Neat little article, David. And just one more example of how Australia, like the UK, USA and Europe, have been dragged to the Left, which is inhabited by those whose motto has always been, "We know better". Pity they don't because life would be soooo simple.

Indeed David. And none need it more than those moribund morons who'd like to turn back the clock on smoking and bike helmets. Who clearly would like to personally replace it?

We have a nanny state to be sure, with lots of folks jostling for a turn at the nipple? None more so than the we know best, tail wagging the dog, senators only there by patent deceit?

And former parliamentarians living high on the hogg on a ultra generous Government pension, may you collect yours soon and just allow democracy to be the final abitor on how we would be governed and by who.
Alan B.

Don't worry David only a few more months.

Very true Cobber.

After Senator Leyonhjelm's shock elevation to the Senate his balding Dodo-like departure will be sorely missed

- be two or three punters.

Paraphrasing Credlin's little helper Abbott - was it not Leyonhjelm who uttered:

"Turn back the bike helmuts"?

I hope this Senator is reelected; he has more intelligence and know how than the rest of them put together. A pox on 99.9% of politicians all the non-elected 'experts', and the nannies who think they know best.

Ttbn. Couldn't agree more. Every time I read his writings it 'just makes sense'. Would be excellent to have half a dozen 'like thinking' senators holding the balance of power there. Even better, a half dozen on the floor and most of the idiocy wouldn't even make it to the senate at all.
When the 'success' of a parliament is measured by the 'number of bills passed', is it any wonder we are in such an over governed nanny state?
Too many empty vessels making touch noise!
Every piece of legislation/regulation should have an automatic sunset clause written into it. When more $ are poured into education, with a corresponding decline in educational outcomes, you have to wonder where we are heading.

I was waiting for a discussion on Brexit to share this following linked video, but I'm going to share it now instead, as I really want others to see it.

Its a bit of an eye opener when you realise the country represented in the corner of our flag doesn't even have the power to make or change laws placed upon them in their own country.

Please take the time to watch it, we all need to be aware of where bad decision by governments can potentially take us.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCATXCgC0kSWQDOQLtgP5Mbg

Leyno, gun for every Nanny, has my vote.

plantagenet,

I'll miss him, even though I disagree with him on most issues. Rights are important, and it's good to have at least one senator reminding the rest of that fact.

Although I’m on the other side of the political fence, I tend to like this guy’s work. He’s a divergent thinker.

However, he is not divergent enough in his thinking to acknowledge that the nanny state is rife on both Right and Left. Instead, he prefers to see nanny state thinking as purely a leftist PC problem.

Yet, on the Right, the nanny state has always been alive and well, which is why euthanasia, marijuana and, until recently, same sex marriage have remained illegal despite overwhelming public opposition. What would the majority know? It’s for our own good.

It’s why abortion is still on the statute books as ‘illegal’. It’s for women’s own good and the protection of the unborn. Yet, supporting single mothers is a no-no. These uppity women have to realise that, if they reject the protective benevolence of a male provider (or are unable to hang onto one), then they must fend for themselves – it’s for their own good.

It’s the Right who view the poor and disabled as needing to be disciplined by a harshly punitive and degrading welfare system – it’s for their own good.

It’s why we must blindly follow the US into its imperial ventures – despite costing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. Bombing other countries is necessary to protect us. And what’s more, it’s for THEIR own good, as well as our own.

Killarney,
I had a Liberal use the "appropriate academic qualifications" line on me in a Facebook argument the other night, on a "Right Wing" page.
There is a fundamental split in thinking but it's got nothing to do with the old Left-Right paradigm, it breaks down along the lines of people who believe that words shape the world and others who understand that only concrete action changes the path of a society.
To put it another way there are people who react emotionally and are primarily individualists and others who are socialistic and think in purely material terms.
There are harsh materialists and dreamy esoterics on both sides and as I've seen from the ructions in grass roots politics over the summer people are defecting and changing sides sides based on the way they see the world.

Dear Killarney,

<<However, he is not divergent enough in his thinking to acknowledge that the nanny state is rife on both Right and Left. Instead, he prefers to see nanny state thinking as purely a leftist PC problem>>

The LDP (Leyonhjelm's party) website presents the following self-test: http://ldp.org.au/archives/quiz/index.html - I think you may be interested.

For me, the dimension of personal individual freedom is paramount, whereas economic issues are way behind in importance. If you feel the same about individual freedoms but have different economic inclinations, then your choice this elections is probably with the Greens.

In my view, both the LDP and the Greens compromise too much and do not go far enough in protecting individual freedoms: I would like to vote for a party that concentrates on this rather than divert its attention and energy to economic matters. However, as it stands, the LDP is the only party with a clear policy to allow people to ride a bicycle without being forced to wear a pot over their head. I am very disappointed that the Greens have no similar policy - especially since more cyclists would mean less pollution, something that is presumably very dear to the Greens.

On a final note:

I believe people who seek public office need to be bound by their word, and then let the chips fall where they may. And for mine that's just not David, who slipped into office on the back of a blatant untruth; namely the he was a liberal democrat?

When in fact he's a dyed in the wool right leaning conservative, and a completely different animal. He may well believe in gun rights, but that's where it ends?

Genuine equality is just too hard and a bit like the now you see it, now you don't, pea under the cup?

He seems very selective and self centred on just what rights and when and where a human life can be arbitrarily snuffed out, we the people should have as a parliament conferred privilege.

Me, I'd allow mature adults (over 25) to own an automatic shotgun with a 20 round magazine capacity and only allowed to be used with bean bag non lethal ammo.

And easy enough to fix as putting a G on your driver's licence to indicate you are only permitted to use your vehicle under the specific licence provisions. And given we need a licence to own a gun or buy ammo, that's is how we could control who and how is able to buy and use ammo.

And given law abiding drivers wear glasses when required by law to do so, we can expect the same in relation to gun control.

As always criminals will just please themselves! Albeit a little more circumspect about whose home or business premises they break into

However while I might agree with some liberalization with regard to gun laws. David is just a little too right leaning for a (genuine, what you see is what you get) small L (swinging) liberal (with a strong social conscience) like me.
Alan B.

And just one more example of how Australia, like the UK, USA and Europe, have been dragged to the Left, which is inhabited by those whose motto has always been, "We know better". Pity they don't because life would be soooo simple.

Pity they don't because life would be soooo simple. This very silly idea that 'none of these bad things would be happening if 'my' side were in power, is luricous because those who see things things this way fail to see the real issue.

The real issue is that 'nanny stateism' as in things like 'tolerance, diversity and cultural sensitivity, has got nothing to do with left or right but it has everything to do with suppressing free speech so we get trained up to accept censorship and nothing less.

Guns and bombs are not the only weapons of war, cultural weapons like nanny statism are weapons of war on free speech.

Can you people not see that tyranny is tyranny no matter which hole it comes out of or which 'ism' is in power? Can you not see what is happening in the US, Canada, Britain, Europe? It's has been going on for years? What make you people think Australia is or will be exampt?

David, one the examples you've chosen to highlight our nanny state - compulsory use of bicycle helmets - is a poor one. If we really wanted to give people the freedom to ride without helmets, fine, but we should also say that if you don't have private medical insurance and you come off your bike and injure your head, then tough: no insurance, you refund all your head-injury-related medical costs to the state. People need to be responsible for their own actions so they need to be responsible for whatever consequences arise from riding bikes without wearing a helmet.

It's a little like the cigarette smoking debate: everyone knows that nicotine is addictive and tobacco smoke contains high levels of carcinogens, hence world-wide anti-smoking campaigns. Same with bike helmets: we know they save lives and serious head injuries, so mandating their use makes public health sense.

Dear Bernie,

As for your first paragraph, I couldn't agree with you more and I believe that so would Senator Leyonhjelm.

I have attempted to opt out of Medicare, but discovered that if I did hand back my card, then no Australian private health insurer would be legally able to keep insuring me.

The "Health Policies" page from the LDP webside, http://ldp.org.au/policy/health begins with:

"
The Liberal Democrats will:

* Abolish Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and funding for public hospitals, which will be transferred to non-government ownership.

* Introduce a medical expenses subsidy for citizens that rises as medical expenses increase and falls as income and assets increase. This will be paid via the savings account scheme described in our Welfare policy. (If just half of government health-related spending were redirected to fund the medical expenses subsidy, the average subsidy would exceed $2000 per Australian. The subsidy for the poor and chronically ill would be significantly higher.)

* Abolish intervention in private health insurance, including the private health insurance rebate and the ‘community rating’ laws that prevent health insurers from setting premiums on the basis of an individual’s expected health costs.
...
"

Personally, I may not go as far as abolishing Medicare altogether for those who still want it, because I understand that many Australians hold it dear, but I would certainly allow those who don't to opt out.

Now looking at your second paragraph, your comparison with smoking isn't completely accurate because smoking is not completely a victimless crime as riding a bicycle, so here my views may differ from the Senator. Also, while bike helmets perhaps prevent serious head injuries, they increase the rates of other, less dramatic, maladies, such as dehydration, heat stroke and skin cancer, and obviously obesity, diabetes and heart conditions caused by the avoidance of cycling altogether.

Finally, you write: "so mandating their use makes public health sense."

Perhaps, but public health itself makes no sense: health is a private matter!