Just so happens LHS and Frankgol the majority of voters have disagreed with you for the last 3 or is it 4 elections. Your intellectual superiority might make you feel better and you may judge the majority of the electors naive but the fact remains that people have elected Mr Howard not the Democrats or Greens to govern. I am pleased for you to pick up my bad grammar and spelling errors as you are likely to be the first to point out their are no absolutes in this world. How then can you say that spelling live as leave is wrong? Again it fits the warped logic of this article.

Runner, there could not be a more ignorant defiance of history than your claim that the French have "created Muslim ghettoes to create chaos in a once civilised place". The history of France, and Paris in particular is one long saga of open revolt and discord from the modern day to the Fronde and beyond, most of which were far more violent in their manifestation and far reaching in their consequences than the relatively minor contretemps of late 2005. Indeed such is the French way. Not for them the passive observance of rights being subjugated to the corporatist good such as has been done in Australia to a largely unobservant and uncaring citizenry.

That France remains a beacon of civilization to the world reflects well on the readiness of its citizens to take to the barricades whenever they feel threatened. What do we offer the world? Stolid complacency as our anti intellectualism slowly but surely sucks us down the the rankings of sucessful nations into the quicksands of second world standards, temporarily held up by our finite reserves of minerals.

LSH. I find any page with the words integrity and Howard to be an oxymoron. No one could have known Howard's full platform all along as he didn't. His platform and ambition grew until the 1 July 2006 Senate changes since when he has carte blanche.

This reference to Howard being a libertarian has some credence but there are a number of areas he is exactly the opposite.

Wikipedia states libertarian politics "...provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty". Not true in any sense. Ask those that went to Iraq. Ask the Iraqui people. Ask the workers of Australia. Ask Costelloe. Ask the homeless and the poor. Doesn't fit.

Also it states "....it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. " When a PM brings in laws and sends our troops to war without the public knowing about it then again it doesn't fit.

There are other differences too.

I think he is unique and his whole political career and aim relates to one thing. The little man syndrome. Big chip, little shoulders. That's why he constantly dresses in uniforms of services he could never belong to. He needs the people standing behind him as support as alone he is nothing. And will be hated forever once he is carried out of office, however that may occur.

This constant desire of people to label everything is simply because they don't understand it.

Simply, he is a little bastard who for some reason works against Australians on almost every front. We don't need to know why, we just need to know that's what he does.

Wikipedia also states the libertarian is against the welfare state. Given that how do you explain Howard's creation of more welfare recipients than there have ever been? Just doesn't fit at all does it?

In the same way that the "Left" and "right" no longer exist as they were, neither does this label.

Rodents need one label only. A label on their furry little heads saying "Feed me Ratsak".

"That the libertarians’ pursuit of their vision of personal freedom could therefore involve liberticide (sic) for others ..." is utter nonsense.

How on earth does the Howard Government's approach to multiculturalism, immigration, border security and indigenous policy amount to "liberticide"?

I thought that this article was a further illustration that the Left in this country is fast becoming an irrelevant rump, but the comment "...the most impressive treasurership in Australia’s history, Keating.." was delightfully droll.

This writer doesn't seem to know what the hell Libertarian politics is...

I have reached a similar conclusion to the author

The Liberal Party has been clever over the years with the virtue of the current Senate Majority.

It has continued the selling off of all government (public owned) assets. It is a deal nearly complete with only Australia Post and Medibank Private since it has more or less completed the sale of Telstra.

It has maintained its ascendancy by pandering to the middle class masses with middle class welfare. The Liberal Party can thank the Conservatives within the party for this role as it is rather opposed to any Liberal ideal. Or it could be argued that the party was simply pragmatic.

When the Liberal Party is returned to office, it can then complete such initiatives and assuming the Conservatives in the party let them, focus on other Liberal ideals such as small government.

If we assume success of these ideas, the next step will be overspending on defence and upping parliamentary perks as in the past. Without public assets providing any returns, the people will pay for these costs by having our taxes raised. It is a practical and logical step for the government of the day to take when trying to recoup costs especially since they will have no more assets to sell off and avoid the embarrassment.