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.