The Liberal Democrats changing their name to include 'libertarian' will drive some voters away. Libertarianism will not attract social conservatives. It's a dangerous word. It's wishy washy. You are either right or left, despite a few know- alls telling us those descriptions no longer apply.

Small government is the best thing about libertarians, but so it is with conservatives. Unfortunately, there are no conservatives to be seen in Australian politics these days, and John Ruddick is the only Libertarian in a tinpot state parliament, and government continues to grow.

Still, as long as whoever is bringing Australia to its knees at any time keeps bribing Australian voters, those voters don't give a toss.

Australia is rooted.

David, what sort of society would we have if all followed your beliefs, i.e., I'm all right Jack, the rest of you can go visit the nearest taxidermist.

Sometimes the most important voice in the room, is the dissenting one.

For society to function for the best outcomes for the majority, the must be a level of individual compromise and cooperation.

I prefer freedom but not unfettered freedom that requires all else to give up most of theirs.

Robinson Caruso was the only real libertarian who could please himself as to how he lived and spent his time, or what side of the road he rode on.

We have rules that we need to follow if we a full measure of available freedom! And that outcome surely requires a bill of irrevocable rights!
Alan B.

David, what sort of society would we have if all followed your beliefs, i.e., I'm all right Jack, the rest of you can go visit the nearest taxidermist.

Sometimes the most important voice in the room, is the dissenting one.

For society to function for the best outcomes for the majority, the must be a level of individual compromise and cooperation.

I prefer freedom but not unfettered freedom that requires all else to give up most of theirs.

Robinson Caruso was the only real libertarian who could please himself as to how he lived and spent his time, or what side of the road he rode on.

We have rules that we need to follow if we are to have full measure of available freedom! And that outcome surely requires a bill of irrevocable rights!
Alan B.

True Liberals are fiscally conservative and socially progressive. And are considered moderates.

Hard right-wing fascists are neither conservative nor Liberals.

Just would be elected tyrants, like Trump. Who if he could, would do a Putin and have himself installed as President for life!?
Alan B.

David contrasts liberalism with conservatism but says classical liberalism and libertarianism are essentially the same thing. I disagree. There are overlaps between classical liberalism and libertarianism, but there are also important differences, at least comparing classical liberalism with modern-day libertarianism as advocated in the USA and Australia.

One is where to set the bar on the harm principle – how much risk of harm to others is acceptable before a person’s liberty can be constrained. On this, libertarians seem to be far more tolerant of harm than liberals. For example, David is one of the few politicians advocating radial easing of Australia’s gun controls, despite evidence this would lead to more deaths and injuries.

Another is universality. A core principle of liberalism is that the same rights and freedoms apply to people you like or agree with, and those you don’t. Libertarianism seems more selective. Here in Australia, libertarians have been vocal in condemning covid lockdowns, but virtually silent on the indefinite detention of refugees who have committed no crime. David consistently voted in favour of Australian governments’ policies on this issue.

Third, and to me most important, is social obligation. Adam Smith is known mainly for writing The Wealth of Nations which, with it’s famous quote about the “invisible hand”, has become a founding document of liberal and libertarian approaches to economics. But Smith also wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments, which argues that as social beings we naturally and actively seek the good of others. This commitment to the wellbeing and welfare others as a moral obligation balancing pursuit of self-interest seems lacking in libertarianism.

Taken together, these features of libertarianism seem less like liberalism’s defence of freedom and protection of the weak, and more about defending the privileges and buttressing the prejudices of a bunch of people with an over-developed sense of entitlement.

There are more dimensions to it than the way the article presents.

The main one in my view is the differentiation between what one likes versus one's convictions of what ought to be.

A conservative may like something to stay the same while understanding that it ought to change.
A libertarian may like to live in a secure environment while understanding that the provision of security for some requires violence towards others.

One ought not compromise on what ought to be for the sake of how they personally like it to be - doing so is termed "corruption", and both conservative and libertarian parties have a dose of it even in their formal agendas, not to speak of actual parliamentarian actions.

---

Dear Rhian,

I also LIKE to see social justice and certain social obligations, I also LIKE to see a world without gambling, smoking, drinking and firearms, even with more taxes so that nobody remains poor. But I realise that in order to have that, force is required, violence is required and that if I insisted on having what I like then violence would be carried out in my name. Criminal violence OTOH can be even more unpleasant and unlikeable, but is not carried out in my name, hence to me is relatively more acceptable.

Non-violence (ahimsa) being the first and foremost religious tenet of Hinduism, I am unwilling to accept state-violence because it is being carried in my name, indeed presumably for my convenience - but not for my spiritual integrity.

As a result, most would place me in the libertarian camp, at its extreme end even, but this is not the full picture, only one dimension.

For me, what could ideally combine both heart and mind without compromises, are voluntary societies. Within each, internally, could be several behavioural restrictions and economic-equality measures as decided by its members, yet because people will join them without coercion (unlike the case with states at present), no violence will be carried out.