LibertyWorks in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia | Community organisation

LibertyWorks

Locality: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Community organisation

25.01.2022 ’ . #FreeZoe Pregnant mum Zoe was arrested and put in handcuffs at her home in Ballarat, Victoria and taken to a police station and charged by the Victoria Police with the crime of 'incitement' under the Victorian Crimes Act. She posted on Facebook about a planned protest and now faces a criminal conviction and a $19,000 fine. IN AUSTRALIA, HAVING YOUR SAY SHOULDN'T PUT YOU IN HANDCUFFS... With the support of Zoe and her family, LibertyWorks has established the 'Zoe Buhler Legal Defence Fund' to help pay Zoe's legal costs. Please support Zoe and show Dan Andrews this is not ok Please help by sharing this widely #freezoe https://give.libertyworks.org.au/free-zoe-buhler

25.01.2022 CPAC Australia 2020 is on!!

20.01.2022 CPAC LIVE in Washington DC with Matt Schlapp interviews Andrew Cooper of CPAC Australia and LibertyWorks.

18.01.2022 I've written a lengthy response here to an observation by Peter Shep that a pandemic would spark a recession even if there was no government interventions. I've... digressed into discussing philosophically a much different approach to this pandemic, I would like to hear your thoughts. ------------- I agree a pandemic would probably drive a recession even without government interventions. But imo that's not an argument for interventions, it actually becomes evidence that interventions are largely unnecessary. Why? Well a recession brought about by the free will of individuals acting in their own best interests, rather than the hammer and sickle of authoritarianism, shows that people will respond to the "incentives" in front of them; to stay alive, to stay healthy, to distance themselves from others. I will also argue that if left unfettered, the free will of individuals will lead to much less worse outcomes than government dictates and certainly lead to a faster post recession recovery. The bad outcomes of government interventions are beginning to become clear now. $200 billion in debt already, recession assured, police and the army creating internment camps, fines soon for leaving homes, incitement for mob rule, unconstitutionally shutting down state borders... on and on. What more is to come? Family breakdowns? Suicides? Long term unemployed? Riots? Societal dysfunction? These outcomes... are we expected to accept them unthinkingly? Surely we can allow ourselves to ask what would happen if the government did very little instead? How would it work if we were left to fend for ourselves like adults? You may already know much of what I will say but I shall persist. The vulnerable would assume that it's "dangerous out there", particularly without the assurances from government that they are "doing something" to protect them. Maybe fear and panic would be even greater than it is now? Regardless, people would act in their perceived self interest, we always do. The vulnerable would be reluctant to leave home, probably most of us would stay home too, at least until we understood the risks. If they did venture out they would take serious precautions; masks, washing their hands, keeping THEIR distance etc. This risk averse behaviour would place great pressure on businesses, as Peter rightly points out. Layoffs would occur and a recession would be likely. But businesses desperate to stay open, left to their own devices, have a great capacity to innovate, to look at the market and give people what they want. Isn't it possible to see cafes advertising their safety credentials, shop assistants serving with masks and protective clothing, tables sanitised theatrically after every sitting... who knows what a highly incentivised business owner would do to stay solvent? But at least they would have a chance. Authoritarianism has now ensured their destruction. And those that enjoy a cafe latte have been stripped of their choice to enjoy that latte and to support their favourite shop owner. Social cohesion is severed. Under this scenario, and scarily for some, over time the young and fit would learn that their risks are low. Many might still take precautions but some might also decide that life is actually worth living, that the risks are so low for them that going to the beach on a hot day is better for them than home detention. That enjoying that cafe latte with friends, that supporting their favourite business is better. Who is the government to say what an individual should value most? Oh yeah, that's right... people will get the virus. But this concern predisposes that the plan right now is to stop people getting the virus. It's not! The plan right now is to flatten the curve, ease people through the hospital system minimising spikes, and wait until either herd immunity builds up or a miracle vaccination emerges. There is no other plan. Starving the virus and isolating Australia until a vaccine is found is not on the table. Digressing for a moment, this is where the well intentioned but dishonest narrative of the government will bite them. Most people are ignorant of this reality, that between 30% and 70% of Australians are required to get the virus in order for the vulnerable to be safe. Once they understand that this is the only viable solution they will feel betrayed. Then look out. So would the curve flatten without the $200 billion in spend? Well I would argue that the government's role should be one of guide not central planner. To me the best role for this government is to provide honest, frank advice and help disseminate that information. The elderly and vulnerable and those around them should be certain that the risks to them are very real. That if they do not take precautions they could die a horrible death. If the government was clear that the only option is to manage the infection rate of up to 15 million Australians, then all Australians would know how damn serious this is and act in their own self interest. And some would act in surprising ways. I for one have thought that rationally having my children and I infected now would be a good thing. We could get this out of the way, we could see my mother again, the kids could see their grandparents. With immunity I could become a productive member of society again. And at the moment if things went badly the hospitals are still clear. Most importantly, I cease to be a risk to the vulnerable! I would join the growing herd, and I would feel very good about that. This is what we want, to have the least vulnerable become infected and to recover from the virus as quickly and as safely as possible so that we protect the vulnerable. This is what we must have. Why is the government and their controllers, the medical advisers, not open about this? So the young, healthy and fit may take more risks. The young always take more risks, right? Instead of fretting over this, we should know that this is ultimately a good thing for the vulnerable! The quicker the young and healthy recover from the virus the quicker herd immunity can protect the vulnerable. Can you see its now very easy to mount an ethical argument that encourages young to party on Bondi beach rather than enforce beach closures? Why are minimal government interventions better? Well, free markets respond to new information far quicker than the government, we know this right? There is significant information emerging that indicates the Case Fatality Rates (the % of those with the virus who die) are far lower than originally predicted, likely to be between one fifth to one tenth of the numbers used to justify these interventions in the first place. Globally researchers are adjusting downwards their gloomy initial death rate forecasts. So what does the government do with this new information? Well, nothing. No, actually that's not true, they double and triple down on their earlier interventions. They learn the hard way that once you start central planning the unintended consequences of every plan requires more central planning... more taxpayer debt, more destruction. In contrast, what does a market do with new information? It responds incredibly quickly. Individuals acting out of self-interest recalibrate their risks and priorities. It's easy to see the young filling the bars and cafes soon if they were allowed... they know their health risks are low. This may scare the vulnerable, but with greater honesty and understanding of the herd immunity plan from the government, they would know to keep their distance, to stay safe, to shun the young and risky. But also with greater understanding of herd immunity they would refrain from mob condemnation and would appreciate that their safety ultimately depends upon the young and the reckless to survive the virus. Say that slowly... the vulnerable would know that their survival depends upon the young and healthy. Changes everything doesn't it? Social cohesion can strengthen during times of crisis if people truly understand what this will take. And as the young are joined by the recovered and immune, businesses would restart or stay afloat, they would adapt, the economy would respond far quicker, dole queues would shrink, mental health would improve, infection rates would begin to drop. Clearly, if left to its own devices the market would roar back far quicker than left to the dead hand of the state. And, finally, at the end we would all know that we owe a great and heartfelt debt to the young and the reckless, those millennials that are so despised by Xers and boomers, a small but tragic percentage of whom will not recover. But no, instead of that opportunity for gratitude we intend to leave them with $200 billion to pay off over their lifetime. It's simply appalling.

16.01.2022 The Zoe Buhler Legal Defence Fund is near $60,000 now which is terrific. If you can donate please do so, helping Zoe helps all of us by ensuring crazy authoritarians don't use bad laws to come down on others. Let's get justice for Zoe and put Dan Andrews back in his box #FreeZoe If you can't donate, please share in some way... just as the wonderful Jennifer Marohasy has. ... https://libertyworks.org.au/freezoe

16.01.2022 Alan Jones @ CPAC Australia 2020!

16.01.2022 High Court Challenge.

15.01.2022 Antifa protested CPAC Australia, chanting incomprehensible drivel and shutting down streets in the Sydney CBD. But CPAC attendees counter protested and even "li...berated" the Antifa flag. Legends! Terrorists? Pffft... weak as p#*s. See you in November pussies... You might even get to view your bedsheet flag again.

15.01.2022 To address criticism of the 3-step plan being overcomplicated, LibertyWorks researchers have come up with a simpler version.

14.01.2022 LibertyWorks in Seoul supporting CPAC Korea.

11.01.2022 Andrew Cooper and Lyndal Maloney on stage this afternoon at CPAC 2020 discussing the inaugural CPAC event in Sydney last year with hosts from CPAC Brazil, Korea, and Japan.

10.01.2022 Peta Credlin and Andrew Cooper discuss the High Court challenge to the Foreign Influence Scheme

07.01.2022 Mercedes Schlapp CPAC 2020. A short excerpt of her talk just now. Her opening words: Socialism sucks.... #cpac #cpac2020 #cpacaustralia

07.01.2022 Andrew Cooper and Lyndal Maloney with Republican Congressman Bruce Westerman and KT McFarland, former White House deputy national security adviser, at the invitation-only Congressional Reception event at CPAC 2020. #cpac #cpac2020 #cpacaustralia

04.01.2022 An announcement on CPAC Australia

03.01.2022 LibertyWorks president and CPAC Australia host Andrew Cooper caught in a deep state web. "I will not be complying with this notice despite the threat of criminal prosecution and jail time, he said. I established LibertyWorks to argue against this type of government control over speech and citizens. I will not sell out our speakers and delegates by kowtowing to government overlords.

03.01.2022 We hope the coalition can reign in the States and get the economy moving again... fast! Because it's not pretty.

01.01.2022 This is freedom under attack!