Yum. As I write this I’m eating my birthday cake. Last Wednesday (21 October) Kristy slaved away in the kitchen for hours, burning the chocolate and being laughed at by Ben, and the outcome was a chocolate cake with chocolate icing toped with chocolate covered strawberries. I’m sure it’s healthy.

Kristy was fattening me up to celebrate my 11,323rd day on earth. Otherwise known as 31 years. Or just “old”.

The day before she took me out to dinner at KFC. And then made me pay. Then on the Thursday (my 31st B’day, 22 October) she gave me old-person nappies. Evil girlfriend. If I also mention the other presents & taking me to an awesome Jazz-Sushi restaurant on the Friday then she’ll look nicer… so I won’t do that.

On my birthday evening I went out to dinner with a few friends — Parnell, Stephen, Eugene, Luke, Jason, Lucy & Luke2. Thanks guys. Luke and I tried out a “herbal ecstasy” which worked quite well (and only $30 for 3), and left us awake at early hours talking crap.

I’ve been a bit annoyed with myself lately. During the work-week I spend too long in the office, and on the weekends I spend too much time indoors getting fat. I’ve been looking forward to summer & the beach… but the weather isn’t playing along. We did go for a walk to Randwick on Saturday (watched “An Education” & had pizza), and went to Bondi beach on Sunday evening (walking around & asian food), and hopefully I’ll remember to get out more as it heats up.

One competing priority is alcohol. On Thursday night I was drinking with the “usual suspects” at Kings Cross… on Saturday night I went to a house party & the Rege with Kristy’s friends… on Monday night I was drinking again with some old traveling friends who were in town for the night. Not sure how to mix a party lifestyle with a desire to get healthy, save money, work hard and wake up early… but I’ll have another chance to practice the compromise this w/e… with four mini-parties already planned, as well as Sexpo.

Was riding my motorbike (blue Honda VFR750) through an intersection the other day and nearly got taken out by a car turning through my lane. It wasn’t really his fault as he didn’t have a clear sight of me until the last second. Freaked me out though. People joke about motorbike riders being “temporary Australians”. Well, sure… but that’s true for everybody.

I think the fun is worth the extra risk. But there is a risk.

My first bike accident was on my first bike, a Yamaha 200 trail bike that I got when the family moved to the farm (1995, age 16). But everybody stacks it riding around a farm; no big deal.

My first serious accident was the most dangerous. I had just upgraded from my blue Mini Deluxe (my first car) to a red Honda CB250 (my first road bike) in 3rd year uni (1998, age 19). Some friends and I had just finished some version of indoor sports… it was a three-sport comp that alternated between indoor netball, volleyball & soccer… and I was pulling out of the driveway. I checked right, then left, then pulled out and was hit on the right by a car that had just come around the corner.

If I had been a bit slower I would have been hit directly front-on and would have been in a lot of trouble, but as it was I caught the front edge of the car and was thrown onto the other side of the road. At that point I noticed another car was coming from the other direction and decided I shouldn’t stay lying on the road ,so I managed to stand up, take a few steps, and dive off the road. It was only a few seconds later that I realised I was in a world of pain and my right ankle was totally buggered.

I couldn’t really move, but the car driver seemed more distraught than me and I remember telling her it was going to be OK and she didn’t have to worry. The ambulance came, but I didn’t know whether I had ambulance insurance. At the time I was a poor student living on about half the poverty line, so I decided to get a lift with a friend instead. I was on crutches for months, and I still double-check to the right when I’m at similar intersections.

My second serious accident wasn’t as serious. I was on my way to tafe, where I was doing a certificate in sign language with my then g/f May as a side-hobby during my honours year (1999, age 20)… and I dropped the bike going around a corner in the wet. Some people pay lots of money to have fake ripped jeans. I got my genuine rips (and blood stains) for free. Win.

I had another bike in Canberra… a blue Honda XBR500 “thumper” (called that because they only have one cyclinder)… but had no bike accidents there. And that brings me to my current bike which I bought while tutoring political economy at UQ in 2007. No real accidents that year either (though I did drop the bike once while it wasn’t moving).

But earlier this year (2009, age 30) I did have one more stack, breaking too hard on the painted part of the road. Many car drivers don’t know this, but the painted part of the road (the lines & signs) are a lot more slippery than the normal road. A few scratches & dents (on me & the bike) but we both still worked fine.

One thing I have noticed riding this year compared to previous years… I’m becoming more aware of the dangers. I think it’s called “getting old”. Old people call it “getting sensible” but the youngsters know it as “getting boring”. Sometimes, especially when riding through the Sydney tunnels for some reason, I look around and think about how easy it would be for something to go wrong. At that point I have to force myself to go a bit faster just to show myself that I’m not really worried.

Not sure what speed I do though… because the speedo stopped working a while ago.

So… riding a bike can be dangerous and my current bike is scratched, broken and old. Which leads me to the point of this blog post — does anybody want to buy my bike?

No, not that sort of drug story. Last week (Thursday 8/10/09) I went along to a presentation by Norm Stamper from the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Go join. The CIS doesn’t normally do these sorts of issues, so it was good to see them making an exception in this case. Norm made all the usual arguments for drug legalisation, and there was general agreement. As Milton Friedman said, drug prohibition (like conscription) is an idea so obviously bad that it is easy to win the argument… the problem is actually getting people to listen to the argument.

No, I’m not going back to uni. At least, not yet. But last week I had a bit of fun marking the presentations of business Masters students. Michael Peters lectures in business law and was short two markers, so he invited Kristy & I to help out… along with some other lawyers, the head of toastmasters and ex-politician Cheryl Kernot. It was interesting enough.

Afterwards we went out for dinner and had a rambling discussion about Greek-Turkish relations (Michael is Greek, and has worked as a lobbyist against Turkey entering the EU), political bias and how Michael once wrote a book with John Howard. On Friday at the Quadrant book launch I asked Howard if he remembered Michael Peters, and he said “no”. And that, boys and girls, is the problem with name-dropping.

As for getting pierced… yes I did. Three weeks ago (26/09/09) I finally got my left nipple and the top of my left ear pierced, as I had been planning for months. A brief dash of pain, then a few days of awkwardness, and then some shinny new toys.

Oops. Another drinking misdemeanor on the record. Well, two actually.

Friday evening (16/10/09) I went along to the Quadrant book launch for Frank Devine’s collection of essays called “older and wiser”. I never knew Frank, but I often enjoyed his writing. He did write once about the LDP and our policy of voluntary voting (a cause he also believed in).

There was a good turn-out for the book launch, with Keith Windshuttle, John Howard and Miranda Devine all saying a few words. I ran into some of the “usual suspects” (Parnell, Eugene, Stephen) and swapped a few words with some people I had been wanting to meet (Tom Switzer, Des Moore) before escaping for dinner with the usual suspects + 1.

It was the (+1) that sparked the first misdemeanor. On finding out I was an anarchist she continued to sprinkle frustratingly uninformed and condescending commentary through the conversation. It was when I was trying to defend my friend (and anarchist businessman) Nev Kennards from the accusation of hypocrisy that my blood started to boil. It was my own fault. I just shouldn’t take what people say seriously. But once you combine a few drinks with a bad mood I’m a lost cause for the next half hour. I got grumpy and walked off… (mea culpa)

But Sydney is a big town, so my night wasn’t over. I caught up with Jason at Darlo bar and we were soon joined by Kristy, Eugene, Stephen, Parnell, and quite a few beers. After a range of rambling conversations about important topics (like martial arts) the party broke up and Kristy & I stumbled home. And this was the scene for misdemeanor #2.

Once home, the beers were joined by some weed & maccas… and the next thing I remember I woke up outside my apartment without my pants, or keys, or phone, or wallet, or capacity for rational thought. Why was I there? How did I get there? Where were my pants? How could I get inside?

Then I remembered that I had spare keys at Kristy’s house… so clearly the only sensible thing to do would be to go outside (in only shirt & underwear, at 4am) and catch at taxi to Kristy’s house. But then in the taxi, a few other thoughts occurred to me. How would I get into Kristy’s apartment block without keys? And isn’t she at my house anyway? Oops.

The taxi driver kindly lent me his mobile phone so I could call my phone… and in the end I spent $30 on a late night taxi ride to nowhere and came home to face the mockery from creature.

I am not on welfare, and I don’t believe in government income redistribution… so according to the research done by American Professor Arthur Brooks, I should be more likely to give to charity, give more to charity, do more volunteering, be more honest, help the homeless, give blood and more willing to help friends & family.

Perhaps.

At the beginning of this year I lent $8000 to my then housemate, who I hadn’t known for long. He was in financial trouble while waiting for his house to be re-financed. After thinking about it for a while, I decided to lend him the money. Some people at work (especially the lefties) thought I was mad, and were sure that I would never see the money again. I tried to argue the importance of community and personally helping people who need help, but they just dismissed those silly ideas as idealistic nonsense.

Perhaps.

But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and err on the side of helping people who don’t deserve it, rather than assuming the worst of people and not helping a friend in trouble. This means I will be disappointed by humans sometimes… but I prefer to be occasionally disappointed rather than permanently bitter and distrustful.

It turns out this time that I was right to help my housemate, and while it took him a while to get back on his feet and repay the loan, he eventually did.

Of course, these stories don’t always have a happy ending. But often they do. And it is nice when they work out because they justify my faith in humanity. Generally speaking, humans are able to coordinate voluntarily and deal with the problems we face.The power of community is often under-estimated and under-valued, especially by those who want to replace voluntary community with government programs. Not only are voluntary communities generally more effective and efficient, but they are food for the soul.

Kraft recently decided to badge their new-style vegemite as iSnack 2.0 — so bad that they almost made Hitler cry. None of that silliness here. My funky high-tech play on words is much more sophisticated. Because “i” really do “read”. Yeah. Take that evil multinational.

Off the Rails in Phnom Penh (by Amit Gilboa) — a very interesting look into the Cambodia of 10 years ago, including the “guns, girls and ganja”. It shows how useless the UN was, how dodgy the ex-pats can be, and how fact can be stranger than fiction.

What it means to be a libertarian (by Charles Murray) — Excellent book, and a great introduction to libertarian politics. Murray could be the “new Friedman”. He builds a strong case for human freedom, and does it in a way that will influence the way people think. Now one of my favourite modern scholars.

Adam Smith — A Primer (By Eamonn Butler) — an easy introduction to the main writings of the great Scottish thinker Adam Smith. Apparently, Smith was kidnapped by Gypsies when he was four years old. Oh, he also wrote a few best-selling books.

In Praise of Elitism (Charles Murray, Denis Dutton, Claire Fox) — a short compilation of essays on the idea that it’s better to be good at things. Murry points out that half the population is below average and that we tend to rely on the most gifted in most endeavours so we should stop hating them. Dutton points out that the best group size for humans tends to be around 10 and that we have a reverse hierachy ethos which encourages us to pull down tall poppies.

Smothered by the Security Blanket (by Caspar Conde) — Another short essay, this time on how the government is trying to take the risk out of life. Conde argues against the paternalistic state (anti-freedom, learned helplessness, economically costly) and points to the alternative approaches to risk, such as ‘nudge theory’ (aka ‘libertarian paternalism’), public education campaigns, and laissez faire. The last is the best, of course.

Pension Provision: Government Failure Around the World (IEA compilation) — I read this in preparation for my Festival of Dangerous Ideas speech, and it proved helpful (though a bit dull in parts). Government pensions drive down savings and retirement ages, are unsustainable because of the ageing population, destroy community & family networks and provide lower returns anyway.

Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics (by David Green) — This is a fascinating look at friendly societies and other similar groups that I call the ‘community welfare sector’. I estimate that these covered about 55% of British society by 1911 and that number was growing fast — providing health & welfare benefits (as well as social & personal benefits) to the members, without the need for government.

(Happy Birthday mum)

Well, the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is over for 2009. Thousands of people, a range of interesting speakers, some laughter, some anger and some rain.

The first talk I saw was Keysar Trad on Polygamy. He made the point that in all cultures, through all time, there has been an issue of people having multiple partners. The only options seem to be (1) building more perfect people; (2) having secret affairs; or (3) having more honest polygamous relationships. A fair point I thought. I also agree with him that men have a greater propensity to cheat than women. Keysar was arguing the standard Islam line, which allows polygamy (multiple wives) but does not allow polyandry (multiple husbands) and this is where I think there was a mistake. Both should be allowed.

Next talk was Ray Evans on labour markets (hosted by Michael Duffy, who had quoted me in the SMH that same day), and it was a fairly standard free-market angle. Let children get jobs so they can learn responsibility. Let low-productivity people get jobs so they can start working their way up in the workforce.

On Saturday night there was the presentation by Christopher Hitchens, which was a lot of fun. He is, above all else, a great performer. For people who had already read his book (“god is not great”) there was nothing really new, except Hitchens reciting a Monty Python song. Then there was the after-party. I left at midnight, but my friend (ex-housemate Ben) stuck around and ended up eating & drinking with Hitchens & friends until past 4am.

Sunday was my day to talk. But first I went along to listen to Germaine Greer. From what I had seen of her previously, she seemed fairly nuts. But this performance was both entertaining and (occasionally) quite sensible. She gave a good defence of freedom (“leave me alone”), but then gets confused about what it really means.

Then it was my first job for the day, playing host to Admiral Chris Barrie as he spoke about bringing back conscription. The most interesting part in my opinion was the discussion of what sort of punishment would be used for non-complying citizens — Barrie suggested a higher marginal income tax. The alternative (which I suggested to him afterwards) is to not talk about conscription, but instead offer a lower marginal income tax for people who perform some sort of national service (military or otherwise).

And finally, it was my turn. Besides a problem with the microphone in the first 5 minutes, I think it went well enough. I passed my basic criteria for success by not making a total fool of myself… and then I think I may have entertained and/or educated a few people. Strangely, my host (ABC presenter Stephen Crittenden) really tried to get stuck into me during questions. I had given him a run-down of what I was going to say a few days earlier, and clearly he decided it was his job to save people from believing my evil talk. It led to a good debate, which was the idea of the festival. Perhaps they should have “discussants” for all speakers?

Thanks to my friends for showing up in support.

After that, I could relax. I listened briefly to Julian Savulescu, met up with a friend from Canberra (hi Robyn & friends) and then went to the comedy gala to close the festival, including some funny stuff by Eddie Perfect & band and Reggie Watts, a great speech against the nanny state by Jean Kittson, and a fake-naked Judith Lucy. Afterwards, another after-party. This time it was my turn to stay out until past 4am, drinking free opera house wine with some of the organisers (Graham, Tess & Claire), the band (Alon, Mick & Luke) and Reggie.

Tomorrow (5:45pm, Sunday 4 October) I will be giving a talk at the inaugural Festival of Dangerous Ideas (FoDI), at the Sydney Opera House. My topic is that “the old should pay for themselves”, and specifically I’ll be talking about getting rid of the old-age pension and other aged care. Click on the below image for more details.

I first heard about FoDI back in May when Simon Longstaff (Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre) e-mailed me to see if the Australian Libertarian Society could nominate a controversial speaker for the newly formed Festival. After a few discussions, I ended up not only as a speaker, but also as a member of the steering committee.

The Festival is a joint effort from the Sydney Opera House and the St James Ethics Centre and will be an annual event aimed at challenging people’s everyday assumptions with “dangerous” and innovative ideas. Other talks this year include “religion poisons everything” by Christopher Hitchens, “freedom is dangerous” by Germaine Greer, “yes to child labour” by Ray Evans, “why polygamy is good” by Keysar Trad, “bring back conscription” by Admiral Barrie, “genetically enchance humans” by Julian Savulescu, “end african aid” by Dambisa Moyo and many other interesting talks.

If you have some spare time this afternoon or tomorrow, get along to the Sydney Opera House and join the discussion. Most tickets are $20 (Student price $10), with Hitchens, Greer & Moyo costing a bit more.

I’ll be going along to the “polygamy” and “yes to child labour” talks today, and the Christopher Hitchens talk tonight. Tomorrow I’ll be giving my talk, and also introducing the talk by Admiral Barrie on conscription. If I have time, I’ll also try to get along to Germaine Greer and the “genetically modify humans” talks before going to the “dangerously funny” comedy night.

I have spent much of the last week preparing for my talk, and with one day to go I’m starting to get nervous.

I don’t think I’m a bad public speaker, but neither am I a particularly good one. As I’ve said to friends, if I just started ranting at a pub and 100 people showed up, that would be fine. But if you put 100 people in a room and ask me to go in and rant, I’m nervous. My mind slows down and I have to follow my script instead of talking freely. I forget to smile. But the only solution is to just keep doing it, and hopefully over time I’ll become more confident.

Shocking news has just come to light that suggests the “wanker-gate” episode may in fact by the work of one Liam Tjia, aka Maxwell Woldseth.

The incident began at 12:10pm on Friday 25 September when a suspicious e-mail was allegedly sent from the e-mail account of the teeth-clenching philanthropist Dr Joseph Clark, esquire. The e-mail read:

“Hi everyone. I just wanted you all to know- I am a complete w*nker”

Sources close to the Liberal party say that Malcolm Turnbull considered exposing the e-mail in parliament, until warned that it may indeed be a fraud, fake, fabrication and various other words starting with “f”.

Authorities at first suspected Godwin Grech as the author of the forgery, but during the course of their investigation they shifted their focus to the shadowy underworld figure known as Maxwell Woldseth. Little is known of Mr Woldseth except that he appears to be a dog, and he denies the allegation that he has been involved in drug smuggling, money laundering, male prostitution, cross-dressing or terrorist links. Asked to comment on these most recent allegations, Mr Worldseth responded by barking and then peeing on a tree.

This reporter can now reveal that Mr Woldseth is none other than the award-winning neuro-scientist, pool shark and vagabond Liam “the stud” Tjia. The exact nature of his “dog-man” existence remains unclear, though may explain his why Tjia has been seen in public licking his balls and humping people’s legs.

Mystery remains surrounding the exact meaning of the original e-mail. Is it a code calling on the rise of the dog-men for the inevitable march on parliament? Was it a case of e-mail tourette syndrome? One linguist pointed out that the acronym from the e-mail (HEIJWYATKIAACW), when translated from sanskrit, means “kill the infidels, and buy some milk on your way home”. At the moment nothing is clear, except that someone, somewhere is probably masturbating right now. Think about it.

The first night of our travels was spent in Singapore. Kristy, Joe, Ashley (+g/f) and myself met up with Phil, Anthony (+g/f) and Izzy (aka SPG). There was dinner, with normal chit-chat & drinks. Then back to Phil’s place for more drinks and a some  political debate. All quite polite and friendly I thought.

Unfortunately, I must have offended Phil. Through facebook & his blog he explained to the world that I am a naive, old, pathological, narcissist, arrogant, bastard, nerd with a bad comb-over. Ouch.

I guess Phil joins my growing online anti-fan club. Oh well. But for my own sake, I thought I’d do some honest introspection regarding the above charges…

Naive — not guilty. I certainly don’t believe everything I’m told, and my views are neither simple nor unsophisticated. I think this criticism comes from a misunderstanding of libertarianism. Some people think that libertarians believe in utopia where all people are nice, free people never make mistakes, and freedom leads to perfect outcomes. That would be naive. But of course, nobody believes that. Indeed, it is somewhat naive to think that libertarianism is so simple and unsophisticated.

Old – guilty. Well, the actual words were “not-so-young-as-he-thinks” which is obviously wrong because I know I’m 30. But that is old. Indeed, this is the oldest I’ve ever been in my entire life.

Pathological – maybe. I guess whether I’m diseased or mentally disturbed depends on you perception of “normal”. I don’t really care about “normal”, so this is a non-issue for me.

Narcissist – depends what you mean. If it means “self-love” then yes. Of course. I feel sorry for people who hate themselves, or are indifferent to themselves. I’m not saying I’m a better human than anybody else, but I admit I’m very interested in making sure this “me” creature lives a good life and is happy.But if it means “fascination with myself” then no. What fascinates me are ideas — especially metaphysics, moral philosophy and political philosophy.And if it means “self-centered” then again I plead not guilty. I have some concern for all humans, and I care a lot about a select few. I believe in helping strangers a bit, and helping friends/family a lot.

Arrogant – depends what you mean. I have heard this criticism enough times that it must be true. I certainly do think that I’m quite smart — by which I mean speed of rational thinking ability. I think I’m fairly quick at picking up new skills, I’m good at economics & political philosophy, I am adaptable to different situations, and I am intellectually honest and open-minded. If this makes me arrogant, then so be it. Though I find this a strange definition of arrogant, and really no different to the positive words “confident” or simply “honest self-assessment”. Would it be arrogant if a fast swimmer thought they were fast, or if a tall person thought they were tall? I am equally quick to admit my many faults — I can’t cook, can’t spell, I’m ordinary looking, can do many things but few of them to a high level, I can be too loud & talkative, I’m getting fatter, I have a bad memory, can’t build/fix things, and many other short-comings. The only negative meaning of arrogance that makes sense to me is (1) to consistently over-estimate yourself; or (2) to think that you’re an inherently better person. I don’t think the first is true, and I know the second isn’t true because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “better person”. You can be better at maths, or rugby, or the guitar. But I don’t think a human can just be “better”. My follow up question to that concept is “better at what”? I think the arrogant charge is mostly because I’m loud and talkative. I’m not sure that “arrogant” is the correct synonym, but perhaps it is.

Bastard – yes & no. No, because my parents were married on 1 October 1977 and I was born on 22 October 1978. Yes, because I enjoy throwing friendly insults back and forward among friends.

Nerd — I don’t think so. While working at CIE (2002-04) Marcia explained to me the difference between nerds and geeks, and she proudly insisted she was a geek. The difference, apparently, was that geeks have sex. If “nerd” means somebody who is interested in intellectual pursuits, then I’m a nerd. But I take “nerd” to mean somebody who is only interested in intellectual pursuits, at the expense of their social life. That’s certainly not true — unless drinking, rugby, cricket, drugs, scuba diving, fire-dancing and traveling are considered intellectual pursuits. Though in Phil’s defence, perhaps it is nerdy to do introspection.

Bad comb-over — This one hurt. As I wrote several years ago, and have since been too embarrassed to repeat, I am acutely aware that baldness runs in my family and that my hairline isn’t were it used to be. Since finding some magic hair drugs I don’t think it’s gotten any worse, but it hasn’t gotten any better. But having said that, the comb-over crack is unfair. My current hair-cut strategy is to recognise that my hair always looks crap so my best bet is to give up so at least I have an excuse. Then just push my hair out of my eyes and delete the worst of the photos. I haven’t had a proper haircut in over a year… instead just doing some of my own random trimming or letting drunk people at parties cut off what they want. Maybe it’s time for a haircut?

And that completes my introspection. Many people will agree with the “arrogant bastard” (loud & talkative) part, but otherwise I think Phil was mostly wrong in his one-night drunken assessment of my character. Of course, the comments were probably simply intended to insult and belittle me, so the truth wasn’t relevant to the cause. But it gave me a chance for some honest self-assessment, so we’re all winners.

Before I go, a brief response to Phil’s philosophical points.

Phil says it is “ironic” that we don’t want to pay high prices for drinks, and he says that Singapore drink prices are a result of a free market. I suggest it is quite normal for people to prefer lower prices in comparison to higher prices, and Singapore has a very high alcohol tax as well as licencing restrictions so the price certainly isn’t the result of the free market.

Next, he says that libertarians “pick and choose policies amongst the Left and Right and therefore they have no cohesive historical philosophical underpinning [except for Rand & Friedman]“. I found this one quite amusing. Apparently, believing in (social) freedom and believing in (economic) freedom is not cohesive. In Phil’s framework, freedom (by which I mean voluntary behaviour & human self-ownership) is not a sufficient philosophical underpinning, and he also seems ignorant of the >200 year history of the idea. From the 18th century (Smith, Jefferson, Paine) through the 19th century (Mill, Ricardo, Menger, Spencer, Bastiat) through the 20th century (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hazzlit) the simple of ideas of self-ownership and voluntary interaction have a long history. In contrast, I would suggest that modern “left” and “right” are mostly meaningless political labels.

Last, Phil suggests that I asked a question about whether we should be more or less controlled. No. What I said was that for human behaviour, either a person makes their own decision or somebody else makes that decision for them. Phil didn’t agree with that, so the conversation couldn’t progress.