Yeah, well. He just talked a lot in federal Parliament, and he will probably sound a bit louder in the smaller pond. I don't know what it's like in NSW, but in SA, you would be scratching to find anyone who could name a member of the piddling upper house.

Yes David. We are very aware that you are at least in your mind a very important man and not constrained the hedonistic views of a self-centred, self-idolising, self-indulgent, narcissistic minority.

Christchurch was a wake-up call only a few individuals can ignore. And from this day forward, views on guns I used to share with you are very much past tense. Moreover, I have never ever shared your overly simplistic, financially illiterate views on tax or welfare.

Understand at least this much. Concentrating more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands,[your philosphy], is a recipe for contraction and in a nutshell that which caused both the Great Depression and the GFC!

. It's said, fools never learn and your espoused manifesto proves it..
And indeed your addiction to controversy to keep you in the public eye!? And only ever to serve rank political ambition!?

Like whatshisname, Senator who, formerly for a day or two, an unelected One Nation Senator. (Unelected swill, quote-unquote) Who literally had real egg on his face to match the mountains of the allegorical kind he habitually wore!?
Alan B.

Two points. By all means, allow bicycle riders to not wear helmets, provided they have full medical insurance to cover them for all costs, including life-long costs, should they damage their brains in a crash.

And the barrages preventing seawater from entering the Coorong should be removed as the barrages are creating a totally artificial environment with few if any benefits to the natural environment. If this means buying the water rights back from a few farmers, so be in.

Bernie, if this man had any brains and was GENUINELY seeking to serve? He would advocate that all the millions of annual water we FLUSH out to sea be turned inland after being treated to thoroughly sanitise it in locally invented, two tank, biodigesters.

That after powering the homes and charging the electric vehicles of the homeowners. Converting their waste to virtually free electrical energy 24/7! Plus, also produce millions of litres of thoroughly sanitised and nutrient loaded water that can be used to grow cotton and rice etc.

Thus leaving that current water allocation for the environment!

Given the methane created in the systems, is scrubbed then used in ceramic fuel cells which also produce endless free hot water and an exhaust product that's mostly pristine water vapour.

The other waste product of the digestors is, carbon-rich soil improver of a type which not only improves moisture retention but stays in the soil for literal centuries and longer.

GEOSEQUESTRATION!

And in annual, millions of tons.

Yes, we are talking about an, almost carbon-free, system that could cost the average homeowner as much as $40,000 to install/retrofit and slightly less if mandated in all new housing. And in either case, financed by an averaged power bill repayment. As the only payment necessary! And completely paid off during the average mostly maintenance free lifetime!?

They would become completely independent power generators with a significant surplus they could sell to the grid. Which could use some of it O/P to pump all those millions of annual wasted reusable, nutrient loaded water, wherever?
Alan B.

HIS NRA-LIKE GUN POLICIES ?

1. What of NSW Upper House Leyonhjelm's GUN POLICIES ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/shooting-with-david-leyonhjelm/7950732 October 2016

"Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm says Australia's tough gun control laws are not based on data and were an "emotional reaction" to the Port Arthur massacre that left 35 people dead.

Senator Leyonhjelm says the majority of Australians have no experience with guns and therefore do not realise that when used safely, they can be a lot of fun.

The Liberal Democrat senator took Lateline to a Canberra shooting range as the so-called "guns for votes" debate continued in Federal Parliament.

Senator Leyonhjelm is behind the controversial push to relax the ban on the seven-round Adler lever-action shotgun, saying "there is no compelling reason" for the weapon to be illegal."

___________________________________________

2. Is Leyonhjelm carrying over his old Federal Parliament policies to the NSW PARLIAMENT ?

See his Leyonhjelm's Party Policies, still up on the Internet as at 1 April 2019, http://www.ldp.org.au/firearms for example:

"Impediments to children participating in safe shooting activities should be removed.

..."Discussion"

"The right to self defence, including with firearms, precedes the authority of governments. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it should not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.

In terms of genuine crime control, most gun laws are ineffective. Making gun ownership illegal does not stop gun ownership; it merely affects those gun owners who are law-abiding and least likely to use their guns in crime.

Disarming the law-abiding is irrational when the lawless cannot be disarmed."

Forgot to add 2 other of his Liberal Democrat GUN POLICIES

still up as at 1 April 2019.

Those Policies are are http://www.ldp.org.au/firearms :

"- There should be no registration of long-arms.

- There should be no prohibitions or special limits on semi-automatic firearms."

Ho hum.

I trust that Mr. Leyonhjelm has learned his lesson after wilfully flouting NSW Local Government laws, by refusing to register his in- ground pool at his residence in Sydney. Subsequently fined $4300. He claimed his pool was a private matter, and no business of the local council to insist on registration. What hope have we when a representative such as this refuses to obey the laws of the land?

What hope have we when a representative such as this refuses to obey the laws of the land?nswnotill,
Well, very likely we'd have a better hope with people who realise that Council rules are not the Laws of the land & stand up against those insipid, merely money-orientated rules.
Everyone's unhappy with Status Quo yet, when someone stands up & challenges the system then suddenly they're pronounced all sorts of unkind names ! Makes me wonder who the real silly are ?

Looks like the Liberal Democrats are more pro-Gun than One Nation.

David Leyonhjelm explains the Liberal Democrat's NRA-like gun policies. Part of his short video is http://youtu.be/5YuI05LmlqE?t=3m10s

The video is on the Internet as at 2 April 2019 from site http://www.ldp.org.au/firearms

Also see the whole video at http://youtu.be/5YuI05LmlqE

Team up with Mark Latham and focus on free speech issues.

The renewed efforts by the Left, namely Labor and the Greens, to constrain and criminalise speech that they don't like are truly alarming.

Congratulations David.
Stick to your principles without fear. They're why people voted for you.

.

Dear David,

.

I understand you represent the Liberal Democratic Party (LPD) but describe yourself as a “crossbencher” whereas, according to the OED, “cross bench” means : “ (in the House of Lords and some other legislatures) a bench occupied by members who are independent of any political party”.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe yourself as a “maverick” of the LPD.

Also, presuming that you have indeed been elected to the NSW Legislative Council, I note that your manifesto was not published in the Australian Financial Review until Friday, March 29, and on OLO on 1st April – both, after, not before the election which was held on the Saturday, 23rd March.

This sequence of events raises the question as to what extent you will have been elected (if indeed you are), on the basis of your manifesto – particularly since the electorate is the whole of the vast, populace state of New South Wales.

The manifesto is, of course, the expression of your (and your political party’s) principles, political aims and objectives. What I should have liked to have seen – and what I consider to be more important – is your “customer-driven” mission statement, i.e., what you understand the people whose interests you are (presumably) mandated to represent, defend and promote, expect you to achieve.

Perhaps you might like to provide some detail on that. In my view, that is the whole point of representative, parliamentary democracy – not to dictate one’s own principles and aspirations but those of one’s electorate.

Don’t you agree ?

.

"Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm says Australia's tough gun control laws are not based on data and were an "emotional reaction" to the Port Arthur massacre that left 35 people dead."

Yes, people do tend to have an emotional reaction when 35 people are massacred by a fruitcake.

Self-defence is one thing but we don't want a society where the average citizen is armed and guns are everywhere. We don't want to follow the American example.

As for Leyonhjelm's libertarian views in general, there are some things that I do like about libertarianism. Overall though, I tend to agree with Robert Locke when he labels libertarianism the "Marxism of the Right":

"If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life."

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/

Dear Bozec,

Once you have a society wherein everyone involved freely agrees to belong to it, there you may consider which is the best way to run that society and then your criticism of libertarianism (and Marxism) has merit. Once someone voluntarily sacrificed some of their freedom for "other good things in life", it is valid to claim that they cannot have the cake and eat it too.

But is this always the case?

You spoke of "the moral rules of their society", yet morality is not a product of society, morality pre-exists. Indeed, breaking some societal codes could be immoral, but that is only because an existing, agreed-upon social contract was broken in an immoral manner.

Just because a group of people declares themselves to be "a society" does not exempt them from morality - and their first moral duty is to ensure that nobody is forced into their society kicking-and-screaming.

Regardless of numbers, be them even millions or billions of people, if even one person is forcibly expected to abide by a social contract merely because they were born where they were geographically born, then this taints the given society with immorality and makes it illegitimate.

We don't want to follow the American example.
Bozec,
What is it with always bringing up America as an example ? How about, for a change, look up Other countries such as Switzerland or some European countries that have a National (incl. Military) Service whereby the participants are issued with a weapon to be stored at home after completion of the service. Why not draw on them for examples ?
What so many anti gunners fail to consider is that it is the mentality of the gun owner that is the real problem but what is done about that ?
Why not focus on bettering the general mentality of the Citizen instead of always waiting for some catastrophe & as per usual jump on the high ground condemning the commodities used rather that stop the indoctrination process to dumb down people ?
Have you watched Australian TV lately ? Do think it is sane ? Do you think the music festivals with their perpetual drug overdoses are sanity based ?
No, mentality needs to change not our freedom to be decent !

Dear Individual,

Switzerland is such a beautiful country, but what you described makes it a terrible place.

Yes, I support your right to have guns if you like, but I will never touch one again having been a victim of conscription and made to carry that dirty thing on me at all times. Talking about freedom, the freedom to NOT have a gun is much more paramount that the freedom to have one!

Yuyutsu,
It's about being prepared rather than just hoping for the best !

Dear Individual,

You ought to have every right to prepare yourself in the way you want, but I also ought to have every right to prepare myself in my own way.

I actually like the idea for criminals to believe that there is a reasonable chance that if they break in and attack me (including my family and/or property) in my home, then I would shoot them back with a good semi-automatic rifle. Of course I never would actually touch a gun again or have one at home, but I support such laws that would make them BELIEVE otherwise.

(which is one good reason to remain anonymous on OLO, otherwise this wouldn't work!)

I would though, restrict gun-presence to one's own home/property and allow no guns in the public space.

Yes, I support your right to have guns if you like,
Yututsu,
I personally don't see any reason for guns. A gun, yes but several ? Only a farmer or tour guide or fisherman should perhaps have more than one & to my way of thinking, the guns should definitely not be automatics.
Have you ever been confronted by a sow as big as a cow with the little piglets squealing ?
Believe me, you'd be wishing for an armoured car with a howitzer at that moment.
Or how about a 9' King Brown eyeing you up from 15 feet away ? Did you know that none of these reasons qualify to carry a weapon yet if your mentality dictates to you fire a .357 at a 6x6" piece of cardboard, then you can own a gun !
Let me know if you can fathom that sort of reasoning !

Hi Yuyutsu,

You raise some interesting points. I think we're wandering into a different topic here - the nature of morality. However I have to say that I don't agree with your view that "morality is not a product of society, morality pre-exists." I would argue that our version of morality is informed by social, cultural and religious values. What is considered moral in one culture or faith might be considered immoral in others.

I also don't agree that the "first moral duty is to ensure that nobody is forced into their society kicking-and-screaming." Nobody has the agency to just choose their own social attachments at will. Generally we're all born into a particular society, culture, tradition or value system, whether we like it or not. People can pick and choose versions of morality to a degree but at the end of the day they are still connected in some way to society. Nobody is an island.

You argue: ".. if even one person is forcibly expected to abide by a social contract merely because they were born where they were geographically born, then this taints the given society with immorality and makes it illegitimate."

If so, then every society that ever existed is arguably illegitimate.

Hi individual,

I would be more inclined to look at Switzerland as a valid comparison if Australia had Swiss-like violent crime rates (that is, among the lowest in the developed world). Sadly, we don't.

I'm not sure that it's a particularly good idea to introduce more guns into a country that ranks pretty poorly compared to other developed countries when it comes to violent crime rates.

the nature of morality.
Bozec,
You're not confusing it with mentality are you ? Because what's happening in Switzerland & other still reasonably sane folk is a matter of mentality which includes morality but not the other way round.

Dear Bozec,

Obviously we do not agree about the source(s) of morality: with different ideas about morality, it is not surprising that we arrive at different political conclusions.

If we can agree that morality declares that one ought to be truthful and keep their promises; and subsequently consider voluntary social contracts as a form of a promise, then we can indeed conclude that certain behaviours can be moral in one culture but not in another, by reason that the content of the social contract(s) vary between the cultures. One caveat however, is that the social contracts in question ought to be voluntary, else they do not constitute a promise.

My understanding of morality is based on spiritual teachings and principles.
According to these teachings, non-violence is one's first and foremost moral obligation, even above truthfulness, which comes second. Forcing an innocent other, kicking-and-screaming into something they do not want, is obviously violent, hence immoral by the standards I hold.

«Nobody has the agency to just choose their own social attachments at will.»

We could argue about it until the cows come home, but the question here is not what rights others have or not, but how I/you/we can conduct ourselves morally. Inflicting our society on unwilling others is simply morally wrong, whether or not they ought to be able to choose. In other words, it is all about us, not about them! You could argue that those who do not wish to join us are wrong as well, but two wrongs do not make right.

We cannot over-generalise about "every society that ever existed", because that would include pre-historic primitive tribal societies too, but possibly excluding small remote tribes, it does indeed appear that as it stands, every large society currently on earth is illegitimate. This ought to be corrected.

---

Dear Individual,

I can only fathom that this sort of reasoning is not principled, but rather irrational and/or based on selfish interests, perhaps the electoral interests of those who so reasoned.

Individual: "You're not confusing it with mentality are you ? Because what's happening in Switzerland & other still reasonably sane folk is a matter of mentality which includes morality but not the other way round."

I think the two overlap to a significant degree, don't you? Still, I see your point.

Anyway, this all seems to be a moot point as it looks like Leyonhjelm might not secure a seat after all.

Great news, you missed out. Good riddance.

A classic case of "counting the chickens before...".