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.

My view comes from long experience, Andrew.

Anyway, you are the one trying to persuade people to your way of thinking; I'm just expressing an opinion. You have failed to alter my opinion.

If you hope to get through to people, try to abstain from calling people you disagree with "myopic" or anthing else that you see as a put down. In my post, I didn't say anything rude about you in accordance with the rules set down by Graham Young who recently advised us that contributors were claiming to be 'abused'by posters.

Peter Hume writes: "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."

Firstly "the rich" are not necessarily "the productive classes". Indeed, they often enjoy incomes and benefits grossly out of proportion to the actual contribution they make in the form of their labours. Trying to 'wedge' the most vulnerable - by appealing to the worst sentiments and prejudices of the mainstream - must be condemned.

There are many ideas of Karl Marx that still stand scrutiny today - and one of these is his famous dictum: "From each according to their abilities, To each according to their needs."

I still believe this is the best principle upon which to organise production and distribution in any society.

We must not allow the circumstances to arise where yhe affluent classes have their lifestyles founded upon the human misery of an underclass.

And the 'mainstream' of the working class deserves greater collective and democratic control over the process of their own labours - and fair recompense for the proceeds of those labours.

Finally - again - 'wedging' workers against the underclass - and the most vulerable - most be opposed - as it is fundamentally injust and inhumane.

Hi Leigh

I didn't insult you or call you "myopic", that was a comment by examinator. In fact on this piece (and I appreciate your comments on both of my articles) I agree with you. The Liberal Party begun by Deakin in 1909 bears no relation to the conservative coalition which now occupies the place of loyal opposition. I would dearly love for its liberal members to move into Labor, rid it of its hard left elements and re-form the party based on ideas of individual liberty, a compassionate (but means tested) welfare state and focus on education and health.

I'd also strongly agree with your view that our political parties value victory over policy success, seeing gaining government as the only barometer of success. Indeed staying on topic its hard to name a true 'liberal' who has governed the anglosphere in the last 30 years, yet liberal ideas in economics and social policy have been utterly dominant. Ideas are why people enter politics, ideas are what is important in politics, and yet we seem to have a political sphere that ignores them. That is why I want Liberals to take the time to re-think what their agenda might be in the future if it is to have a dominant effect.

re: the idea of a new party including an ALP purged of its Left - and small 'l' liberals defecting from the Liberal Party...

I think the problem with the Labor Party these days is that there are too many people that don't really seem to believe in anything. Power-brokers dominate - and people who believe are often inconvenient nuisances...

My own projects within the ALP is to try and turn this around. In my way I try and promote discussion between people in the Left and the Right about values: and about a shared commitment to social democracy and democratic socialist tradition. My hope is that through engagement that a broad cross-section of forces in the ALP will feel they have a place within the broader tradition of the Australian Left.

I don't see the next to 'get rid of' the 'hard left' here. The political mainstream has shifted so far to the right in Australia since the 1970s that traditional social democrats are considered marginal...

Again: these are the kind of circumstances I want to change. I want issues of ecomomic democracy and distributive justice brought into the mainstream... These perspectives are relegated to an imagined 'hard left' - but they oughtn't be.

But were we to succeed in shifting the relative Australian political spectrum to the Left in this country - I do believe a small 'l' liberal party could make am important contribution. I'm thinking, here, in the tradition of the original Australian Democrats, and the British Liberals. Combined with Labor they could form an electoral bloc - that could marginalise neo-liberalism and ultra-conservatism...

I think that's worth fighting for.

Andrew,

I apologise. The way 'examinator' wrote his post - underlined with your name under the line - I thought it was from you.

I never read 'examinator's' posts, but it now seems that I will have to scan the top and bottoms of them. He is notorious for seeking to make others feel their is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with his views of everything - that's why I don't take any notice of him.

I have enjoyed you articles.

Great analysis Andrew and well written.
We seem to have lost the centre of Australian politics. Both parties currently seem to be leaning Right, and to conservatism.
If the Liberal Party were to adopt your 6 point plan they would romp in the next election.
I believe the success of Rudd was more due the obvious need to be rid of Howard. Like Bush in the US the "truthiness" factor was wearing thin and the damage to our reputation was getting pretty embarrassing. Rudd looked less like an extremist. Alas, the influence of the church, big business and other vested interests is just too great in both parties so many see the Greens as the least-bad alternative.
We also need an honest media. Issues like prohibition are a no-brainer if presented fairly. Experts agree world-wide on these issues yet the "save the children" line played by the dealers/profiteers to conservatives works every time. I don't think radical conservatism could survive if we had a media presenting all the facts in a balanced way.