Liberalism is sometimes used to denote a belief in liberty and freedom from coercion, which argues against government interference in general. But it is also used, as in the USA, to denote political opinions in favour of thoroughgoing government intervention at all levels. Since Chris Lewis doesn’t define liberalism, it is unclear what he’s talking about.

But assuming that he’s talking about the pro-liberty kind of liberalism, this proceeds from a radical critique of government. Since Chris Lewis accepts the arguments for liberty in some respects, therefore the “assumption close” he uses as his basic intellectual method in this article is completely illegitimate. The assumption close is: “Be reasonable – everyone must agree that my view of government is right as a precondition of entering into the discussion.” Government is presumed to represent “society”, even though the issue is precisely whether government does this better than voluntary interactions. The arguments for institutionalized coercion are presumed to be “common sense”. Even Chris Lewis himself is unable to provide any principle by which this could be determined, other than the manoeuvres for advantage of political parties. But this assumes that the current configuration of vested interests in political power automatically represents the greater good – which is precisely what’s in issue.

Chris you really must try to free yourself of the intellectual vice of arguing in a circle, assuming in your premises what you are seeking to prove in your conclusion.

I’ll give one tiny example. Yesterday I talked with a guy who owns a small quarry. He used to go and get sand from private properties and sell it to builders. But now that is illegal – government owns “the environment”. The result is that the only sand that’s available is more expensive.

This is only one unintended consequence of government interventions driving up the cost of housing. There are hundreds of such interventions. But when the statists and socialists and conservatives see “housing unaffordability”, do they question their assumption that government must be the solution, rather than the problem? Not a bit of it.

Chris's circular creed shows why.

Peter,

I was waiting for your usual rant. You did not disappoint.

You state "Chris you really must try to free yourself of the intellectual vice of arguing in a circle, assuming in your premises what you are seeking to prove in your conclusion".

Now, i know you are committed to your ideals. No problem, we all need our beliefs and guidelines to give us purpose in this mad world when only only a minority of people in the world (extreme libertarians) can actually believe that a few simple principles will save the world.

Forgive me, but I will continue to offer my flawed politics summary in a flawed world. you can stick to Mises or whoever.

You remind me of the simplistic left, you extreme libertarians just rant and whinge about the world as it changes before your eyes, because the world never changes in accordance to the way you want. The very different behaviour of actors and nations makes it laughable that anyone could claim the answers merely lie in govts getting out the way.

Well keep dreaming, your wishes are never going to happen. There are no pragmatic politicians out there in Australia that are going to follow your lead. Not Tony Abbott, not John Howard, not anyone. I have faith (or a hope) that Australia will always have sensible and pragmatic politicians and debate.

Why? Because change occurs incrementally and pragmatically in such a complex world.

And as Samuel Huntington notes, the solving of one problem leads to new problems. That is reality.

So, yes, by all means rave on in your own disneyland terms, but do not get too upset when few listen.

If you actually believe that govt should get out of the way to solve housing, or any other problem, I am sure that there would be a lot of policy makers interested in your ideas, which should always be backed by evidence.

I do not pretend to have the answers. You, and your libertarian extremist mates, do.

Peter.

And since you are so smug about what defines liberalism, much like a nerd would do reading an argument and making a cheap point, I argue that the most important feature of liberalism is the freedom of people to think and use their political opportunities to influence the political process.

So sorry, on most counts of actual policy, the results have meant you guys have lost the debates.

Was there ever a time in history of Western civilisation where extreme libertarians ideas ever won the debates?

What a lightweight article. No definition of "extreme libertarian", no examples or issues nominated, just an old fashioned ad hom against Chris Berg (who writes far more persuasively).

Anyone can argue in favour of government intervention; even libertarians do in limited cases. But arguing against non-intervention in a generalised sense is certainly not common sense.

Chris
It's not a "rant", I show that you haven't defined liberalism even though the term is used inconsistently and your argument is about it. I show that you ignore the negative consequences of government with a specific example, and how how this invalidates your circular assumption of what is in issue, You have advanced nothing to defend your argument but personalise the issues to me, and re-define the issues in terms of political expedience and institutionalised coercion, which is what's in issue in the first place.

There was a time in the western world when people thought the proper role of government was to protect inefficient businesses from their more efficient competition, and to protect businesses from competition from free trade. The very existence of the USA and the Commonwealth of Australia, and our high standards of living is because of the victory of libertarian ideas in favour of free trade and against mercantilism, otherwise the states within these unions would still be practising the kind of anti-social protectionism which you advocate between states outside these unions.

Similarly the abolition of slavery was an "extreme libertarian idea" in its time. Yet the arguments in favour of slavery - necessary to fund public utilities, sanctioned by legality, pragmatic for production, beneficial for its victims, - are ethically and economically no different from the arguments you assume in favour of taxation.

I am not an "extremist" for asserting the moral and practical right of people to be free from arbitrary coercion. You are the extremist for advocating aggressive means for which you are unable to supply ethical or logical justification. The intellectually honest thing for you to do is
a) correctly represent libertarian arguments, and
b) refute them.

You are doing neither.

Why would I want to focus on Chris Berg, or any other libertarian argument. The article is titled Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead.

I think any fair minded reader would note from my opening paragraphs that i am rejecting stupid propositions such as pure free trade or open borders for immigration. After all, few Australians would actually agree with Berg. Hence, my imperfect article reminds people why both major parties have to be pragmatic not accept arguments more styled in a world of make belive.

I would love to have a written debate with Chris Berg on different issues; bring it on.