Will libertarian voters abandon the Liberal government?

I know for myself, who have often voted toward Liberal or independant, am a bit dissappointed with Howards reduction of the size of government. I have even heard suggested that Howard spends and taxes more than Prime Ministers like Hawke, Whitlam and Keating.

But last federal election in SA, there was just one candidate that I would consider libertarian (Richard Armour ran for the Senate).

It is this real lack of choice for truly small government that made me decide to run for the senate this year. Stewart for Senate! :)

It's hard to know if large numbers of voters are ready to jump ship. Johnboy has a bulging war chest which he is bound to share with the punters in the lead-up to the election so the great unwashed might be once again won over with trinkets and treasure. The punters might not like the look of the ALP 'dream team' especially when the deputy speaks in some little understood language.

Trackback -
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2509

As Groucho would put it, perhaps a good definition of "liberaltarian" is someone who wouldn't join a club that would have them as a member.

Guess I must be a liberaltarian. Who's with me? ;-)

The problem with 'libertarian' policies is they're hard to sell and there have been a few spectacular failures - Sydney cross-city tunnel anyone?

From my experience, economic libertarians and the extreme social kind tend to be slightly divorced from reality. They take a decent theory (the market is a better selection device than government) and extrapolate it past the common sense view to corners of the world to which it should not apply (school vouchers for instance).

I read a nice critique of the late Milton Friedman by US left-leaning economist Paul Krugman along these lines the other day. Friedman was a brilliant economist, the story said, and made some very useful contributions to theory. But as a social theorist, Friedman fell in love with his own bulldust.

Personally, I think all Australia needs is a return to decent, responsible middle-of-the-road Westminster government, where ministerial responsibility is exercised.

In a macro-economic sense, everyone pretty much agrees on the same things - independence of monetary policy, the importance of maintaining low inflation and fiscal responsibility (although Howard is a little flexible on the last one).

The big battles now are over product market reform (like water, like power), and as one commentator pointed out the other day, Labor is actually better positioned to deliver on that one, as it is on skills training and infrastructure investment. These are issues that most economists, including this one, believe are the most urgent ones.

On social theory, while gay marriage, the republic and the right to euthanasia would be nice to have, the real battle after 10 years of Howardism is over the maintenance of fundamental tenets of democracy - like the right to a fair trial, separation of church and state, an indepdendent media, professional non-politicised public service and the protection of minorities.

In light of the above, then, I think it's time for true liberals (in the John Stuart Mill sense) to combine with the pragmatic social democracts in the ALP and rescue Australia from what appears to be an increasing descent into neo-fascism.

Libertarians don't necessarily support gay marriage. Libertarians would probably say that governments should not be in the marriage business at all. Marriage is based on love and commitment, the views of government are not relevant.

Mr Denmore,

Regarding "hard to sell policies" Thomas Paine made an interesting observation:

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason"

Yet "Common Sense" (1776) changed American and world history.

It is important to note that there is a spectrum of libertarian views. I am not a big lover of toll roads, yet I think the school voucher has a lot of merit.

Libertarians reject both neo-fascism and socialism. While they are different the end result to the citizens is strikingly similar.

Rob88 - well said!

Also StewartGlass:
"Libertarians reject both neo-fascism and socialism. While they are different the end result to the citizens is strikingly similar."

As one of those, I am still undecided which of the two major parties is the lesser evil to receive my preferences in the next elections.

State duplication is the issue.

It's great to see the Liberal party taking control of water, IR laws, and perhaps Health and Education. The reduction in complexity is what excites a genuine libertarian.

It looked for a brief moment that Rudd would provide better solutions on these issues, as he launched himself with a quite spirited discussion of federalism. However, this agenda has diminished, and the squabble over water initiated by Rann in SA has furthered damaged their credibility. Rudd sold the story that a federal Labor government would work well with state Labor ... but with mavericks like Rann that seems impossible.

For libertarians to be interested in Labor they'll need to show how they can prevent duplication, and streamline the relationship between the states and the federal government.

It should also be noted that the ridiculous spending patterns of the Republicans in the US are not actually shared by their conservative counterparts in Australia: John Howard is far more sensible.

I don't think much can be read into the current cabinets of either Labor or Liberal. It's nice to see Turnbull on the rise from a libertarian point of view: he's there on merit, smart, and knows how to look after himself financially.

One thing is indisputable: The libertarian vote is more than happy to move from one party to the next.