Invariably the do-gooders do more harm than good, be it the stolen generation; or, religious organisations and their "missions"?
Offshore processing and regional cooperation resulted in the orderly mass migration of around a million Vietnamese; 100,000 approximately, of who were resettled in Australia! Before that many more still unaccounted for; may have died on the high seas at the hands of pirates, unseaworthy vessels; and or, the whim and caprice of the elements and inexperienced seamen?
However, that's where any real agreement ends.
Rather than less rights, which have been progressively eroded, particularly by the critiqued Labour, we stand almost alone in the club of liberal democracies, without a bill of irrevocable rights; none of which need to be suspended; to upgrade our internal security; or deal with ethnic issues at home!
The referred to disgraceful keystone kop; DR. Haneef saga, sad testament to that, when more reasonable rights, would have compelled much more covert intell gathering and monitoring; and indeed, compelling evidence and a judges signature, before this kind, compassionate, gentle human being, practising palliative care, could have been summarily detained incommunicado?
The end result, with a irrevocable bill of rights; if the good Dr. had actually posed any real risk, would have been much more covert surveillance and far more accurate intell gathering; far and away, the most effective weapon at our disposal, in combating terrorism without borders! Rhrosty.

Thank-you Mirko! That is all ...

Nice to be able to agree completely.

Would the author include the abolishment of slavery as an example of civil libertarians adding to human misery.

This is a thinly veiled attack using broad generalisations that civil libertarianism is a marker for Left ideology. In fact libertarianism is strongly represented in a number of 'isms' and different political stances including the Right.

Governments have always had to make decisions about the ‘greater good’. The difficulty has always been how it is best achieved with little interference as possible to individual freedoms and liberty.

Do we champion China’s approach or the other extreme, an anarchic lawless society? There has to be a balance between laws and freedoms which seek to protect the innocent.

This is why the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Otherwise we may as well go back to witch burnings when neighbours with a personal slight felt moved to make false accusations without so much as a fair trial. The only proof of innocence was the act of drowning.

Cont/...

Cont/...

As A C Grayling wrote ‘Part of the misnamed War on Terror has to involve making the world a fairer place, where everyone gets a hearing, and where injustices have a genuine chance of being remedied. Without this peace is unlikely.’

This would be a greater weapon against terrorism than laws which allow being held for periods of time without charge or where privacy is constantly infringed by a new surveillance culture promulgated in the name of terrorism.

Of course some inconvenience in extreme times such as during war is expected but in peace time one wonders at how far those in power, including the military industrial complex will go to foster fear in the name of national security interests.

Trust in governments and authorities should not be of such a nature that there is no scrutiny, oversight or admonishment when things go awry.

It is not always good enough to adopt the old ‘well if you haven’t done anything wrong what have you got to worry about’ – nothing is that simple and governments and authorities/bureaucracies cannot always be trusted. I wish it wasn't so. Andrew Wilkie’s, and others’, revelations about WMDs is just one example.

Spin is just as present in the sphere of national security arena as any other.

A modicum of distrust backed up by suitable accountability regimes serves to keep our governments honest.

First, libertarianism is not the monopoly of the Left.

Second, as I consider myself a libertarian AND not of the Left, let me answer your question:

"The insurmountable conundrum that civil libertarians need to address is if the end (measured in terms of net flourishing) does not justify the means, then what does?"

Acting for the sake of achieving results is unwise and missing on the whole point of life. In this world, no results are permanent: all that is gained will eventually be lost and all that flourishes will falter. We are here to learn and to serve God, not to get something out of it.

Now in line with the service of God, different people are called for different duties. Certain people's duties include planning for certain outcomes - and that's fine, so long as they remember that the aim of their actions is not to achieve those results, but to serve God.

Serving God justifies the means. Achieving a result does not.

Third, regarding rights: I also don't like this leftist term - it sounds as if those "rights" were graciously granted by society, which they are not, so I'd rather use "liberties". If we have rights, then they are God-given, as part of our very nature; If we haven't, then what gives the state the "right" to molest us (even in the name of maximizing net flourishing)?

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority and therefore morally bankrupt. Your statement that "The ultimate end is to maximise net flourishing, where each agent's interests counts equally" sends shivers down my spine.