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.

Being a libertarian means accepting some rules so that individuals, including the writer, do NOT cause harm, permanent affliction or death at the hands of someone else. It also means imposing rules to protect the individual from his or her own silly actions, particularly when the ignoring of "silly rules" brings a cost penalty against society, coming out of my pocket when I disapprove of the silly actions."Why should I pay someone else's idiocy?

Dear Paul,

Firstly, I share your suspicion about individuals possibly abusing libertarianism. Anything can be abused and libertarian ideas are no exception.

Now this concept of a "collective" is even more open to abuse.
While being used for practical calculations as a statistical approximation tool, there is no "collective" in reality, only people, and speaking of competition between the interests of individuals and of the collective is like speaking of competition between the physical laws governing water (H2O) molecules and the laws governing the ocean.

It is true that in the deepest sense, in metaphysical terms, neither individuals nor collectives have any interests whatsoever, but relatively speaking, individuals are the deeper underlying reality of society and as such, any attribution of interests to the collective is based only on the interests of individuals. The convenience of statistical abstraction cannot override the underlying reality.

Speaking of the helmet-bicycle law under which I personally suffered since 1990, having being prevented from riding a bicycle (including the resulting compromise to both the environment and my own fitness/health), I would never expect, or even allow, the tax-payer to pay my hospital-incarceration bills should I accidentally hit my head, whether that accident involves a bicycle or otherwise.

It is not that I wish to be incarcerated in the first place as I would rather die there and then and be relieved from my injured mortal coil, but should that happen, I would either pay for it myself or if the sum is larger, claim on my international health insurance policy which I have for that very purpose, in order not to depend on the Australian medicare and steal/rob anything from the Australian taxpayer.

You and I know that head-protection was only a convenient excuse while the true intention of that law had been to make people wear on their heads a symbol of their submission to the regime.

Sorry Yuyutsu, you can not avoid the "collective". Taking your example of; "helmet-bicycle law under which I (Yuyutsu) personally suffered since 1990". Should you be unfortunate to come off your bicycle, the very bicycle manufactured by the collective, and hit your head on the bitumen laid by the collective. In all fairness you should not expect an ambulance, again provided by the collective, to arrive and rush you off to a hospital, something the collective has built, even if you are willing to pay the medical costs involve, building hospitals is very expensive, so I doubt you would cough up the necessaries for your share of the actual cost. Nah, you'll just have to lie there until you know what happens. And before you ask, no undertaker will be fronting up to take care of your mortal remains, it would be more work involved for the collective. Sorry about that.

Dear Paul,

"Ocean" is only a statistical abstraction - all there is in that space is water (H2O) and well, also some salts, mainly NaCl... and well, some fish too.

"Collective" is also like that and not a sentient being: all there is in that space are individual people. It is individual people who built hospitals and bicycles, including the bicycle I never had because some individual people decreed that I am not allowed to use one, but rather pump petrol fumes into the atmosphere.

I never asked your people to build me a hospital, nor to take my body there, but as the hospital is already there and as you might be taking my body there against my will, I will be paying for these relative costs anyway, not for my enjoyment but just in order to avoid robbing the tax-payers: I live without stealing and robbing others and so I will also die not being a thief or a robber.

As for the nuisance of that broken body of mine, sorry for dropping that rubbish in your street and please feel free to chuck my mortal coil in the nearest green bin, better still, allow the birds to have a nice meal of it.

We can't actually compare rights & respect whilst ignoring merit & responsibility !