write of the constitution, the ability to recall sitting MPs and a whole host of other things too please! (Just adding some to the wish-list of things that needed fixing)

    As for the second part, if this government gets less arrivals than 50,000 over 5 years it will be doing better than the hapless bunch they replaced…

  4. C.L.

    But it isn’t just the redundant regulation that needs to be be repealed – its all the value-destroying initiative-sapping regulation that actually constrains business (and private behaviour too) that needs to be repealed.

    Exactly.

  5. Percy

    After reading the first two sentences Sinc, I thought you were about to start asking for submissions.

  6. twostix

    a complete re-write of the constitution,

    Have you seen some of the modern constitutions nations are coming up with?

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    Submissions are always welcome.

  8. boy on a bike

    Submissions are always welcome.

    Doomlord will charge a modest fee as your agent – somewhere around 100% of what the newspaper pays.

  9. Pedro

    It’s only the public whose opinions are reported that will baulk.

    I like the idea of time limited legislation, leaving aside obviously permanent things like the criminal law. Though I think you only need to put most Acts up for reconsideration once and then they can be permanent. The practical problem for you is that pretty much everyone involved in formulating legislation will completely fail to recognise the problem with it and will in fact be convinced that every bit of it is vital.

  10. JohnA

    twostix #1153380, posted on January 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    a complete re-write of the constitution,

    Have you seen some of the modern constitutions nations are coming up with?

    Exactly.

    Leave the Constitution alone. The more recently legislation is re-done, the shorter the horizons it embodies. The US, Aus and other 19th century documents had a vision for hundreds of years, and expansive language to match.

    Modern documents can’t see past the political issues of the day, because the people who advocate for the change/s are short-sighted, usually one-eyed about one issue, and haven’t thought about how the text they propose will work out in practice over the next 400 hundred years or so.

  11. Ant

    “I’m out of town doing the theme park thing with the offspring.”

    Oh, so how is Canberra?

  12. jupes

    … or policies so draconian that the Australian public will ultimately baulk.

    Not this little black duck.

  13. Percy

    Leave the Constitution alone.

    Ahem, we could always add a little something

  14. Percy

    Submissions are always welcome.

    Reckless Sinc, anyone could have seen that.

  15. Baldrick

    “Here my view is that we’ve obviously lowered our expectations so low that three weeks of no boat arrivals is a good thing.”

    Not so fast … Australian’s were so used to hundreds each month, under the previous government, that anything less than our previous expectations is a good thing.

  16. “Leave the Constitution alone. The more recently legislation is re-done, the shorter the horizons it embodies. The US, Aus and other 19th century documents had a vision for hundreds of years, and expansive language to match. ”

    Comparing our constitution with that of the US of A is like comparing a Michelangelo master-piece with a Dali. Our constitution certainly isn’t visionary and no-longer provides the citizen with adequate protection from government. Not only does it need re-writing, it needs to be re-written by the people and forced on the government and governing class.

  17. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    But it isn’t just the redundant regulation that needs to be be repealed – its all the value-destroying initiative-sapping regulation that actually constrains business (and private behaviour too) that needs to be repealed.

    +1,000,000

  18. .

    Leave the Constitution alone. The more recently legislation is re-done, the shorter the horizons it embodies. The US, Aus and other 19th century documents had a vision for hundreds of years, and expansive language to match.

    Sorry – fiscal imbalance, corporations power, external affairs power – and in the US, PATRIOT Act and Kelo – they are busted arse and need rewriting.

  19. adrian

    Reducing the traffic from Indonesia to Australia will have to take policy innovation along the lines of an immigration auction

    80 per cent reduction since OSB commenced. Howard stopped the boats altogether after 18 months or so. auctions are not needed.

  20. ar

    I’ve been unable to write a couple of op-eds that editors have approached me to write

    And give up good coin? Just do a Latham and wing it, stream of consciousness stuff…

  21. Yohan

    I think you are analysing the boat people issue wrongly. The monsoon season, smugglers networks and informational aspects all play a role in number of arrivals.

    But the biggest factor drawing illegal migrants was the fact that under Labor 97% of anyone who managed to make landfall was eventually accepted as a refugee. This was the big drawcard, you just had to get here and you were as good as gold.

    Now that new groups of arrivals are being shunted of to PNG and Nauru, and more importantly being told outright they will not be resettled in Australia, word is now filtering back and they have stopped flying into KL and Indonesia.

  22. adrian

    exactly. an esoteric auction will not deter people from getting on a boat.

  23. .

    exactly. an esoteric auction will not deter people from getting on a boat.

    They pay good money to get on that boat. Enough that an auction would work.

  24. 97% of anyone who managed to make landfall was eventually accepted as a refugee

    A refugee is only entitled to temporary accommodation until it is safe to return home.

    There should be no prospect of permanent residency.

  25. Adam D

    … or policies so draconian that the Australian public will ultimately baulk.

    I think the coalition is and will continue to be effective in this area and I am not sure what evidence you have to back up the assertion that the numbers of boat arrivals return or even if you are referring to Labors record in this area (no way in hell the coalition will have that result)

    Having said that I think the issue could be sorted quickly and permanently with a simple policy:

    Arrive by boat = 1 way ticket back home or to most suitable refugee camp. Absolutely no exemptions. Refugee camps can be compensated very well given the current $$$ thrown at the problem. Guarantee no one would even try by boat again.

  26. Fisky

    An auction would raise revenue, but do almost nothing to stop the boats unless you were prepared to allow the market to clear. And that means selling as many places as the market wants at the given price. But if there are restricted places (~10K-20K a year) on sale, or if the price is too high (>30K) then those who lose the auction will do what the boaties are doing already – come in through the back door at a lower price.

    It’s bizarre that we are even canvassing alternatives to a policy that has already cut arrivals by 80%. 416 boaties arrived this time last year – during monsoon season! – and none have arrived so far this year. The policy works. We don’t need to recycle pie-in-the-sky rubbish from the CATO Institute that will never be tried anywhere.

  27. adrian

    They pay good money to get on that boat. Enough that an auction would work.

    there will always be a back door that someone will try to test out, regardless of some government auction that i doubt any boat person would be able to figure out anyway.

  28. Fisky

    Just to recap – we have already established that 50,000 people per year are prepared to pay 20K to get entry into Australia. That was the arrival rate in the final months of Gillard.

    So if the purpose of an auction is to stop the boats, you would need to sell 50,000 places at 20K each to clear the market, assuming that demand remains constant. This is a big assumption, because we saw an exponential rise under Gillard, from 10K per year, to 20K, to 50K at the very last.

    I think the auction idea would be a terrific proposal for Cato Institute blog, or perhaps that Left-Libertarian project Brink Lindsey was talking about a few years ago, and certainly lots of beard-stroking Leftists would be interested to hear about new and innovative ways to facilitate more illegal immigration and votes for the Labor Party.

  29. Andrew

    “Here my view is that we’ve obviously lowered our expectations so low that three weeks of no boat arrivals is a good thing.”

    It was 100 a DAY under Gillard in early 2013, and 79 a day under Krudd’s Pacific Solution. (You know, the policy he thought up all by himself, as no previous govt had ever had a successful border protection policy before.)

    In further context:
    - He announced a “deal” with PNG, that appears (according to the PNG govt) to have been capped at 600 or so: Timebomb 1.
    - He didn’t sign the papers, or even had a draft agreement. Nothing but an announcement: Timebomb 2.
    - He didn’t fund it beyond Jan 2014: Timebomb 3.
    - He waited until just long enough before the election that he could ensure Xmas, Nauru and Manus centres were ALL full to the brim by the time OSB started: Timebomb 4.
    - He spied on SBY, and then got caught with the leftist meeja ready to add that to the other annoyances being used to create a loss of face in Jakarta. The constant message even before that was “A666 is ignoring Indonesia’s sovereignty”) making them look weak if they didn’t push back against the policy: Timebomb 5.
    - Shorten and the Greens (but I repeat myself) overturning TPVs in the Sen8: Timebomb 6.
    - The boats are all fucked from spending every moment racing to rescues, then playing taxi at warp speed to get ready for the next “rescue”: Timebomb 7.

    So am I pleasantly surprised at 3 weeks SIEV-free this soon after the election? Yes I am.

    Would the AUS people push back against truly draconian stuff? Unfortunately yes, they are so weak and easily led by the meeja that 3 months later they’ve forgotten the R-G-R refo parade. Had A666 withdrawn from the UNHCR convention on day 1, they might have copped it. But the Sen8 was never going to allow that. With 4 boatees a day on average now, it just isn’t going to happen – the 96% reduction will breed more complacency.

  30. .

    The boats still stop if they come through the proper channels. The fee also means they have paid for public goods such as publicly owned roads and the police.

    A better argument against it Fisk is that is effectively a tax.

    As long as the fee is a lot higher than normal channels, it is equitable, as long as it is well below the total cost of coming here illegally, it will work.

    Why you have not considered having both 1. “Send them back” and 2. Immigraiton fee at the same time is odd – they would be complimentary.

    We’re better off getting rid of welfare for non-citizens and making PR easy to get and citizenship a long process.

    People aren’t going to pay a smuggler 20k to collect $0 a week from Centrelink for ten years.

  31. Fisky

    As long as the fee is a lot higher than normal channels, it is equitable, as long as it is well below the total cost of coming here illegally, it will work.

    Lots of conditions there, when in fact this is a purely hypothetical exercise. None of these ideas will ever be considered by anyone. However, engaging the issue at the hypothetical level, and ONLY at this level – only if it can be shown that the market will clear, will the boats stopped. No one has even attempted to calculate the clearing price and quantity.

  32. Fisky

    will the boats BE stopped

  33. Docket62

    Let’s not forget the disinformation that is being run through and deliberately fed by the labour and greens et al. (And especially Hanson hyphen).

    No question the boats have come to a small trickle, and shunting a few back to Indonesia is a bloody good idea. But allowing the media to report as fact, scurrilous ‘first hand’ evidence is tantamount to fraud, and one perpetuated by the left with gay abandon (so to speak)

  34. Gab

    scurrilous ‘first hand’ evidence

    It’s actually third hand hearsay.

  35. Andrew

    Let’s not forget the disinformation that is being run through and deliberately fed by the labour and greens et al. (And especially Hanson hyphen).

    I’m wondering whether these are helping SH-H’s cause or hurting it. If they’re reporting globally that the RAN is shooting at and torturing boatees, is that deterring future attempts faster than it’s eroding the public’s political will to keep them out?

  36. .

    Lots of conditions there, when in fact this is a purely hypothetical exercise.

    Two conditions. Don’t bullshit mate. You’re better than that.

  37. papachango

    Here the editor wanted an argument that the Coalition boat policy could be described as having being successful.

    Cue the howls of outrage abour Murdoch press bias and the need for more regulation from our leftist friends….

  38. Notafan

    People aren’t going to pay a smuggler 20k to collect $0 a week from Centrelink for ten years

    .
    I think the current policy of absolutely no staying will deter Sri Lankans who get put straight on a plane without $3500 pocket money now anyhow. The others I am not convinced will stop even if the Centrelink payments are off the table; there is still the attraction of education and healthcare and quick frankly I don’t want a repeat of the shanty towns lining Parisian freeways here. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people will be swayed by such sights.
    I am still of the view that very few of the boat arrivals genuinely meet the UNHCR definition of n refugees and that a lot of coaching is done so that people can fool immigration staff.
    The best thing that Australia can do is lead the way in getting rid of economy destroying sustainablility and encourage developing nations getting access to cheap energy coal,shale gas, nuclear so peoples lives will improve at home, though in the case of the middle east that might be a forlorn hope.

  39. Paul

    “I am still of the view that very few of the boat arrivals genuinely meet the UNHCR definition of n refugees and that a lot of coaching is done so that people can fool immigration staff.”

    True. Who’s coaching the immigration staff if they are so easily fooled?

  40. James of the Glen

    Meanwhile, re Op-ed 2, the other half of the people smuggling collective is busy trying to breakdown the measures put in place by Scott Morrison so that the trade can resume to a level the Coalition said would not happen.

    I refer of course to the likes of Adelaide Advertiser columnist Tory Shepherd (The Advertiser, Tues 14/1/13) and her demand that once again the minute details of operations by the Navy be made public so “we are not treated as mushrooms”. How very, very considerate of her.

    Tory, quite the patriot, knows they are the very details the smuggling scum rely on for successful operations.

    With News Ltd allowing Shepherd to scowl her call for the smugglers to effectively receive vital intelligence, and with the other coarse hyphenated crone screeching for open borders, these “information brokers” are doing their utmost to set up branch offices under our (long suffering) noses.

  41. CatAttack

    What do you mean information brokers will emerge? What do you call ian rintoul and the refugee coalition. Everyone in Indonesia seems to have a satellite phone with his number on speed dial.

  42. David Brewer

    Sinc, you’re right about regulation. The only regulations worth repealing are the ones that AREN’T redundant – the ones that are still working, driving up costs and inhibiting innovation and activity.

    But as for…

    I have no doubt that information brokers will emerge (as they do in most markets to reduce information costs problems) and the boats will soon be on their way again (perhaps after the monsoon season). Reducing the traffic from Indonesia to Australia will have to take policy innovation along the lines of an immigration auction (for example) or policies so draconian that the Australian public will ultimately baulk.

    You are living in a libertarian’s dream world! There will never be an immigration auction, however sensible it might be. For a start, it would put 90% of immigration bureaucrats out of work. And the whole field is riddled with “rights-based” thinking that prevents anything as grubby as a purchase. At best, there will continue to be a little niche for “entrepreneurs” who promise to invest $500K plus in a business etc.

    And a few information brokers are not going to get around a simple policy of just not letting them in. Once it’s clear that you won’t make it, people will stop trying.

  43. Docket62

    “I’m wondering whether these are helping SH-H’s cause or hurting it. If they’re reporting globally that the RAN is shooting at and torturing boatees, is that deterring future attempts faster than it’s eroding the public’s political will to keep them out?”

    Hmm.. My mind has immediately gone to a new ad on overseas TV. An AUS gunboat with a 50 Cal Gatling mounted on the bow (preferably with tracers) unloading several thousands rounds towards a boat……

    And… Wake

  44. Sinclair Davidson

    Papachango – neither oped was for the Murdoch press.

  45. Andrew

    Tory Shepherd (The Advertiser, Tues 14/1/13) and her demand that once again the minute details of operations by the Navy be made public so “we are not treated as mushrooms”.

    Yes. She was out there daily demanding a press conference at least weekly to discuss operational details of NBN Co, right? Progress against business plans, tech details of the rollout? She decried the ban on advertising 4G by TLS as “Stalinist” right?

  46. twostix

    I think the auction idea would be a terrific proposal for Cato Institute blog, or perhaps that Left-Libertarian project Brink Lindsey was talking about a few years ago, and certainly lots of beard-stroking Leftists would be interested to hear about new and innovative ways to facilitate more illegal immigration and votes for the Labor Party.

    lol Fisky on fire.

    Nobody has answered the question of how the auction winners will have their newly acquired property protected from the auction losers who – without a pacific solution of some sort – can still simply hop on a boat in Indo.

  47. .

    You’re assuming as Fisk did that the market won’t clear.

  48. twostix

    You’re assuming as Fisk did that the market won’t clear.

    Either you have a cap on the number who can come here so creating a base price on permits but requiring continuing policing of the permits and who comes here to protect the investment of the auction winners, or there is no cap on the number of permits and the market will clear with Australia one billion people bigger.

  49. Boambee John

    “#1153743, posted on January 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm
    “I am still of the view that very few of the boat arrivals genuinely meet the UNHCR definition of n refugees and that a lot of coaching is done so that people can fool immigration staff.”

    True. Who’s coaching the immigration staff if they are so easily fooled?”

    Many of them want to be fooled.

  50. Jim Rose

    The fall in boat arrivals is a real surprise. I thought it was all bluff and bluster

  51. A refugee is only entitled to temporary accommodation until it is safe to return home.

    There should be no prospect of permanent residency.

    Not on the basis of their refugee status alone, no. There should be no bar to them applying for PR, but that specific application should be a separate thing which would go to the back of the queue like everyone else’s, to be accepted or denied on its own merits (or lack thereof). If you come to Australia (or any Anglosphere nation) on a refugee visa, never find work despite being allowed to and it being there, start kicking up a fuss about wanting sharia law or what-have-you, etc. then your chances of PR should go down the toilet at once.

  52. Hmm.. My mind has immediately gone to a new ad on overseas TV. An AUS gunboat with a 50 Cal Gatling mounted on the bow (preferably with tracers) unloading several thousands rounds towards a boat……

    Do we include video of the gun crew screaming things like “Die, fucking scum!!” and sharks feeding on the survivors, or would that be gilding the lily? /sarc

  53. Fisky

    You’re assuming as Fisk did that the market won’t clear.

    If the government sets an artificially-low Soviet quantity, or an artificially-high price, then yes, the market won’t clear.

    Micro 101 for libertarians.

  54. Tel

    Markets always clear, the definition of “clear” being whatever the market decides to do.

  55. .

    Please don’t piss in my pockets, Fisk.

    They get wet enough in the top loader.

  56. Pusnip

    Business constantly complains about red tape, but often finds it hard to point to regulation that is clearly unjustified, as the paucity of their input to various red tape reviews shows.
    Moreover, repealing ‘redundant’ regulation does little for productivity if the regulation is just sitting in the books somewhere not bring used.

  57. .

    Err, that’s because they are usually not aware of it until they get regulated by it.

    Do you realise how much law is physically on the books?

    The reason why lawyers specialise is largel due to the breadth of the law, not because they were not competent in earlier times.

    No reasonable, non technical law specialist will know every rule they are meant to abide by in their industry.

    You are also encountering a selection bias problem: those who have been regulated out of existence or ever putting up a shingle.

  58. Uber

    Disagree on both points. A sunset clause will just mean rubber stamping and even more time wasting. Better process is what’s required.

    And the boat stoppages will be permanent. We have history to tell us this will be so, as well as the causal knowledge that a properly managed process will eventuate in a specific effect. The process is now in place.

  59. Pusnip

    The volume of legislation on the books is a simplistic indicator of regulatory. As the last RedTape review pointed out, some legislation is deregulatory, some simply replaces in house regulation (when an entity is privatised), and some legislation, such as access regimes, is pro-competitive.

  60. .

    Yes well but please tell us how much legislation has but businesses out of action, stopped others even bothering to open a shopfront and how much the non pro comeptitive legislation, regulation & other delegated legislation has grown – or how much anti competitive legislation conflicts directly or indirectly with pro comeptitive legislation…

    PS – counting internal private company policy as regulationonly serves to obfuscate.

  61. Pusnip

    The question is not how many businesses have been discouraged from opening or continuing, but whether the regulation that caused them not to was appropriate. If the regulation was appropriate, then the number of of discouraged businesses, whatever that number might be, would be the optimum number.

  62. .

    So you want to tell me that to become and inland commercial fisher, requiring six months of “seamanship” to operate a fishing boat is appropriate?

    Why can’t an ecologist certify private forestry of native hardwood without doing a friggin’ cert II from TAFE (currently ‘closed’).

    You are naive.

  63. Pusnip

    No, I haven’t sought to defend any particular regulation, and I do not know enough about the specifics of the one you referred to comment on its particular merits our demerits.
    The only point I was seeking to make is that pointing out (our asserting) that some businesses have ceased operating, or been dissuaded from starting up, by regulation does not of itself show that there is a problem with the regulation responsible.

  64. .

    How many other regulations do you think you are unaware of or don’t pass a cost-benefits analysis?

    The problem is there are too many for someone to even discuss intelligently.

    The regulation I noted were also clearly, even obviously, egregious.

  65. John

    Steve Fielding of Family First had, in my opinion, the best suggestion in regards to refugees.
    For every boat person coming here we take two from UNHCR camps and send the boat person to a UNHCR camp (or they can go back home). That way we ensure that if a boat person whose life is truly in danger lives in relative safety and we help only genuine refugees.

  66. .

    That’s actually pretty clever.

  67. Pusnip

    Sorry _ but the plural of anecdote is not data. You mention a couple of regulation that, from your description, sound unduly onerous. I do not doubt that some are. My point was about the simplistic indicators – such as the volume of legislation – by business groups and others to support their claims about drowning in red-tape.

  68. .

    No, you have not produced data, you have produced “I don’t know”.

    They were examples, and I never said they were data.

    Your point is a load of crap. What do you think happens to those “anecdotes” when more and more pages of legislation and regulation is approved?

    You have admitted you are clueless and have proceeded to further this as an “argument”.

  69. stackja

    Abolish the ALP. Most trouble caused by ALP creating ‘rights’ and ‘entitlements’.

  70. Pusnip

    So, not knowing something that you also don’t know makes me ‘clueless’. LOL
    Anyhow, I’ve made the point I wanted to. I’ll leave playing the man to you.

  71. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.
    — Winston Churchill

  72. .

    I’ll leave playing the man to you.

    Now there’s a LOL.

    You had no point at all other than to run interference for regulation fo regulation’s sake, you naive child.

  73. Andrew

    Steve Fielding of Family First had, in my opinion, the best suggestion in regards to refugees. For every boat person coming here we take two from UNHCR camps and send the boat person to a UNHCR camp

    Think I heard something similar from TLS. Except the Great Negotiator offered 4:1 (we got the 4, and they never had to take the 1 due to her inept drafting). Personally I think (1+1/n):1 swap has some merit. But the govt has said they wouldn’t send people to third countries that aren’t signatories. And the crying Hockey vetoing sending unaccompanied minors means an incentive to fill boats with kids.

  74. Notafan

    There are special rules regarding family reunion for minors which is another reason they have been sent. There are also issues ‘re adults bringing unrelated minors who may have STDs. Mr Morrison had stood firm however and they are flying unaccompanied minors home to Sri Lanka and the others to Narua and Manus.

  75. TerjeP

    I think a paid immigration visa would substantially reduce the demand for illegal boat journeys to Australia. I would envisage a price tag around $25k based on the per capita value of our public infrastructure. Others have proposed a fee more like $50k. Obviously those with a criminal record would still need to be filtered out.

    $25k for permanent residency is only a little more than the cost of an illegal boat ride. A little bit more expense but a vastly superior product should skim off the smart affluent migrants and somewhat reduce the viability of the illegal trade. You would still need to police the border but it should be a lot easier.

    If you migrate to Australia you dilute our equity in public infrastructure (eg space on the road etc). However if you pay a $25k contribution on the way in this argument essentially disappears.

    An immigration fee allows migrants to self select based on their prospects in Australia. If you can’t justify a $25k infrastructure contribution and the general cost of housing etc then you won’t come.

    Of course if charities want to pay the fee for special case individuals they could do that. And if the government wants to give discounts to certain people (eg nurses) that would work also.

    An immigration tariff along these lines is LDP policy.

    More thoughts here:-

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2011/02/13/giving-away-our-sovereignty/

Comments are closed.