The Libertarian Party is going to mount a High Court challenge against the Albanese authoritarian government's undemocratic online censorship laws due on 10th. December. The hearing, if granted, will be after the 10th - January to March next year - but there will be so much chaos (Albanese admits it's not "perfect") that the whole nasty business will be thrown into the disarray it deserves.

I suppose being Libertarian means you haven't left home yet to go & earn a living !

I wonder what, if anything, Libertarian leader John Ruddick, member of the Victorian parliament, is doing about the state's hard left government's decision to override farmers' private property rights and allow windmill and pylon builders - including foreigners - to enter farms without the permission of the farmers.

The author makes some interesting points, but I think the main tension in political debate in democracies like Australia is not between personal freedom and Hobbesian-style authoritarianism, but between the individual and the collective interest. And while it is true that the most successful states are those that respect liberty, they do not do so in the absolutist sense that libertarians advocate. Rather, they are countries that get the balance right between personal liberty and collective responsibility. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland most often top global rankings of living standards – and usually fare far better than the USA, which the author lauds - precisely because they deliver both personal freedom and collective support and protections. Australia usually ranks well for the same reasons. I would much rather live here than the USA.

With principles, discipline and clarity replaced by ad-hoc whims and personal preferences, this is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Nearly every sentence in this article begs a "why", which this shallow article does not offer.

Why should adults be free to live their own lives?
Why only adults?
Why only humans?
Who and what is an adult anyway?
And could anyone possibly be made to live someone else's life?
In fact, what is life?
Also, what is freedom?
Can anyone possibly not be free?

Or speaking of "boundary between the public and private realms":
Is there more than one realm we live in?
And if there is, then what is that boundary made of, since to be a boundary it could not possibly belong to any of these realms?!

In truth, we are free already, regardless what others do or say!
It is not that we as humans control the world, or even the fate of our bodies - we obviously do not, but freedom and control are very different things and we do have total freedom over our choices and actions.

Within this freedom, libertarianism is a valid option, but so is authoritarian paternalism, socialism, capitalism, democracy and many more isms... so long as all the people involved agree on the system of government, while those who do not are left completely out of it.

The freedom to live out of society(s) should be paramount and always respected,
yet seeking to benefit from a society but not be bound by its rules and norms, whatever rules its members made, is not libertarianism but parasitic hypocrisy.

---

Dear Rhian,

«I would much rather live here than the USA.»

So do I, but you should be able to live in either continent as you please without having to form a special relationship with the states that happen to be there.

Rhian, hear, hear, you've hit the nail on the head. It comes down to the argument of the absolute rights of the individual verses the rights of the collective. In a fair and moderate society there is a balance between the two. Some use the libertarian argument to disguise their own personal authoritarianism. I'm suspicious of the author David Leyonhjelm as he doesn't have a great track record of respecting the rights of others, more so its his rights being paramount, and bugger the rest.

One of Leyonhjelm hobby horses is an individuals right not to wear a bicycle helmet, which on the surface sounds fine, if there never was a bicycle accident. Leyonhjlm doesn't allow for the fact that non-helmet wearing cyclist suffer far worse injuries than others. I assume when an accident occurs, the individual rights go out the door, and the collective are expected to rush in and help the poor bugger with the smashed head! Far worse he advocates for everyone to own a gun, he's very American in that regard.