Here, here, I quite agree with what you say. I think a government in very broad terms should be responsible for three things - Education, Health and Defence with the added responsibility that no one gets exploited together with the separation of judicial powers. It is impossible to please all the people all the time and and the expectation that governments should provide everything for everybody has become a nightmare of inefficiency. Too many people now only vote for the representative that will give them something that others have earned. There seems to be no personal responsibility these days.

Neoliberal-Libertarianism ...

Very unoriginal Dave. Poverty is relative. Religion is the curse of civilisation. Science is all encompassing in its glory. And not forgetting the multi-universe and the wondrous moment of discovery it will become (the new resurrection).

But let's check out a few of the negatives. Lower the age of consent. Free-up laws with any whiff of morality, and transform them into wondrous moments of ethical advancement.

Knock down those dreadful slums and public housing estates, to make way for the good people to utilise resources and improve neighbourhoods. At the same time scattering drug dealers (all the relative poor), to the four corners of the earth.

Reconstruct immigration policy allowing more 457 visa holders to drive down wages, and share the Western wealth into Asia, thus rising up the the global poverty stricken, offering them hope and joy.

And much much more for those with an interest, (which is not many I notice), willing to turn to the Libertarian Bible according to Steven Pinker.
Thousands of pages of it: I've read it all!

Have you been told today Dave….?

The smaller government is the better. Sadly, it's growing and growing in Australia and the West in general.

Yes, as long as it's not "insane" individualism merely masquerading as genuine liberalism.

In any truly liberal society that's found on freedom of choice principles and small government?
Then the government needs to divest itself of some of its power to complicate our lives.
Arguably, by fully embracing regional autonomy and circumventing the middleman fee charging finance model; and instead substitute a needs-based, means-tested model that returns the power to decide on the options to the people!
For starters by providing a means-tested education and public health endowment, then allowing choice and benchmarked best practice and genuine competition to compete in an open and free market for every one of those dollars!
And for best practise outcomes rather than this or that inferior service.
Then with government playing as small a role, as is possible, allow the cream to rise to the top!
One of which has to be cooperative capitalism!
Alan B.

Libertarianism is better than authoritarianism, but that says very little about the size of government, as smaller government does not equate to less intrusive government. Nor does it equate to more efficient government - it may appear that way at first, but look more closely and you'll see it promotes false economies rather than genuine efficiencies.

I am intrigued to know what the evidence is that David regards as proof that redistributing wealth doesn't help those in need. It almost certainly relies on false assumptions.

Why not read the essay on the god(less) father of USA libertarianism by Lynn Parramore titled Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent Stealth Takeover of America.

DD

This nondescript author, voted into his job by default on .7% of the primary vote, fancies himself as an intellectual.

I read your link and am not even slightly sirprised. Aboriginals and their insignificant issues, are being "used" to lead the charge here in Australia, to rewrite the constitution.
This is a reality only dreamt of by Corporate elites in the US.
Nonexistent Aboriginal issues and Multiculturalism are sufficient distractions, enabled by corporate media, as a smokescreen to the corporate intent of theieving our freedoms from under our very noses.

Our corporate puppet here, has identified himself on numerous occasions, in his complicity to destroy Democracy, assisting ever growing corporate profit.

«When you look at nations that slash government red tape, protect private property rights and safeguard civil liberties, you see societies where opportunity abounds, people escape from poverty, and civil society flourishes.»

Perhaps so, let the experts debate it, but is this WHY you do it?

One should abstain from doing evil (such as imposing red tape, taking other people's property and denying others their liberty) for the sake of avoiding evil, rather than for what could be gained.

It is important to remember that liberty is for everyone, not only for the rich. So long as the Libertarian movement concentrates too much on the freedom to gain wealth, it will necessarily remain small.

Libertarianism as espoused by David Leyonhjelm is fundamentally inconsistent with democracy. In a democracy actions are taken because they are for the good of society as a whole and supported by the majority of society, not because they are for the good of the rich.

So true democracies have social welfare, public education and progressive taxation policies to provide opportunity for all and not just for those who have the financial means.

Oligarchies on the other hand provide the best opportunity for those who have it to keep more of their stuff and be left the hell alone. Perhaps David Leyonhjelm might be happier in Vlad Putin's Russia or Saudi Arabia.