The Liberal Democrats changing their name to include 'libertarian' will drive some voters away. Libertarianism will not attract social conservatives. It's a dangerous word. It's wishy washy. You are either right or left, despite a few know- alls telling us those descriptions no longer apply.

Small government is the best thing about libertarians, but so it is with conservatives. Unfortunately, there are no conservatives to be seen in Australian politics these days, and John Ruddick is the only Libertarian in a tinpot state parliament, and government continues to grow.

Still, as long as whoever is bringing Australia to its knees at any time keeps bribing Australian voters, those voters don't give a toss.

Australia is rooted.

David, what sort of society would we have if all followed your beliefs, i.e., I'm all right Jack, the rest of you can go visit the nearest taxidermist.

Sometimes the most important voice in the room, is the dissenting one.

For society to function for the best outcomes for the majority, the must be a level of individual compromise and cooperation.

I prefer freedom but not unfettered freedom that requires all else to give up most of theirs.

Robinson Caruso was the only real libertarian who could please himself as to how he lived and spent his time, or what side of the road he rode on.

We have rules that we need to follow if we a full measure of available freedom! And that outcome surely requires a bill of irrevocable rights!
Alan B.

David, what sort of society would we have if all followed your beliefs, i.e., I'm all right Jack, the rest of you can go visit the nearest taxidermist.

Sometimes the most important voice in the room, is the dissenting one.

For society to function for the best outcomes for the majority, the must be a level of individual compromise and cooperation.

I prefer freedom but not unfettered freedom that requires all else to give up most of theirs.

Robinson Caruso was the only real libertarian who could please himself as to how he lived and spent his time, or what side of the road he rode on.

We have rules that we need to follow if we are to have full measure of available freedom! And that outcome surely requires a bill of irrevocable rights!
Alan B.

True Liberals are fiscally conservative and socially progressive. And are considered moderates.

Hard right-wing fascists are neither conservative nor Liberals.

Just would be elected tyrants, like Trump. Who if he could, would do a Putin and have himself installed as President for life!?
Alan B.

David contrasts liberalism with conservatism but says classical liberalism and libertarianism are essentially the same thing. I disagree. There are overlaps between classical liberalism and libertarianism, but there are also important differences, at least comparing classical liberalism with modern-day libertarianism as advocated in the USA and Australia.

One is where to set the bar on the harm principle – how much risk of harm to others is acceptable before a person’s liberty can be constrained. On this, libertarians seem to be far more tolerant of harm than liberals. For example, David is one of the few politicians advocating radial easing of Australia’s gun controls, despite evidence this would lead to more deaths and injuries.

Another is universality. A core principle of liberalism is that the same rights and freedoms apply to people you like or agree with, and those you don’t. Libertarianism seems more selective. Here in Australia, libertarians have been vocal in condemning covid lockdowns, but virtually silent on the indefinite detention of refugees who have committed no crime. David consistently voted in favour of Australian governments’ policies on this issue.

Third, and to me most important, is social obligation. Adam Smith is known mainly for writing The Wealth of Nations which, with it’s famous quote about the “invisible hand”, has become a founding document of liberal and libertarian approaches to economics. But Smith also wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments, which argues that as social beings we naturally and actively seek the good of others. This commitment to the wellbeing and welfare others as a moral obligation balancing pursuit of self-interest seems lacking in libertarianism.

Taken together, these features of libertarianism seem less like liberalism’s defence of freedom and protection of the weak, and more about defending the privileges and buttressing the prejudices of a bunch of people with an over-developed sense of entitlement.

There are more dimensions to it than the way the article presents.

The main one in my view is the differentiation between what one likes versus one's convictions of what ought to be.

A conservative may like something to stay the same while understanding that it ought to change.
A libertarian may like to live in a secure environment while understanding that the provision of security for some requires violence towards others.

One ought not compromise on what ought to be for the sake of how they personally like it to be - doing so is termed "corruption", and both conservative and libertarian parties have a dose of it even in their formal agendas, not to speak of actual parliamentarian actions.

---

Dear Rhian,

I also LIKE to see social justice and certain social obligations, I also LIKE to see a world without gambling, smoking, drinking and firearms, even with more taxes so that nobody remains poor. But I realise that in order to have that, force is required, violence is required and that if I insisted on having what I like then violence would be carried out in my name. Criminal violence OTOH can be even more unpleasant and unlikeable, but is not carried out in my name, hence to me is relatively more acceptable.

Non-violence (ahimsa) being the first and foremost religious tenet of Hinduism, I am unwilling to accept state-violence because it is being carried in my name, indeed presumably for my convenience - but not for my spiritual integrity.

As a result, most would place me in the libertarian camp, at its extreme end even, but this is not the full picture, only one dimension.

For me, what could ideally combine both heart and mind without compromises, are voluntary societies. Within each, internally, could be several behavioural restrictions and economic-equality measures as decided by its members, yet because people will join them without coercion (unlike the case with states at present), no violence will be carried out.

I was pleased to see the 'Liberal Democratic Party' deregistered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as the name was a misnomer, the party was neither liberal nor democratic in my view. David Leyonhjelm when in office continually voted for a far right agenda on all kinds of issues, including gun control.

Liberalism, is like all other isms, fascism, communism, conservationism, Catholicism, radicalism, etc etc, you name it, there is an ism for it. They all have their good points, also a darker side, not always understood by the majority. I prefer a progressive liberal democratic system without too much of the ism.

Someone mentioned Robinson Caruso was a libertarian, well he was until Man Friday turned up, and Robo decided he was nothing more than an inferior black fella who he could apply all his isms to, and boss around.

Dear Yuyutsu

I find your position interesting. Personally I think that, regrettably, there are times when the state must use violence, and more often coercion, to enforce the law. That is why I find David’s argument that citizens should be allowed to carry guns because the police and armed forces can a bit strange. But I respect your position and your principled commitment to non-violence.

Your idea of voluntary societies is intriguing. It seems to have a bit in common with Adam Smith’s view on moral sentiments I mentioned above – that the important thing for a healthy society is not the things one is forbidden to do, or the things one is permitted to do, but the things one ought to do or ought not to do.

How would your voluntary society deal with a member who refused to conform with all of the agreed behaviours? And would it defend itself if outsiders sought to exploit it’s non-violence, for example by taking its members’ property?

Dear Rhian,

«How would your voluntary society deal with a member who refused to conform with all of the agreed behaviours? And would it defend itself if outsiders sought to exploit it’s non-violence, for example by taking its members’ property?»

These would be entirely according to the society's constitution, according to what its founding members agreed to, which could vary from one society to another.

Self/community defense is acceptable - not ideal, but OK.
A saint wouldn't do it (and Jesus gave that personal example), but most people are not saints.

«I find David’s argument that citizens should be allowed to carry guns because the police and armed forces can a bit strange.»

I also find this reasoning strange.
I consider self-defense to be in the LIKE category, but it seems that David either considers it to be in the OUGHT category, or is corrupt.

On the other hand, as much as I personally hate people (both individuals and policemen) carrying guns and would feel more comfortable without them, I see no moral justification for denying or taking away guns from others against their will... unless of course they agreed to the possibility of having their guns denied when they joined a voluntary society.

Even now, in the existing situation, there are so many other items that states deny us and forcefully confiscate, mostly items that do not hurt others, that I find it strange to find guns at the top of David's list - as far as I am concerned there are 1000's of things more urgent to fix, so allowing guns for me would come pretty close to the bottom of my wish-list.

Perhaps there was a bit of distortion from Rhian back there. Trying to confuse Libertarian with Liberal. Libertarian means essentially free capitalist but Liberal means anecdotally and contemporarily socialist (especially in the US). But according to Patrick Deneen the father of Liberal-ism is John Locke (1600's Britain) and both Libertarianism (the concept of "free" economics) and Social Democratism (Liberalism) (the concept of "free" society/ socially) come from Locke concept of "freedom".

But the devil is often in the detail so called "freedom" isn't always "freedom". For example freedom of "gay story time" can make non-gay people feel as if they are slaves to this supposedly "free" policy.

In order to reduce confusion I prefer to talk about Locke Liberal vs Social Liberal and Economic Liberal. All of these terms mean different things- but are important.

Author David Leyonhjelm talks about the confusion between Libertarianism (Economic Liberalism) and Conservatism (Traditionalism).

Some political ideologies prefer to keep the normal people in the dark on politics so they are more easily manipulated. I believe that communists try to keep people in the dark. Not sure how they can continue to represent themselves as the protectors of the weak

Canem Malem

I was not trying to conflate libertarianism and liberalism, quite the opposite - I was disputing the author’s claim that “there is no difference” between libertarianism and classical liberalism. I think there is. I agree with you that the term “liberal” means different things to different people. For me, the classical liberal tradition draws on several key thinkers – Locke on natural rights, Smith on the benefits of economic freedoms tempered by regard for others, Mill on freedom to act as one pleases so long as those actions don’t harm others. All are important strands in classical liberal thought.

Why does “freedom of gay story time” make you feel like a “slave”? I have reservations about drag queen story time because I think drag is an essentially sexualised performance unsuitable for young children. But I would have no problem with a transexual woman doing story time. As a feminist, I dislike drag because it caricatures female stereotypes and is often overtly sexist. It has been compared to blackface. I wouldn’t ban it though.

Rhian said- "I have reservations about drag queen story time because I think drag is an essentially sexualised performance unsuitable for young children. But I would have no problem with a transexual woman doing story time."

Answer- I feel that Rhian's views are abusive of children here. Perhaps people that advocate advertising transexuality to children are being sexually abusive of children. This is something that should be left to parents. In fact given the current politicization of sex education perhaps all sex education should be left to parents.

At least Rhian said "I have reservations about drag queen story time because I think drag is an essentially sexualised performance unsuitable for young children."

Side note- When reading John Stuart Mill people often seem to quote the beginning of "On Liberty" (On Freedom- Negative Freedom- freedom so long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others) but not the end- in which Mill acknowledges that "everything affects everything- and he doesn't know what to do about it" so negative freedom actually doesn't work. But few things are ideal. Perhaps negative freedom reverts to the positive freedom, virtue based freedom described by Plato, Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), Nietzsche (Genealogy Of Morals) and others.

Rhian said "Why does “freedom of gay story time” make you feel like a “slave”?"

Answer- Traditionalist and heterosexual people may not be able to relate to gay culture but feel that they are unable to control the gay education of their own children in the face of unrepresentative gay politics that isn't representative of their views. "a government that is not of the people by the people for the people is a tyranny".

Its unfortunate when an ardent fascists tries to present himself as a moderate liberal/conservative, some say Hitler and Mussolini did that at times, Trump certainly does. Then there are minor players who get on nondescript forums and continually rail against other extremists like "communists", mentioning them in 90% of their diatribes.