Interesting article. Your six points seem to me a bit eclectic, and don't sufficiently distinguish, as they should in principle, between policies that increase from those that decrease government.

The starting point of liberalism must be that individual freedom and property rights are two sides of the same coin, and a recognition that taxation is the institutionalisation of aggression against property rights and individual freedom. 'For every thousand hacking at the branches, there is only one striking the root'. We need to strike the root, and the root is a thorough-going reform of taxation by reducing it wholesale. In principle, so-called progressive taxation is a direct violation of the principle of equality before the law. The poor have no right to legal privileges on account of their poverty, and the productive classes, including the rich, are not the asses and mules on which everyone else can throw down their burdens.

Secondly, private consensual sexual relations including marriage are none of the government's business. Far from extending the regulation of such relations by adding the regulation of homosexual relationships to the existing mess, the regulation of sexual relations should be completely abolished, including the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, the de facto relationships acts, the child support acts, and the Family Provision Acts. The principle should be that people have a right to enter into whatever consensual relationships they want, and there should be no payment from one person to another without consent.

One of the reasons we currently need social security is because poor people can't access work, which is in turn because of the thornbush of regulations on every kind of productive activity that adversely affects the poor most of all. Occupational licensing is the worst. It is a throwback to the mediaeval guilds and should be abolished.

That'll do for a start.

How about policy change number 7 for the Liberal Party: Stop bullying the most vulnerable and defenceless people on the planet - refugees. Stop making them folk-devils. Stop the dog-whistling. Face up to Australia's legal and moral responsibilities as a world citizen. And until you've entered into genuine bipartisan agreement with the ALP on this topic, stop your hypocritical blathering about how you love Australian mateship

G'day Peter. Thanks for your comments
While I agree property rights and individual freedom are fundamental liberal values, I don't agree this is violated by having a system of taxation including a progressive one. Liberals have always recognised that markets are created and sustained by the actions of government (from ensuring law & order to regulations such as against monopolies). Individual freedom's flip side is individual responsibility, in this case being responsible in accordance with your return from the system to help sustain it.

Secondly liberal have also seen a stable social environment as a necessity for individual freedom and markets to flower. The cost to individuals/society of slightly higher taxation is far less than the cost of rampant crime and social/political upheaval. This isn't an argument justifying the size of government currently, merely that there is a role to be played.

As for marriage: I agree, however some legal recognition ought to be granted to those in established & binding relationships over those in more temporary or tangential ones. This is needed to deal with issues around kids, finances, death & inheritance. But in general government should make no deciding on the worth of relationships, merely give legal recognition to them.

The ‘two traditions’ of the Liberal Party should be done away with via the formation of a new conservative party, with the wets either joining Labor or forming a ‘liberal’ party.

The Australian electorate is over-governed, but under-represented. A choice between Labor and Liberal is really no choice at all; although, with Howard as PM, there was a reasonable mixture of economic liberalism and individual freedom and social conservatism.

The trouble with both parties is their tendency to think like a government when they are in opposition, which shows that they are more interested in gaining government than they are in policy. Politics is too career-orientated.

May be that could be an argument for a republic. The old political system has run its course.
The liberal party is a pack of hobo's with no future, which is not good for the in power govt;
An election at this stage would probably see the total destruction of the liberal party
So we may as well have a republic, and rethink the political system.

In your myopic opinion Leigh. The flaws in your reasoning could lose the Enteprise both the ship and the country.
______________________________
Andrew

Good article, very interesting indeed, like most philosophic perspectives tend to big on the ideals but lacking of how and coping with humanities failings/ selfishness's not to mention the obvious flaws, the relatively unrepresentative nature of party politics.Which lead us to the current dearth of choice or real ability to alter policy or rescue a party from clutches of personal power players.
Which may or may not be in the public's, members or party interest.

While, I shake my head at the factionalism of the labor party more in sorrow than disbelief the latest ritual internecine disemboweling of Turnbull in favour of the 1 vote majority lurch to conservatism and disinterring of justifiably long dead political careers does nothing for confidence in the Liberals (Brandis aside).

The intellectual strangulation/polarization of parties into opposition for opposition sake, by and for either side, further increases cynicism of the its players and indeed the system.

Good luck with the separation of politics from the big end of town and or the unions.

I too disagree with Peter's assumption in that as writ it undermines the whole purpose and ability of governments and community in general.