.

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 !