Only 26 libertarians in Australia?

Are there really only 26 “anti-war” libertarians – that is, real libertarians – in Australia? Join the facebook group and prove me wrong.

For more on why foreign policy is the key to distinguishing a libertarian from a non-libertarian (or indeed a classical liberal from a non-classical liberal), here’s Walter Block’s speech on ‘plumb-line libertarianism’. Also see Robert Higgs’ article “Are Questions of War and Peace Merely One Issue Among Many for Libertarians?” Also check out Liberty Australia’s resource page on foreign policy.

145 thoughts on “Only 26 libertarians in Australia?

  1. Are there really only 26 “anti-war” libertarians – that is, real libertarians – in Australia?

    That’s pretty freaking offensive, Sukrit. I suppose there may be only 26 pretend “Ghandian libertarians” that go around asserting the US was at fault in WW2 and that the Axis pact were misunderstood. I think you’ve doena version of that shit from time to time until we pick you up on it you run off crying.

    Don’t confuse Hindu peacnik anti-American bullshit you espouse with being libertarian. I know I don’t.

  2. This is bullshit Sukrit.

    Property righrts imply preservation. This implies self defence.

    The Afghan War may have some screwy directives but to conflate these with the legitimacy of such a war is beneath your intelligence.

  3. Sukrit
    according to your pet theory, war is the health of the state.

    Do tell us how our involvement in Afghanistan has blown out the budget? Spending on defence is still a piddling amount compared to welfare

  4. I don’t think budget considerations was what Randolph Bourne was getting at when he said war is the health of the state.

  5. This is even dumber than your normal posts, Sukrit.

    The ALS is not the national union of students. Nobody really cares about your efforts to try and redefine the regular terms of the debate.

  6. fine jaz. tell us how civil liberties have diminished because we sent some soliders to Afghanistan.

  7. I was just pointing out what the man was not saying Jason, not defending his theory. Though while we’re on the subject I think plenty of Yanks feel that their civil liberties have diminished since the war on terror started.

    So it was a good idea for us to participate over there? Estimated direct and indirect Afghan civilian deaths: 14,643 – 34,240. Been worth it?

  8. Indeed Terje. It’s because I’m shaking the fence-sitters out of their complacency and provoking them to think differently. People like Jason Soon, Yobbo, JC etc. whose main form of argument consists of ad hominems and swearing are not exactly cited throughout the world as authorities on libertarianism. Heck, I don’t even think they’re authorities in Australia.

    So I think the more open-minded can see I’m actually citing things I’ve read, rather than making stuff up on the fly. Hopefully the open-minded and polite will outnumber the Soon/JC-crowd, now that we have a website dedicated to promoting Ron Paul’s ideas in Australia.

  9. You’re not being open minded at all. You’re pushing the paleolibertarian agenda without much thought of positive critcism.

    Telling the couple of thousand LDP members they’re not really libertarians is insulting.

    That’s why you get abuse. Not because of what you’re arguing, but because you’re being condescending without even putting your ideas (well read, but self absorbed, ivory tower stuff) up to scrutiny.

    Then you assume all of the scrutiny is because people are being rude.

    Without war there’d be no free nations. This is at odds with your stated ideas.

    Of course, this is entirely because of intellectual sloppiness. You need to be more accurate. No one is really pro war. Pacifism is unsustainable. The right way forward is a morally and utilitarian valid foreign and defence policy which is efficient.

  10. Sukrit:

    Don’t flatter yourself. You’re no Ron Paul.

    1.Yes you are provoking people with your Ghandian piss-drinking, peacenik opinions, however you’re not provoking anyone out of complacency dude. Do you honestly think those of us you mention are intellectually so lazy we don’t know the arguments in libertarian circles? If not all then most of them.

    2, I never professed to be an authority, so stop it with the false and dishonest accolades. The others haven’t either to my knowledge.

    3. Now your reading habits supposed to impress us and suggest you’re now the authority? Going to the dark corners of the web, picking up anti-American bullshit that resembles Iraq’s Comical Ali is being delusional.

    Instead of focusing on America and referring to it as evil I suggest you look around your neck of the woods such as… How about India, which is the most racist nation on earth? Millions of people killed as a result of various internal conflicts.

    Last time looked India wasn’t even a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which in certain ways makes that place an outlaw state.

  11. You guys keep trying your “Gandhian loser”/ad hominem strategy, and I’ll get started on writing articles and speaking and educating people about libertarian foreign policy.

    …and then we’ll see who gets more supporters shall we?

    Later

  12. What war-mongers need to understand is that most of these wars are not being fought for the reasons dished out officially. They are geopolitical wars for the benefit of the ruling class. They are not protecting the property of average Aussies or Americans. Afghanistan is the connection between China and the Gulf Oil states. The western ruling class do not want China running a pipeline over-land, straight to the middle east. They want to force them to the water where they rule the roost strategically. I’m not saying the Chinese are good, but at least they oppose the global warming hysteria.

  13. Reality: There is no ruling class. The wars are been fought for the official reasons. You can argue that those reasons are wrong, but your conspiracy theory suggests you’re just delusional.

  14. That’s not reality, that’s the plot from Syriana!

    Why on earth would a business not use pipelines? It’s just good business sense.

    So what are the Americans going to do if the Chinese build a pipeline?

    Why is Obama pulling out?

  15. Sukrit – I’ve still got the best of you. You don’t answer my questions and I’m exceedingly pleasant.

    It’s time to man up and stop with these hit and run tactics.

  16. Sukrit,

    I’m not out canvassing anyone. You’ve got free rein to go out and win as many hearts and minds as you want. But let me caution you that you’re wasting your time if you think you’re going to get any support for your views other than from delusional America hating Marxists and other assorted nutballs.

  17. Surkrit
    I’ve asked you 2 relevant questions which you’ve evaded answering. Tell me where I brought any ad hominem into this. You’re the only one who did.

    If ‘war is the health of the state’ explain why (i) welfare gets the lion’s share of the budget compared to defence (ii) how Australia’s very small commitment to Afghanistan has led to a dimunition of liberties.

  18. jaz, the theory may be more arguable for America. But it just doesn’t work in Australia. This is my point. Sukrit is applying theories he read blindly without any appreciation of context and claims that he’s being more intellectual than everyone else by doing so.

  19. Don’t bother Jason.

    Sukrit is doing his usual routine which is if you don’t agree with his silly views he goes all childish and retreats to his own unread, unused blog where he feels safe.

    Hey Sukrit, I know you’re reading this. Ignore me perhaps, but don’t ignore the others as they have not been rude to you and your characterization of such is dishonest bullshit.

    Answer their questions as we’re all waiting with baited breath.

    And dude, stay off the piss as you get all Ghandian on us.

  20. People like Jason Soon, Yobbo, JC etc. whose main form of argument consists of ad hominems and swearing are not exactly cited throughout the world as authorities on libertarianism.

    Neither are you Sukrit. However if you actually presented your argument, instead of just links, and engaged with your critics (at least the reasonably polite ones), then you may, just may, win some hearts and minds. As it stands you do appear to be playing hit and run. Always fun but not necessarily productive.

    I’m not anti war. However I was anti the Iraq war and I’m sceptical of most wars waged in remote locations.

  21. #26, do you claim to be in touch with reality? Whilst I hope Mr. Petersen becomes M.P. Petersen, the odds seem low, and he hasn’t been mentioned by the major newspapers as a serious rival to knock off the ABC’s candidate, McKew. They think Alexander might just topple her.

  22. Great idea Sukrit.

    Are you accepting donations?

    Btw, even the Americans aren’t as pro-America as some of these commenters. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

  23. Dixie:

    Sukrit has accused the US of being evil, totally evil, because it nuked Japan.

    Sukrit seems to have a totally dysfunctional opinion of Americans to the point where I have decided that he ought to start looking at his own country and explain how he remains silent about the most racist country on earth and still have the hide to be attacking the US. Fair is fair.

  24. I imagine that since Sukrit is a Rothbardian, he must be a methodological individualist, which means he wouldn’t blame all Americans for something the US state has done.

    So yes, the US state is completely evil for mass murdering hundreds of thousands of people in Japan. I don’t see how that could be debatable. If someone nuked Adelaide during a war Australia was involved in, I doubt that Australians would consider tens of thousands of dead civilians as fair turnaround.

    As for Sukrit and Americans, he interacts with them regularly online and has many American friends. So perhaps this is a confusion of identity about the difference between the actual people in a country, and the government they live under?

    Also, someone kept calling him out for Gandhism, but as far as I can tell, he’s just a consistent libertarian in his advocacy against aggression. Is the Gandhism an example of the racism you referred to?

    And lastly, Sukrit is not responsible for racism in Australia any more than most Americans are responsible for torture or mass murder by the US government and military. The people who are responsible for racism are racists. Near as I can tell, he is not a racist, so I cannot fathom how he has a positive obligation to deal with it. Positive obligations require violating the principle of self-ownership.

  25. This thread, along with comments made by Ben on “The worm turns in Bennelong” post are great examples of why I don’t call myself a libertarian.
    The term libertarian seems to stand for basically anything and therefore nothing.

    I think that people in our society often confuse force and violence. Physical violence is not necessarily an initiation of force.

    In addition, I think people can make the mistake of dropping context. Libertarians I think should know that “morality ends where a gun begins” in the words of Ayn Rand.
    You can’t reason with someone who lives by force. You have to combat initiary force with retalitory force and therefore judgment of a retalitory act of force needs to be viewed in context.
    We need a police, courts and military for this reason.

    The US made the right move dropping those nukes on Japan. The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens against the initiation of force. The US were clearly acting in self defense in going to WWII. The US government was perfectly justified in stopping the threat to their citizens using overwhelming force. History shows that this is the only tactic that wins wars. Defense and “peace in our time” strategies don’t work.

    “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.” – Ayn Rand

  26. Let’s not forget that the Japanese were preparing to fight to the last Imperial subject, and that they were investigating atomic weaponry themselves. If Japan had been a year ahead of America in atomic weapons, do you really think that they would NOT have used their atomic bombs? War becomes a numbers game- the americans thought they’d have to send millions of men to invade Japan, unless they used the bomb.

  27. Terje this post is not a hit and run in any reasonable sense of the word: (i) I’ve linked to articles and videos that make my case (ii) if you click on my name, you’ll be able to access the archives of all the anti-war stuff I’ve written (iii) I plan on writing and publishing more in the future (iv) I am currently working on an anti-war paper for university which I’ll upload to Liberty Australia.

    If JC, Yobbo, Jason Soon, et. al are too lazy to read these links and respond to the specific arguments contained therein, then there’s not much more I can do. It’s not my job to spend 24 hours of my day debating them online.

    It’s OK, these guys are the “old guard” of the movement here. Ron Paul is running for president in 2012, so the “new guard”, and the young people, will hopefully take over soon.

  28. It’s not a matter of laziness. We’re pretty sure the arguments are wrong, and there is a huge opportunity cost to reading all this stuff (in my case, I’d fail my uni courses).

    I’m 21, so I wouldn’t consider myself particularly old. I don’t want my generation to be too chicken shit to spread freedom.

  29. Sukrit – in the context of this blog your tactic thus far has been hit and run. You seem to be hoping that people will chase you to another blog or website where they will be confronted by overwhelming logic and capitulate or be shown up as fools. Fair enough but in my book you are playing hit and run on the ALS blog. If you wanted to make and defend your argument here on the ALS blog I’d welcome it but that doesn’t seem to be your plan.

  30. Sukrit I commend your patience. Debating with these people is worse than debating marxists or religious people.

    I take that back. It’s not debating when the other side is just trolling, because without knowing your arguments they know they (arguments) are wrong. I wonder if war is such sure way to spread freedom and freedom is end goal then why these people are not on the battlefront in afghanistan and instead waste their precious time on “debating” people online. Probably they are too chicken shit to spread freedom.

  31. Boniek: I’m not out there for the same reason I’m not a plumber or electrician; division of labour.

    And it is possible to be pretty sure that an argument is unsound if you know it’s conclusions are wrong. In fact, that’s the basis of argument by contradiction.

  32. ‘I don’t want my generation to be too chicken shit to spread freedom.’

    Tinos, what does this actually mean? Are you trying to imply that the youth of the US should have a state of constant war fever in order to counter-intuitively spread ‘democracy’ through force? What is so grand about democracy as a system of governance?

  33. I don’t see how the arguments for either pacificism or ‘spreading freedom/democracy at gunpoint’ can be made from a libertarian framework although it is interesting to hear them argued from other justifications. I do wonder though how many countries Tinos is prepared to parachute himself into to spread freedom and establish constitutional democracy. The list is quite long and no doubt we’ll all be expected to fund his attempts or even worse be forced to join him.

    It seems clear to me that libertarians advocate violence only in terms of self defense. Where it gets messy of course is trying to define and apply self defense in relation to current events. When/how can preemptive strikes be considered defensive? Can aligning with a larger, stronger power (and the duties this may subsequently involve) be justified in terms of self defense? These are just two questions (no doubt there’s plenty) that make sense to me to ask and debate within a libertarian context while pacifisim and gunboat freedom do not.

  34. Andrew: If an opportunity arises to replace a horrible dictator with a superior democratic government, we should take it.

    There’s nothing counter-intuitive about defending freedom. I don’t necessarily have a problem with constant war.

    The best forms of government for maximising the freedom of people and respecting their rights are all democratic.

    Jaz: You will be expected to fund the ADF (of course, you’re free to leave the country). Right now, my list is empty. I advocate violence for all people’s defence, where possible.

  35. Sukrit, I wish you would stop calling yourself libertarian. You might be some kind of weird anti-American peacenik, but you are most definitely not libertarian. You remind me of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which was really a front for the Soviets.

    Libertarians are way smarter than you are.

  36. Sukrit:

    Removing my comments now, hey? That’s an interesting turn of events after you’ve basically fronted up to a libertarian blog and offended everyone by excluding everyone who doesn’t agree with your warped view and when you don’t like a comment, you remove it.

    Disgusting and pathetic.

  37. “Jaz: You will be expected to fund the ADF”
    Doesn’t the ‘D’ in ADF stand for defense?

    “(of course, you’re free to leave the country)”
    Don’t worry I already have. You’ll have to milk the remaining taxpayers for your foreign adventurism.

    “Right now, my list is empty.”
    How can that possibly be? May I suggest North Korea if you’re having trouble getting started. There’s probably another ten or so after that.

  38. A lot of Australians brand themselves libertarians when they’re actually Teabaggers. Teabaggers aren’t libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, even though they share an interest in small government.

    That said, I think a lot of you guys are closer together on these issues than you are admitting. You’re just using different language.

  39. The US made the right move dropping those nukes on Japan. The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens against the initiation of force. The US were clearly acting in self defense in going to WWII. The US government was perfectly justified in stopping the threat to their citizens using overwhelming force. History shows that this is the only tactic that wins wars. Defense and “peace in our time” strategies don’t work.

    It’s morally abhorrent to claim that it is ok to mass murder someone else’s civilians with weapons of mass destruction as a means of self-defense. You would not tolerate someone killing Australians with a weapon of mass destruction, you certainly would not allow your family to be fair game if you had a physical conflict with someone, so why is it ok to kill many non-combatants? Women, children, elderly etc?

    Think about the principle you are endorsing here when you talk about using WMDs against massive population centers.

  40. Let’s not forget that the Japanese were preparing to fight to the last Imperial subject

    The Japanese were already negotiating terms of surrender when the bombs were dropped.

  41. I don’t want my generation to be too chicken shit to spread freedom.

    Spreading freedom with violence is completely incompatible with libertarianism.

    Spreading freedom with trade and education is compatible with libertarianism.

    The use of force to re-engineer societies is progressive socialism, closer to Trotskyism than it is to anything resembling a respect for property rights and a moral ethic based around non-aggression.

  42. And it is possible to be pretty sure that an argument is unsound if you know it’s conclusions are wrong. In fact, that’s the basis of argument by contradiction.

    As something of a logician, that’s not quite correct. Contradiction isn’t when something doesn’t agree with your conclusions, contradiction is when an argument is not consistent with itself.

    If the argument is consistent in reaching its conclusion, it is non-contradictory.

    Now whether the premise is correct, is a completely different matter. Many of the premises in this discussion about intervention/aggression being the same as defensive force seem to be false because they are contradictory.

  43. If an opportunity arises to replace a horrible dictator with a superior democratic government, we should take it.

    First of all, most libertarians would argue that democracy is not a superior form of government, because it is collective rule over individuals. Even Rand (who was not a libertarian) was no fan of democracy, hence why she endorsed a republic.

    Second, what you have just described is progressivism and nation building, which has absolutely nothing to do with libertarian ethics. Any state which goes around the world trying to overthrow governments to change the political system is in fact the aggressor.

  44. Removing my comments now, hey? That’s an interesting turn of events after you’ve basically fronted up to a libertarian blog and offended everyone by excluding everyone who doesn’t agree with your warped view and when you don’t like a comment, you remove it.

    Disgusting and pathetic.

    You bring up an important point. Exclusion is the libertarian way of avoiding conflict. It requires no violence, just the exercise of ones property rights.

    He did seem to leave many of your more trollish posts up, any chance it is caught in a moderation queue? Or did you have something particularly vile to share this time?

  45. Sukrit, I wish you would stop calling yourself libertarian. You might be some kind of weird anti-American peacenik, but you are most definitely not libertarian.

    His position seems to be pretty consistent with Rothbard, who was Mr. Libertarian. I’m curious why you would claim he is not a libertarian.

    What do you think a libertarian is if not someone who seeks to use the market means (exchange, respect for property rights, non-aggression) to solve conflicts as opposed to the use of force and the confiscation of property?

  46. Shem:

    Knock it off. I couldn’t give a shit if someone wanted to marry the pet elephant in the zoo. I don’t want your tax dollars and you shouldn’t have mine. Stay off my property and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want. I want the same free speech rights as those in the US.

    However I also want a reasonable sized military that kicks arse if someone messed with us.

    Libertarianism does not mean one has to be a peacenik, so stop redefining terms.

  47. …to solve conflicts as opposed to the use of force and the confiscation of property?

    Oh yea. Gop ahead and exchange with Hitler’s regime and try to keep the peace…. Oh hang on that was tried and he ran over Europe before he was stopped.

    Pleaze…

  48. You bring up an important point. Exclusion is the libertarian way of avoiding conflict. It requires no violence, just the exercise of ones property rights.

    You idiot. He has as much right as I have here, as I am a contributor too from time to time. It’s not his site. He’s a guest poster.

    He did seem to leave many of your more trollish posts up, any chance it is caught in a moderation queue? Or did you have something particularly vile to share this time?

    Oh yea, that’s right, the leftie projection. Disagree with a confused gas bag in strong terms and you’re suddenly referred to as a troll.

    How about this then. How about I go into the system and cancel all your comments. I can do it if I want because you’re an ignorant concern troll.

  49. Dixie:

    You can go to my thread and open a discussion there on the subject I posted titled, “Sukrit is an offensive little twerp”. But please keep in mind that any attempt at trolling will be dealt with harshly.

  50. Oh yea. Gop ahead and exchange with Hitler’s regime and try to keep the peace…. Oh hang on that was tried and he ran over Europe before he was stopped.

    I suppose it was inevitable that someone would bring up Hitler.

    Hitler would have never risen to power if not for the economic sanctions levied on the German people after WWI or the fact that he was a fascistm, and believed in the same interventionist foreign policy being promoted in this discussion.

  51. You idiot. He has as much right as I have here, as I am a contributor too from time to time. It’s not his site. He’s a guest poster.

    Well, if you claim he excluded you, then I suppose we can say he has the right.

    But you still haven’t made it clear you were excluded because he left your other nasty comments. Perhaps it wasn’t something he even did. WordPress does auto-moderate posts.

    How about this then. How about I go into the system and cancel all your comments. I can do it if I want because you’re an ignorant concern troll.

    I’m not sure we have established that I am ignorant or trolling. Surely my suggesting your previous comments were vile are no worse than how vile those comments actually were?

    But if you have the authority on this blog to cancel my comments, and you chose to do so, that would be a proper exercise of property rights. There is no right to free speech on private property. Not for you or for I.

  52. You can go to my thread and open a discussion there on the subject I posted titled, “Sukrit is an offensive little twerp”. But please keep in mind that any attempt at trolling will be dealt with harshly.

    I’m not particularly interested in that topic.

    Truly the use of ad hominem (see your earlier comments in this discussion) is far more trollish than anything else contributed here except perhaps the liberal democrat trying to call out libertarianism, which is just blatant trolling. But then, we expect that from statists.

    I think ad hominem is poor form in argument as it is based on a logical fallacy and it demonstrates a lack of seriousness to debate sincerely.

    I would rather discuss libertarian principles and economics than engage in name calling. Surely you would as well?

  53. 1. Sukrit started it by attempting to somehow define his own belief system inside the tent while excluding everyone else.

    2. He lied. Several people the little jerk some questions and he accused them of abuse.

    Hence the bad treatment he richly deserves.

  54. Jaz: The ADF’s primary role is defence, so the name is appropriate.
    I said:
    “If an opportunity arises to replace a horrible dictator with a superior democratic government, we should take it.”
    There’s no opportunity to do this in North Korea; so my list is empty.

    Dixie:
    – Calling the A-bomb mass murder is begging the question. More people were killed with carpet bombing, anyway. Also the Japs were not planning to surrender.
    – The non-aggression principle is fully compatible with protecting the rights of foreigners.
    – For a logician, your use of terminology is a bit sloppy. By “contradiction” I think you mean invalid, and by “non-contradictory” you mean valid.
    – A contradiction *is* “when something doesn’t agree with my conclusions”; as it implies p & ~p. e.g. suppose an argument concludes a polynomial of order 10 has 11 roots. That’s not necessarily inconsistent with itself but it does disagree with something I believe and hence the argument is probably unsound.
    – If a republic is not democratic then the people do not decide the laws. It’s conceivable such a system could work well, but historically democracy has been superior. Rand was wrong.
    – I don’t mind being a progressivist or nation builder; I’m all for progress and nation building. That doesn’t make me an aggressor; it makes me a protector of people’s rights.

    Anarchocapitalists would have to hope for more foreign intervention. The lack of it is a kind of government failure which the anarchic market ought to correct.

  55. If a republic is not democratic then the people do not decide the laws.

    There is only one law in a monopoly legal order, so “the people” don’t decide anything because not everyone wants the same laws, interpreted the same ways.

    For a logician, your use of terminology is a bit sloppy. By “contradiction” I think you mean invalid.

    Yes, are you familiar with the law of identity?

    A contradiction *is* “when something doesn’t agree with my conclusions”

    Your opinions have nothing to do with logic.

    Also the Japs were not planning to surrender.

    Pick up a history book, they were negotiating a surrender when they were attacked.

    I don’t mind being a progressivist or nation builder

    That’s fine, but it also means you are not a libertarian, because those positions are not consistent with libertarianism.

    That doesn’t make me an aggressor; it makes me a protector of people’s rights.

    You can only protect someone who has asked for your protection, and even then, you cannot aggress in their name.

    Nothing aggressive can be moral. That’s the core of libertarianism.

  56. Dixie: In our society the people do decide the laws through their representatives. E.g. if we want a minimum wage, we get one.

    I am aware of the law of identity. It’s irrelevant to our discussion. Formally, a contradiction is a proposition of the form p & ~p, not an invalid argument.

    I am a libertarian, progressivist & nation builder.

    Japan rejected peace, and wasn’t even going to surrender after the first bomb. It’s a good thing the US dropped both quickly!

    “Nothing aggressive can be moral. That’s the core of libertarianism.”
    No. It’s just one of several principles. E.g. a socialism needn’t be aggressive.

  57. Sukrit,

    Man up pal and answer the questions Jason and I asked of you.

    Tinos: It’s good giving these people a history lesson. After the first bomb, Imperial High Command did not want to surrender. After the second one, the Navy tapped out but the IJA still wanted to fight until the last son of Jimmu Tenno.

    This info only came to light recently but it debunks all of the peacenik crap about the US bombing Japan as an experiment and to scare the Sovs.

    They were fucking bonkers, thank god the Navy convinced the Emperor to give up, and an invasion would have been a slaughter on the scale of the European Eastern Front plus the holocaust combined.

    “Pick up a history book, they were negotiating a surrender when they were attacked.”

    No they bloody weren’t. The Navy offered the allies an armastice. That’s all.

    The death toll and suffering in the invasion of OKINAWA was as large as dropping the bomb.

    Do you realise how many islands Japan has, and how small Okinawa is, and how few Japanese soldiers defended such a small piece of real estate?

    ““Nothing aggressive can be moral. That’s the core of libertarianism.””

    No, you don’t get it.

    The initiation of force is immoral and deleterious to human welfare. Confronting this can be and is often required to be aggressive.

    “A lot of Australians brand themselves libertarians when they’re actually Teabaggers. Teabaggers aren’t libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, even though they share an interest in small government.”

    What the fuck do you think libertarians are Shem? We want smaller Government. What we want lays somehwere between utilitarian economic policy and the sanctity of civil rights all the way to a watchmen state with contracted out services.

    End of story.

    Even the former conservatives are pro immigration etc. I seriously don’t know where you’re coming from.

  58. In our society the people do decide the laws through their representatives. E.g. if we want a minimum wage, we get one.

    Do you have unanimous support for each law enacted? Of course not. So there is no collective “we”. If there was a collective “we”, there would be no need to vote. Everyone would agree without having to act out the charade of parliamentary procedure.

    Democracy is simply the government being sanctioned by the majority to do what would be illegal for an individual. It’s not moral or legal for you to steal from me, but if you vote for the right politician, he will steal from me and give to you legally. Which is precisely what happens.

    “Nothing aggressive can be moral. That’s the core of libertarianism.”
    No. It’s just one of several principles. E.g. a socialism needn’t be aggressive.

    It’s not one of several principles, non aggression is the key principle which separates libertarians from statists. It’s quite funny you claim to be a libertarian and yet can’t articulate what libertarianism is without making some non sequitur about socialism.

    Socialism has nothing to do with what libertarianism is.

  59. Dixie: There is a collective we. By living in this country you agree to abide by the government, which is democratically chosen. That involves paying tax, which is therefore not theft.

    I’m certain that it’s impossible to derive much from one principle alone. Set theory, for example, has at least six main axioms. Socialism and libertarianism are related because both can be compatible with non-aggression. If you enter a socialist state (or choose to stay there) you are agreeing to be the state’s servant.

  60. I am pretty sure Sukrit is one of the most successful trolls of all time and you should just ignore him.

  61. Good point, Fergie.

    Turge was abusing me and taking Sukrit’s side (he really picks them) in a post that I removed that he felt was too offensive for Sukrit but has no problem with this sludge of a thread.

  62. JC – Sukrit has posted an offensive article. But what set your article apart was that it didn’t even have the pretext of a point beyond a personal attack on one individual. This is the final straw for me, I’ve asked John to revoke your publication rights on ALS or else revoke mine. If he does neither within the next week then I’ll revoke your privileges myself. I don’t care how much you hate Sukrit and his hollow logic, I don’t want to be associated with this blog if you are here to lower it’s tone.

  63. Oh please. Get off your kiddies chair, Turge.

    Be honest for once. The only reason for this most recent attack on me and siding with Sukrit is because of ongoing scrapes we’ve had in the past. Scrapes that have to do with what I find your high handed and off putting nature .. especially your expertise in economics when its really mostly just concocted sludge from a delusional quack site: (Jude Wanniski).

    JC – Sukrit has posted an offensive article. But what set your article apart was that it didn’t even have the pretext of a point beyond a personal attack on one individual.

    You dishonest clown. You totally dishonest clown. It wasn’t just an article. It was a trollish (as someone else suggested) attempt to offend people who have views different to his. He’s done that before, thrown a tantrum and then skulked back and is trying this again.

    This thread offended me and so were other people, which you have totally ignored in order to play some grudge game.
    Just go away.

    And please, don’t email abusive comments to me saying things like “F..k off” as its really bad form and not the sort of thing a prospective senator should be doing 🙂

  64. In plain english, without the hysterical ‘you commie’ straw man diversion, please provide a logical connection between the defense of our individual property rights and assuming wholesale authoritarian command, supposedly in our collective name, over the property and people of another continent.

    I’m confused and would in all seriousness like to see something substantial justifying this point of view.

  65. Damian

    See WW2.Honest question. Do you have a better solution to the aftermath of WW2. Not around the edges as central to what the allies did in terms of the occupation of former nazi Germany, Italy and Japan.

  66. Hey Turge

    I just noticed that you’re threatening:

    If he does neither within the next week then I’ll revoke your privileges myself

    However

    1. In your very abusive email that you sent telling me to f..k off

    2. in reply to my own in which I asked you nicely to stay off my threads (sent as a result of abuse you posted in one)

    3. sent in private so it wouldn’t be embarrassing for you

    You asked John to choose and now you’re behaving like a little totalitarian suggesting you will revoke my privileges. As if.

    Have you lost your mind or should I buy a brown uniform and long leather boots for you to wear (even in summer)?

    Get off your white horse Turge, as it’s not a good look.

  67. Damian

    I’m asking you what other solutions you would have in such a situation (WW2) as I can’t think of one.

    History shouldn’t be dumped like that as its pretty important. History is a great road map and you shouldn’t dismiss it.

  68. JC,

    So who is acting as the third reich now? Let’s have some theoretical reasoning on what sits before us currently.

    I can barely tie my own laces and don’t have any ‘solutions’ to anything, thats for cuddly idealists stuck within crude ego-infused holograms that will be brought to life with a little bit of that coercion magic.

  69. Allowing these retarded posts by Sukrit that attract his retarded socialist mates just makes the ALS – and ,by extension, the LDP – look like a party of retards.

    I don’t understand why you guys put his posts up here, I really don’t. You might as well give Graeme Bird a posting account too.

  70. What kind of libertarians think it’s okay to blow up goatherds and bridal parties at public expense on the other side of the world, in a country that has not attacked us or offered to attack us? If you guys are libertarians I’d hate to see fascists. I suppose high tax, welfare handouts and occupational licensing are all libertarian too? Honestly, you fuckwits are a joke and should piss off and join the major parties where you belong.

  71. Siena.

    No Libertarian that I know on this site has said anything like that so stop pulling straw rabbits out of a hat.

    The difference is what Sukrit is trying to peddle and what other believe which is that a reasonable amount of self defense within limits is a good thing.

    Perhaps you can answer the question I left Damian which he seems to be skirting.

  72. There is a collective we. By living in this country you agree to abide by the government, which is democratically chosen. That involves paying tax, which is therefore not theft.

    You don’t agree. You are born into a social contract, you are never asked to give your consent. It doesn’t matter how the leaders are chosen (democratically or otherwise) if they rule without consent at the individual level.

    Taxes are only not theft if they are not backed up by the threat of force if you do not pay them. When they are voluntary, they are not theft. Taxes are *not* voluntary.

    This is all very basic libertarian theory going back to Bastiat, Spooner and later Rand, Rothbard etc.

    I’m certain that it’s impossible to derive much from one principle alone. Set theory, for example, has at least six main axioms.
    Are you being serious? Libertarianism is a very distinct political and ethical philosophy with an enormous body of published work and activism to support it. Are you or are you not able to articulate what libertarianism is in a clear and precise manner?

    If not, how can you claim to be a libertarian?

    Socialism and libertarianism are related because both can be compatible with non-aggression.
    That’s coincidence on the part of socialism. Libertarianism is explicitly against aggression, which is a violation of property rights. Socialism doesn’t recognize any property rights as permanent.

    If you enter a socialist state (or choose to stay there) you are agreeing to be the state’s servant.
    This whole line of thinking of state above individual is not libertarian by any stretch. From where (what source) did you derive that this is in fact libertarian?

    Also, if you really believe this, then how can you believe there any bad dictators, since you believe that the government is defacto always right? How can any Tibetan claim to be poorly treated in China if they agree to be in Tibet? How can the American plains Indians claim their slaughter was unjust if it is the American government committing the genocide?

    What next, slavery is just when the government does it, because the government is.. the GOVERNMENT? That seems to be your argument for taxes.

  73. Sorry for the double post, formatting fixed

    There is a collective we. By living in this country you agree to abide by the government, which is democratically chosen. That involves paying tax, which is therefore not theft.

    You don’t agree. You are born into a social contract, you are never asked to give your consent. It doesn’t matter how the leaders are chosen (democratically or otherwise) if they rule without consent at the individual level.

    Taxes are only not theft if they are not backed up by the threat of force if you do not pay them. When they are voluntary, they are not theft. Taxes are *not* voluntary.

    This is all very basic libertarian theory going back to Bastiat, Spooner and later Rand, Rothbard etc.

    I’m certain that it’s impossible to derive much from one principle alone. Set theory, for example, has at least six main axioms.

    Are you being serious? Libertarianism is a very distinct political and ethical philosophy with an enormous body of published work and activism to support it. Are you or are you not able to articulate what libertarianism is in a clear and precise manner?

    If not, how can you claim to be a libertarian?

    Socialism and libertarianism are related because both can be compatible with non-aggression.

    That’s coincidence on the part of socialism. Libertarianism is explicitly against aggression, which is a violation of property rights. Socialism doesn’t recognize any property rights as permanent.

    If you enter a socialist state (or choose to stay there) you are agreeing to be the state’s servant.

    This whole line of thinking of state above individual is not libertarian by any stretch. From where (what source) did you derive that this is in fact libertarian?

    Also, if you really believe this, then how can you believe there any bad dictators, since you believe that the government is defacto always right? How can any Tibetan claim to be poorly treated in China if they agree to be in Tibet? How can the American plains Indians claim their slaughter was unjust if it is the American government committing the genocide?

    What next, slavery is just when the government does it, because the government is.. the GOVERNMENT? That seems to be your argument for taxes.

  74. The difference is what Sukrit is trying to peddle and what other believe which is that a reasonable amount of self defense within limits is a good thing.

    Self defense is not national defense. They are very different things.

    I am quite sure Sukrit is fine with self-defense, but he isn’t in favor of taxes to support military adventurism, invasions, occupations, regime change etc.

  75. Sienna:
    – A state that attacks its citizens is fair game.
    – Temporary high tax can be libertarian. Depends on how it’s spent.
    – I’m open to the idea of minimal welfare.
    – I believe (e.g.) youth allowance should be abolished; hence I don’t belong in the major parties.

    Dixie:
    – The politicians rule you with your consent. By staying in the state you agree to it.
    – Taxes are backed with the threat of force like any other binding contract. It’s not theft.
    – Bastiat, Spooner, Rand & Rothbard etc were all deluded, and wrong.
    – A libertarian state leaves people to “generally be free to do what they want with what they own, so long as they don’t interfere with other people or property without permission.” (source: this site) I believe such a state promotes the general welfare best.
    – I never said the state is above the individual (whatever that means).
    – I never said the state is right; just that it has the right to regulate whatever it wants within its borders.

  76. The politicians rule you with your consent. By staying in the state you agree to it.

    So does the state own all property in its border then? And if so, then doesn’t that mean there are no property rights?

    Also, isn’t the notion of someone ruling you by your consent ridiculous? If you can consent to be ruled, then surely you can rule yourself? Because if you’re not competent or able to rule yourself, then it doesn’t make much sense you could delegate those rights to another.

    Taxes are backed with the threat of force like any other binding contract. It’s not theft.

    All valid contracts must be explicit. Just because you are born inside a country, doesn’t mean you agreed to a contract. To argue otherwise, would be to argue that slavery is just if someone is born into a contract created by their ancestors.

    This is the root of Spooner’s magnificent “No Treason: Constitution of No Authority”. The social contract is not legally binding it is only binding because you will be beaten and imprisoned if you violate it. In that regard, every social contract is appropriate for a Saddam or a Mao.

    Bastiat, Spooner, Rand & Rothbard etc were all deluded, and wrong.

    If you believe this, then can you articulate from which principles, and with which libertarians you have derived your ethical theory?

    A libertarian state leaves people to “generally be free to do what they want with what they own, so long as they don’t interfere with other people or property without permission.” (source: this site) I believe such a state promotes the general welfare best.

    So you’re saying that individualism is good for the general welfare. That’s a fairly libertarian perspective. But doesn’t taxation and regulation interfere with people and property without permission?

    I never said the state is above the individual (whatever that means).

    Sure you did. You said that the state was the collective “we”. So if the “we” wants a youth allowance, then you (an individual) is forced to support it regardless of your consent. If you do not, you will be beaten and imprisoned.

    I never said the state is right; just that it has the right to regulate whatever it wants within its borders.

    But from where does the state derive this authority? And if you believe that, then didn’t Saddam and Stalin and Mao and Hitler have the right to regulate whatever they wanted?

    I believe (e.g.) youth allowance should be abolished; hence I don’t belong in the major parties.
    But you believe other forms of welfare (income redistribution) are ok, correct? If so it’s not about welfare (property rights violations) being morally just or unjust, just particular ones don’t suit your fancy.

  77. “Perhaps you can answer the question I left Damian which he seems to be skirting.”

    Hey JC,

    You answered a question with a question. You have nothing with this WW2 fishing expedition. I know your dying to jump all over anyone arguing the counter factual on WW2 but it’s not on point.

    The only thing I see in Afghanistan and Iraq is a typical lefty tax rorting social experiment that only upsets the left to the degree it does because unlike in other destructive spheres of state activism, the clumsy, indiscriminate, life slaughtering nature of state power in warfare is just too graphic and makes the precious little angels cry.

  78. For all the democrats still reading, Hitler was democratically elected.

    If one is to believe that democracy can create absolute authority in a territory, and that the government created democratically (the will of the people) is just morally, then doesn’t that mean that whatever Hitler did inside the borders of Germany was just because the collective “we” agreed to it?

  79. For all the democrats still reading, Hitler was democratically elected.

    And if Sukrit was in charge back then, all of europe would still be Germany, and everyone would have blonde hair and blue eyes.

  80. Hi Terje; I’d ask you to pull back from that threat. jc is a valuable member of this site and would be badly missed if his odd tirades were not there to remind us not to talk shit. My immediate reaction to this post was way more unprintable than jc came up with. If I have anything to complain about with jc, its that he is a little too shy and inhibited about expressing his real feelings.

    Mate, we have just been through the wringer, trying to achieve something in the face of the imbloodypossible after the press decided the election was to be between the Libs, Labor, and the Greens and acted as the fifth column of the fourth estate.

    I can do without the bloody pathetic sniping of this little toad who seems to think that there is no party in Australia worth voting for. We can stand for a hell of a lot better than anything else available to the cause of liberty in this country. If these bastards are so fond of their dream of anarchocapitalism that they can afford to slap us from the sidelines, let them bloody stand and show us how bloody good they go in a mainstream society.

    Sukrit, you are a piece of shit. Terje, ban me too if you want jc out.

  81. yobbo

    And if Sukrit was in charge back then, all of europe would still be Germany, and everyone would have blonde hair and blue eyes.

    And which of Sukrit’s ideas in particular would have lead to that?

  82. If these bastards are so fond of their dream of anarchocapitalism that they can afford to slap us from the sidelines, let them bloody stand and show us how bloody good they go in a mainstream society.

    Does anyone understand what this means?

    What is a mainstream society?

  83. Dixie:
    – The state can own most of the property within its borders.
    – There are always property rights, as (e.g.) people own their own bodies.
    – We consent to being ruled fairly often. E.g. sport, or work.
    – You agree to the social contract by continuing to live here.
    – A state that beats and imprisons you against your will is aggressing against you. I never said that was ok.
    – Rothbard’s non-aggression, Mill’s utilitarianism and Locke’s social contract are my favourite principles.
    – Taxation and regulation involve state interference, which is compatible with my quote.
    – I consent to youth allowance by continuing to remain in the country. If I evade taxes then I should be expelled.
    – The state derives its authority from the social contract.
    – Saddam, Stalin, Mao & Hitler were not democratically elected.
    – Try go on TV or radio (mainstream) and explain to people how defence will work under anarchism, and see how many votes you get.

  84. Thanks very much for your support , Jim. I really appreciate it and great work with your election efforts.

    I’m not, as Terje thinks trying to score a fight here with anyone and I don’t have any personal animus towards Sukrit as he (terje) suggested.

    But I do stand for principles, won’t back away from them and not frightened standing my ground.

    I think this thread is an atrocity. It’s offensive.

    If I’m banned for saying that and what I think, that’s fine with me.

    ———-

    Terje:

    I think we should both back off a little here and leave things well alone. I don’t think Sukrit’s opinions are worth fighting over and there are more things to figure out like how Libertarian principles like yours, mine, Jim’s and many others can gain more credence.

    I put that thread up because he deserved it. I took it off because it simply wasn’t worth fighting over, however it doesn’t mean I’ve changed my mind about him.

    I’m not always polite and don’t intend to change my ways. That’s just who I am.

  85. For all the democrats still reading, Hitler was democratically elected.

    Not by majority vote he wasn’t. He won only 33% of the vote and the disunited majority did not want that lunatic in power.

    Democracy has some serious flaws, however with better safeguards and constitutional restrictions, it may just work a little better.

    But please, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it was the liberal democracies that took the fight to those lunatics.

  86. JC – I can live with you being rude in comments but not with publishing articles like the one you did. This isn’t about defending Sukrit but about defending the ALS against your poor judgement.

  87. The state can own most of the property within its borders.

    Who is the state?

    There are always property rights, as (e.g.) people own their own bodies.

    But your life is measured by time, and your time is used to labor to survive, so if you don’t own the fruits of your labor, you cannot maintain your life (your body).

    Also, if you believe people own their own bodies, then surely you agree they have the right to do with their own bodies what they will. Like choose to work for less than minimum wage, or to offer less than minimum wage. If not, then they are not in control of their own bodies, n’est pas?

    We consent to being ruled fairly often. E.g. sport, or work.

    That is explicit voluntary consent.

    You agree to the social contract by continuing to live here.

    What you’re making is what is known in libertarian circles as the “love it or leave it argument”. That the state’s ownership of land is superior to private ownership of land. But this means that the state would have had to come before property, and we know that is not possibe, because without property, a state could not have been established.

    Also, it seems you admit then that people are not born into the social contract, and have to give consent to it. That’s very interesting.

    A state that beats and imprisons you against your will is aggressing against you. I never said that was ok.

    Do you know any state which doesn’t do that?

    Rothbard’s non-aggression, Mill’s utilitarianism and Locke’s social contract are my favourite principles.

    You claimed Rothbard was deluded. Mill’s utilitarianism is flawed because values are subjective (marginal revolution in economics) and Locke’s social contract theory is neither morally nor legally consistent. It’s entirely reactionary to the order of the day, not any present day order we are under in western nations.

    As far as non-aggression, you really should read some Rothbard and his interpretation of it, before claiming it as a favorite principle, because Rothbard was fanatically anti-war and he was one of the first anarcho-capitalists. Both positions are consistent non-aggression. And yet some of you are trying to take the piss our of Sukrit for articulating the Rothbardian position on liberty without which, I am not sure it is possible there is a 20th century libertarian movement.

    Taxation and regulation involve state interference, which is compatible with my quote.

    You believe in the primacy of the individual, but you also believe in the primacy of state interference? And when they come into conflict, you abandon the primacy of the individual?

    Do I understand that correctly?

    I consent to youth allowance by continuing to remain in the country. If I evade taxes then I should be expelled.

    So you consent to something you don’t agree with. Why?

    The state derives its authority from the social contract.

    But who agreed to the contract? Who created the contract?

    Saddam, Stalin, Mao & Hitler were not democratically elected.

    Hitler was indeed democratically elected. Mao and Stalin both operated democracies. In fact, Mao was a big fan of democracy as a way to spread communism.

    Try go on TV or radio (mainstream) and explain to people how defence will work under anarchism, and see how many votes you get.

    Who cares how many votes someone gets? That’s completely irrelevant to a libertarian. A libertarian is not taking a populist or a politically popular opinion. A libertarian stands for principles of liberty and justice that derive from the fact of self-ownership regardless of the attitudes of his peers and neighbors. A people can vote until they can vote no more, and they cannot change facts of existence like scarcity and thus property.

  88. Not by majority vote he wasn’t. He won only 33% of the vote and the disunited majority did not want that lunatic in power.

    That doesn’t mean anything relative to the fact that democracy is mob rule. One mob pitted against another.

    Libertarianism is not about collectivism or mobs, but about individualism and voluntary order. Democracy, the ability to vote another man’s property your own, or to limit his freedoms in any way, is completely immoral.

  89. “What kind of libertarians think it’s okay to blow up goatherds and bridal parties at public expense on the other side of the world, in a country that has not attacked us or offered to attack us? ”

    *…no, no we didn’t attack you, we just let our Government harbour terrorists.*

  90. Terje:

    It’s not about living with anyone, so please don’t make stuff up.

    The real reason you did this was because of our recent scrapes and you saw a chance to get even and screw me over.

    Terje, I’m not going to force the issue , but you should quietly go and not come back, taking Sukrit and his buddies with you.

    Just leave.

  91. *…no, no we didn’t attack you, we just let our Government harbour terrorists.*
    Americans didn’t have a problem with Afghanistan harboring terrorists when they were terrorizing the Soviets. It is well documented that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, funded and trained through the Pakistani ISI Madrasa network, setup and maintained by the US government.

    Still a little surprised that there are libertarians who believe in collective guilt. But then maybe I shouldn’t be, when there are apparently libertarians who believe in persistent social contracts that are signed by ancestors and binding on the not yet born.

  92. And which of Sukrit’s ideas in particular would have lead to that?

    The idea of having no defense force, Dixie.

    Sitting around in nappies and asking nicely wouldn’t have stopped Hitler. It worked on the british in India because they were actually good people.

  93. And again Terje, I really don’t understand why this post is still here.

    It’s basically some snot-nosed kid saying “fuck you” to every other libertarian in Australia for not agreeing with him. Let Sukrit do that on his own site that nobody reads. This site is supposed to bring libertarians together, not divide them.

  94. The idea of having no defense force, Dixie.

    I wasn’t aware he promoted pacifism. Nor did I believe this post calls for pacifism. Libertarians certainly believe in personal self-defense, voluntarily organized group defense, but they don’t believe in invasions, bombing of civilians or occupations.

    Sitting around in nappies and asking nicely wouldn’t have stopped Hitler.

    I don’t believe anyone claimed it would. Of course, if people sat around in nappies prior to WWI, there might never have been a Hitler. There would have never been the Weimar inflation due to postwar reparations which impoverished and nurtured rage and anti-semitism in the German people.

    Of course, a reading of Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” which is very common conservative and libertarian dogma covers this quite well.

    It worked on the british in India because they were actually good people.

    The British were brutal, they raped and murdered with the best of them. However they learned a very important lesson from libertarian theory, best articulated by Etienne de la Boetie. All government is by consent. When the people withdraw consent, the government falls. This is what Gandhi was able to get done.

    Some of you lot would have had the Indians get into a shooting battle with the British (or maybe not, since you would then insist Gandhi was a terrorist or insurgent for defending his own country), however he resolved a conflict by voluntary action which was wholly consistent with libertarian ethics, and not at all due to any gentlemanly characteristics of British colonial policy, which was indeed quite harsh and tyrannical.

    I am fairly new in these parts, but if most readers here feel as you do, isn’t this more a conservative-democrat blog than a libertarian one? I say that, because except Sukrit, whom many seems anxious to take the piss out of, very few respondents in the comments seem to be familiar with libertarian theory, history, or rhetoric.

    I am specifically asking because Sukrit linked to Block and Higgs in the original post, two of the preeminent living libertarian theorists in the world, neither of which is a pacifist as far as I know.

    Does anyone here have even a passing familiarity with their work in economics or political theory? Or are these comments and insults an overreaction by a mob to the shallowest reading of a very nuanced position?

  95. Dixie, these guys probably don’t read books. When they say “libertarians believe X and Y” they’re actually just pulling their views out of thin air, believing themselves to be world-renowed amateur geniuses. No need to cite sources.

    Little mention is made of the fact that Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek were anti-interventionists on foreign policy (to varying degrees of course).

    And no I’m not a pacifist, believing along with Rothbard that while the intiation of force is wrong, legitimate self-defense is perfectly fine.

    I always thought the LDP had a separate blog, but now it seems the ALS and the LDP are one single entity and this website is no longer a politically neutral place to discuss controversial views. Many of the posts here are simply LDP press releases.

  96. Dixie, these guys probably don’t read books.

    This is the sort of thing you need to grow out of Sukrit, if you ever want anyone to take you seriously.

  97. I say that, because except Sukrit, whom many seems anxious to take the piss out of

    Dixie, Sukrit is not the first person to argue paleolibertarian concepts here, and won’t be the last. He is however, the only person to do it in a way that is outwardly combatitive to his readers, and to get upset when he doesn’t instantly convert the entire site to his way of thinking.

    He’s a child, and like most children he is prone to tantrums. That is why people take the piss out of him.

  98. I always thought the LDP had a separate blog, but now it seems the ALS and the LDP are one single entity and this website is no longer a politically neutral place to discuss controversial views. Many of the posts here are simply LDP press releases.

    Shorter Sukrit: WAAAHHH! WAAAAH!!

  99. jc: Please don’t tell libertarian HoR candidates to go away.

    Sukrit:
    “No need to cite sources”
    I try to cite sources for matters of fact. However when it comes to opinion, your citing sources is a bit like a socialist citing Marx. No one cares. In reality you’re fooling yourself into thinking people like Rothbard *weren’t* deluded. Try arguing your points by only citing real world data. You may find it impossible, and come over to our point of view!

    “the ALS and the LDP are one single entity and this website is no longer a politically neutral place”
    I’m sure you’re free to post harsh criticisms of LDP policy. We’d all like it to be different in some way. E.g. I’d prefer a more moderate drugs policy.

    Dixie:
    “Who is the state?”
    The state is the exclusive owner of the military in a given region.

    “if you don’t own the fruits of your labor, you cannot maintain your life”
    Wrong. The state (e.g.) can maintain it for you.

    “surely you agree they have the right to do with their own bodies what they will”
    Yes, while they’re outside the state’s borders.

    “n’est pas”
    wtf?

    “explicit voluntary consent”
    So is staying in a state.

    ““love it or leave it argument””
    This is true of every theory. Take thermodynamics for example; if you don’t accept the laws then you’ll disagree with every argument. The best I can do is articulate logical alternatives for you, and demonstrate why your beliefs a) aren’t necessarily true, and b) are completely impractical.

    “state’s ownership of land”
    The state needn’t own any land. I.e. beyond what’s necessary for essential services.

    “know any state which doesn’t do that?”
    No; and we ought to correct that. E.g. rather than throwing people in prison for drug dealing or tax evasion, I think we should be expelling them.

    “You claimed Rothbard was deluded.”
    He was. His principle was correct, though.

    “utilitarianism is flawed because values are subjective (marginal revolution in economics)”
    eh? William Jevons was a utilitarian.

    “Both positions are consistent non-aggression.”
    True, but not implied by non-aggression.

    “Rothbardian position on liberty without which, I am not sure it is possible there is a 20th century libertarian movement.”
    Rubbish. A utilitarian libertarian position was easily sufficient for a libertarian movement.

    “primacy of the individual”
    I don’t even know what this means, let alone believe in it. I believe we should have fewer rules.

    “consent to something you don’t agree with. Why?”
    Because I love the country.

    “But who agreed to the contract? Who created the contract?”
    Everyone agrees. The contract is created by you when you agree to it; that is when you turn 18, or move into a state.

    “Hitler was indeed democratically elected. Mao and Stalin both operated democracies. In fact, Mao was a big fan of democracy as a way to spread communism.”
    I’m amazed you expect to be taken seriously, saying something like that.

    “Who cares how many votes someone gets? That’s completely irrelevant to a libertarian.”
    Wrong. I’m a libertarian, and I care a great deal about what regular Australians want.

    “liberty and justice that derive from the fact of self-ownership”
    Wrong. Liberty does not follow from self-ownership. Again, socialism is fully compatible with non-aggression and self-ownership.

    “democracy is mob rule”
    Not really. A democratic republic is far from “mob rule”.

    “Libertarianism is not about collectivism”
    It can be. I want Australia to be collectively rich, and libertarianism is the best way to do it.

    “well documented that Bin Laden was a CIA asset”
    It hardly looks agreed upon.

    “libertarians who believe in persistent social contracts that are signed by ancestors and binding on the not yet born”
    I’ve never seen a libertarian support that.

    “they don’t believe in invasions, bombing of civilians or occupations”
    Wrong. I’m a libertarian and I believe in invasions and temporary occupations, where they are justified.

    “if people sat around in nappies prior to WWI, there might never have been a Hitler”
    And democracy would have lost to empire.

    “anti-semitism in the German people”
    In no way can we be blamed for that.

    “The British were brutal, they raped and murdered with the best of them.”
    Wrong. Whatever crimes they may have committed were nowhere near as bad as the communists or nazis.

    “All government is by consent”
    Wrong. E.g. Zimbabweans do not generally consent to being ruled by Mugabe.

    “more a conservative-democrat blog than a libertarian one?”
    No. E.g. we want drugs legalised.

    “very few respondents in the comments seem to be familiar with libertarian theory, history, or rhetoric.”
    Wrong. In my case, after reading Rothbard’s ‘Ethics of Liberty’ & ‘For a New Liberty’ I was convinced of anarchocapitalism.

    “Does anyone here have even a passing familiarity with their work in economics or political theory?”
    Yes, I’m familiar with Block.

  100. jc: Please don’t tell libertarian HoR candidates to go away.

    You’re Selective, Tinos, dishonest twerp.

    I didn’t notice you telling Terje the same as what you’re now saying to me especially when I financially supported the LPD in the previous election. Did you or Dixiecrat? Or our Ghandian totalitarian wannbe who is now deciding the old guard from the new as he suggested he was.?

    I will tell Dixie to go away anytime I want and you can piss off too.

  101. jc: Please don’t tell libertarian HoR candidates to go away.

    You’re Selective, Tinos, you dishonest twerp.

    I didn’t notice you telling Terje the same as what you’re now saying to me especially when I financially supported the LPD in the previous election. Did you or Dixiecrat? Or our Ghandian totalitarian wannbe who is now deciding the old guard from the new as he suggested he was.?

    I will tell Dixie to go away anytime I want and you can piss off too.

  102. Dixie, these guys probably don’t read books. When they say “libertarians believe X and Y” they’re actually just pulling their views out of thin air, believing themselves to be world-renowed amateur geniuses. No need to cite sources.

    Sukrit, seriously what the fuck are you doing here? What on earth can you possibly achieve by abusing people in the most disgusting, dishonest way. What if they don’t read books and what if they do? How is that supposed make someone a libertarian or not you profusely ignorant little twat?

    You have called for a culling of the old guard. LOL.

    Here, this is what you said:

    It’s OK, these guys are the “old guard” of the movement here. Ron Paul is running for president in 2012, so the “new guard”, and the young people, will hopefully take over soon.

    We’renothing guard, you little Turnip. We’re only interested in this site because it has good pieces and at times John Humphreys, Fleeced, Jim Fryer, Andrews and others post stuff here that we like to read and perhaps leave a comment in sympathy.

    If I recall, last time you spat the dummy you ran away and started your own blog. How did that work out for you? Did you manage to score more than 6 hits a year, you dullard.

    Little mention is made of the fact that Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek were anti-interventionists on foreign policy (to varying degrees of course).

    Please, stop mentioning or big noting yourself. Other than Rothbard they would be revolted at what you are and pretend to be. They would be absolutely revolted.

    And no I’m not a pacifist, believing along with Rothbard that while the intiation of force is wrong, legitimate self-defense is perfectly fine.

    Yea , like the US is pure evil most Americans are pure evil… but I suppose twerpy little Ghandian wannbe dickheads aren’t.

    I always thought the LDP had a separate blog, but now it seems the ALS and the LDP are one single entity and this website is no longer a politically neutral place to discuss controversial views. Many of the posts here are simply LDP press releases.

    You obviously haven’t looked, you offensive little shithead. 99% of the threads here are by friends (Terje for me is an obvious exception) talking to friends. You really are a most unattractive little creep.

  103. He’s a child, and like most children he is prone to tantrums. That is why people take the piss out of him.

    So then indicating his position was pacifism was just you egging him on?

  104. Other than Rothbard they would be revolted at what you are and pretend to be. They would be absolutely revolted.

    You can’t say that with any certainty, it is unlikely you met any of them. Mises in particular would probably be quite fond of Sukrit, he was just as single minded about bad thinking.

    That said, you completely avoided Sukrit’s statement that they were all anti-intervention.

  105. I am a lurker here, and I though I don’t usually have time to read the entirety of these longs threds, I usually enjoy what I can find time to skim. That is because right or wrong, the ideas discussed are done so in a professional manner.

    That being said, I support Terje’s earlier request to remove JC’s publishing rights on this blog. His post on the main page was unprofessional and made this blog look like just another internet troll haven.

    You want to comment in threads like an asshole, go right ahead. But your front page post made the blog look like an asshole which makes all of us look like assholes.

  106. Yea , like the US is pure evil most Americans are pure evil… but I suppose twerpy little Ghandian wannbe dickheads aren’t.

    I’m not sure why you would make a claim like that, Sukrit probably has more American friends than you do. The US government is not the US people. That’s some sort of vulgar collectivism when relying on nationalism to pass moral judgment and he is a methodological individualist.

    Also, this doesn’t address the fact that you continue to claim he is a pacifist, which has now clearly been exposed as untrue.

    And lastly, why the hate for Gandhi? He put his life on the line for human liberty, he avoided violence, which probably led to 10s of thousands if not more lives being saved from death and disability. Some of you fellows keep spitting out Gandhism as a pejorative, without actually articulating what Gandhi did that was so reprehensible.

    I’d be curious to know what makes George Bush a morally superior man to Gandhi in your eyes.

  107. @Tinos, I yield.

    I have struggled the last day to understand what makes you different from any other democrat, socialist or conservative.

    Some of your statements could easily be made by a communist or syndicalist. In fact, in some cases, you repeated the positions common to socialists and fascists.

    Perhaps Sukrit is correct, and one should pick up a book by any number of libertarian scholars, and investigate what libertarianism is, how it derives it’s ethical system from nature and logic, and then make a decision if libertarianism is actually something you are interested in.

    It is impossible to debate libertarian ethics with someone who endorses collectivism and believes that the state comes above the individual, all while claiming to be libertarian. It would be like going to a far left website, and claiming I am a Marxist who doesn’t believe in historical materialism, or a Communist who is for free markets.

    Re: Jevons and utilitarianism, look up praxeology. If you can understand the Wikipedia entry on it (because it is a complex perspective), then you will understand why utilitarianism is appropriate for an individual, it is meaningless in the context of centrally planned group action. Human action qua human action is utilitarian.

  108. “David” Says:
    I am a lurker here, and I though I don’t usually have time to read the entirety of these longs threds, I usually enjoy what I can find time to skim. That is because right or wrong, the ideas discussed are done so in a professional manner.

    That being said, I support Terje’s earlier request to remove JC’s publishing rights on this blog. His post on the main page was unprofessional and made this blog look like just another internet troll haven.

    You want to comment in threads like an asshole, go right ahead. But your front page post made the blog look like an asshole which makes all of us look like assholes.

    “David”, your IP address and language suggests your Harold. LOL In future please use the same name or otherwise your banned.

  109. I’m not sure who harold is. But if he sounds like me, perhaps he’d be worth talking to.

    If my identity is in doubt, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with the staff of this blog in a private forum.

    As it is, I am just a reader who thinks that your unprofessional conduct is damaging to this Blog.

  110. Go ahead David. discuss with the GG if you wish. Discuss it with Terje, as I’m sure you’d get a hearing from him, seeing his only fame in town is to send abusive email to people he doesn’t like.

    You’re case is pathetic.

    What’s damaging this blog are inane comments supporting a malingering tool like Sukrit who has no business posting here, who left previously because he was basically thrown out and is now back here dredging his swill from out of the sewer.

  111. “Perhaps Sukrit is correct, and one should pick up a book by any number of libertarian scholars, and investigate what libertarianism is”

    Condescending bullhsit.

    You couldn’t even make a correct exposition of the non-aggression principle and then you tell everyone else “if only you read a little more”.

    How about actually knowing what you’re on about first, pal?

  112. “Dixie, these guys probably don’t read books. ”

    Yep sure sukrit, I never read any book when I was doing my lit review for my thesis.

    Educate me. Tell me what you think the non aggression principle is.

    Let’s see if it is what it actually is, or some distorted pacifisct version of it.

    I’m quite disappointed with you, a bright young chap as yourself being unable to answer me when I’ve been nothing but polite to you (except for the snark regarding you calling me uneducated).

    If you want something worthwhile to throw up on, try Menzies House. My God it’s a hive of illiberalism.

  113. You couldn’t even make a correct exposition of the non-aggression principle and then you tell everyone else “if only you read a little more”.

    Where did I fail to make a “correct exposition”? Can you cite a source to back up your claim or is this just more mudslinging in lieu of a real argument?

    And why are you unwilling to put a name to your comments?

  114. jc:
    “IP address and language suggests your Harold.”
    They could just be using the same proxy (e.g. through same ISP).

    Dixie:
    “The US government is not the US people.”
    For the most part, it is the US people. It’s democratically elected and manned by the US people.

    “what makes you different from any other democrat, socialist or conservative.”
    I believe freedom and wealth are best enhanced by fewer rules, not more.

    “repeated the positions common to socialists and fascists”
    The socialists & fascists are correct insofar as they believe states are morally justified and necessary.

    “investigate what libertarianism is”
    I think you mean, “anarchocapitalism”.

    “derives it’s ethical system from nature and logic”
    Wrong. Anarchocapitalism derives its ethical system from an incomplete set of principles (it fails to take into account the social contract, for example).

    “state comes above the individual”
    I never said that.

    From Wiki: “von Mises rejected the use of empirical observation in the study of economics”
    That’s enough for me to not take praxeology seriously.

    “[utilitarianism] is meaningless in the context of centrally planned group action”
    Wrong. If two out of three housemates want Foxtel, and the third doesn’t, then utility is maximised by the centrally planned group action of installing Foxtel.

  115. ???

    Dixie is a real name?

    “Where did I fail to make a “correct exposition”? Can you cite a source to back up your claim or is this just more mudslinging in lieu of a real argument?”

    Please, say what you think the non aggression principle axiom is. We can move from there. I believe your previous reference to it was warped and incorrect.

  116. All — please do not use personal attacks when debating. Try to only write what you would actually say in person around a friendly dinner table… and remember that the person who is nicer in a debate is seen by the casual observer as more convincing.

    I agree that Sukrit’s blog post was intentionally provocative, but then many of the responses have ensured that this thread would only deteriorate further.

    This is my response to Sukrit:

    Nearly ten years ago I opposed the Afghani war. I then opposed the Iraq war. Earlier, I had opposed the bombing of Serbia. I know the paleo-libertarian movement well and can safely say that I pass every litmus test you have for being a “real” libertarian. However, I don’t think it is helpful or meaningful to say that my way is the *only* way.

    I have had many arguments with people about many aspects of libertarian thought: Monetary policy; Military action; Voucher systems; Natural monopolies; Intellectual property rights; Competition legislation; Gun laws; Utilitarianism; Abortion; etc. In all cases there is a diversity of opinion within libertarian circles. I agree that the “more” libertarian position is always for less government intervention, and the most radical extension of that is to be an anarcho-capitalist… but I don’t think it is fair to say that somebody who deviates on a couple of issues is not a libertarian. They are simply a more moderate libertarian.

    We should not be scorning or rejecting moderate libertarians. Milton Friedman, while personally more radical, regularly pushed a moderate line because he (correctly IMHO) thought that it was the best way of selling the message of freedom in an age of big government. Personally, I discovered libertarian thinking through the writing of Milton Friedman. I started as a moderate, and slowly developed my thinking. During that evolution of thought, if you had yelled at me and called me names, it would not have helped. Indeed, it probably would have prevented me from reading whatever you suggested.

    It is good to challenge people. I try to do that. But to be effective, the challenge must make people want to re-assess their views… not make them want to punch you in the face.

    I agree that the warnick position is a very frustrating one. In my opinion, support for the Iraq war was such an obvious mistake that I couldn’t help ranting. I still want to give people a verbal slap over the issue… and while I agree that multi-billion dollar foreign aid packages aren’t libertarian, I don’t think it is true that this is an offense that gets you kicked out of the “club”.

    My preferred approach is to use a broad definition of libertarian, and accept that there are different types of libertarian. The Rothbardian approach is very legitimate, and I have a lot of time for that approach… I hope there are lots of good (and friendly) debates between the Rothbard supporters and others… but (1) I hope it is friendly; and (2) we should remember that there are lots of approaches and paths to libertarianism.

  117. I basically agree with John.

    I’m not sure that I’d term Teabagger types as libertarian and lot of Australian “libertarians” have more in common with the views of the Tea Party movement than they do with the views of the US Libertarian Party. But even said they are still close allies.

    Most of the so-called warniks may not be morally opposed to foreign intervention. But they will still oppose war on a practical level. Which means on matters of war we’ll agree at LEAST 50% of the time (because most wars are stupidly ineffective). That still puts us closer than any other major political grouping in the country.

    Also while I don’t class Tea Party types or Left-Libertarian types as being “real” libertarians in my sense of the word they are free to use that word to define themselves. I don’t have a monopoly on it. While they might have less-clear links to libertarian theory meanings always shift over time and they still have a link back to libertarian theory, even if they believe in a stronger form of the self-defence premise.

  118. Shem:

    You can’t assume anything about the tea party supporters because it’s a totally spontaneous movement with all sorts of people and belief systems.

    There’s no “tea party” and your characterization of this group as some sort of monolithic grouping isn’t correct.

  119. Shem, I assume from your use of the term Teabagger to describe the tea party movement that you have had most of your information on it from the left, (possibly Olbermann?) It is not strictly a libertarian movement and has never professed to be one. It is however supported by a great many libertarians including Wayne Root. Both Ron and Rand Paul have addressed rallies and have had great responses.

    It began as a spontaneous response to the now famous Rick Santelli rant over porkulous and assorted bailouts saying, “Lets reward the people who carry the water, rather than the ones who drink the water,” and calling for a “tea Party in July.” The initial response was mainly aimed at taxes and wasteful expenditure, however it has broadened its focus to include reducing the size of government and support for the constitution.

    I tend to see it as more of a conservative movement but it has a lot of elements to it that please libertarians.

  120. Shem

    Regarding the issue with war and general peacenikkery.

    I was living in the US at the time of the WTC and PBS, the equivalent of our ABC (in a way), had the chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute on. I think you’d agree that someone in that position would have pretty strong libertarian leanings.

    He strongly argued that the moment the US was able to ascertain who committed this monstrous crime, America should nuke any state that was even suspected of involvement. Not strategically nuke a war zone, but basically destroy the state (s) to the point where they longer existed with continued detonation of thermo-nuclear devices.

    He also argued that no American life should be wasted on any attempt to go easy on them.

    That’s some libertarian peaceniks, hey? 🙂

  121. Jim- I just like the term. I’m generally sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, even though I think the leftist characterisation of most of its follows as hillbilly rednecks is fairly accurate.

    On foreign policy most Tea Party supporters (in a poll I read conducted at a rally) aren’t even opposed to government aid to Israel. I’d hope something like that is something the libertarians here wouldn’t support.

    I also think that there is a strong racist and homophobic element within the Tea Party movement. Some Australian libertarians seem a bit that way at times. “I don’t give a shit if pooftas marry” is good policy, but it still doesn’t feel like the right kind of argument for a libertarian to be making. I also think that some Australian libertarians try a bit too much to justify Australian “colonisation” which comes across poorly. I agree that extra welfare for indigenous people is a terrible idea, but it’s about the discourse as much as it is the policy. That’s why I made comparison with the Tea Party- because the discourse of some Australian libertarians often feels similar, even though policy wise the LDP (for example) sits closer to the Libertarian Party that it does to the policies that would be supported by the “tea party” movement (if it were one unified movement- I understand it isn’t).

    I understand that on foreign policy it can be complicated and the US involvement in Europe in WW2 is debatable. I’m not convinced that American involvement was a bad thing, but I’m also sympathetic to arguments that it may have been.

    I do think that spending and US “Empire building” in recent times is a disturbing trend. And I think organised crime such as terrorist organisations should probably be treated as such.

    I’m definitely opposed to invasion for humanitarian purposes, though. That’s an idea that started on the left (as far as I’m aware) and has only fairly recently been picked up on by the right.

    I don’t think the margin of difference between you, JC, and Sukrit, is as big as you guys make out. I think we should look at preemption as a form of self-defence with skepticism, though.

    I guess my point is that I sometimes feel that some Australian libertarians have more in common with Tea Party-type Republicans than US Libertarians. When it comes to social policy and matters of war it feels like the rhetoric coming from some people on this blog sounds more like it’d be out of the mouth of George W Bush or Rand Paul than Ron Paul, Wayne Allen Root or Gary Johnson.

    I guess libertarianism is a hard ideology to keep united, because people become fond of it for such different reasons. Unlike the greens, Christians or other major political groupings there isn’t a single agenda we’re trying to push. Like John, though, I hope we can stay united and accept everyone that wants less government than the status quo.

    The market liberal faction of the UK LibDems (especially now in coalition), the ACT Party, even the German Free Democrats and sections of the Republican Party show that libertarian ideas can be popular and successful. We’ll do better if we stay united, I think.

  122. “Some Australian libertarians seem a bit that way at times. “I don’t give a shit if pooftas marry” is good policy, but it still doesn’t feel like the right kind of argument for a libertarian to be making. ”

    Don’t agree shem. Sure, it’s not an enlightened view, but this is actually a very convincing argument that can soften up very homophobic people to the point where they’ll eventually accept gays, after they accept equality.

    If you try to convince some people too quickly, they’ll just resist.

  123. Terje, well said.

    Sukrit, I’m interested in your arguments, but your attitude is not cool. And I don’t have an hour to watch a YouTube video right now, so if you could summarise your points…

  124. I’m definitely opposed to invasion for humanitarian purposes, though. That’s an idea that started on the left (as far as I’m aware) and has only fairly recently been picked up on by the right.

    I tend to thing it started with WW2. And this is something people here haven’t answered. I’m really interested in hearing an alternative to what happened when the allies went in and occupied the Axis.

    I don’t think the margin of difference between you, JC, and Sukrit, is as big as you guys make out. I think we should look at preemption as a form of self-defence with skepticism, though.

    Sukrit has called the US evil for dropping a bomb in Japan and takes an immediate knew jerk anti American view on everything.

    As I said he ought to be looking at home before he finds faults in others.

  125. Don’t agree shem. Sure, it’s not an enlightened view, but this is actually a very convincing argument that can soften up very homophobic people to the point where they’ll eventually accept gays, after they accept equality.

    If you try to convince some people too quickly, they’ll just resist.

    I was talking about the language used as much as the argument made. I don’t mind the “who cares what gay people do argument”, but the number of terms I’ve heard LDP members use “gays” instead of “gay people” or “GLBT people”…

    Sure we might get country votes by calling gay people “pooftas” but unless you use the terms used by the groups you’re targeting policies at you’re almost as likely to turn them off as on.

    Imagine if instead of calling them shooters we called them “gun nuts”. “Let the gun nuts have their toys- they aren’t hurting anyone” might be an accurate summary of a libertarian position. But it’s hardly endearing.

    It feels some libertarians are so individualistic they don’t give a shit about pleasing the very people they are TRYING to get on side.

  126. ““GLBT people”…”

    Shem, the last time I picked up a student newspaper, it had GLBTQi, I couldn’t figure out what on earth it meant other than “non straight”.

    “It feels some libertarians are so individualistic they don’t give a shit about pleasing the very people they are TRYING to get on side.”

    Yes it is a good point. But deriding gun owners does damage to the principles because being a shooter is on the nose. Being gay really isn’t.

  127. Here’s the thing. I would like the LDP very much to pick up more members from the general public, and from the shooters, fishers, sex party and even the Liberals (and maybe a tiny amount of Greens and Democrats).

    I don’t think Sukrit’s elitism will attract more members. Especially when he won’t answer polite questions.

  128. GLBTQi isn’t a mainstream term, but GLBT has been used for years and is common among gay media.

    Not quite sure what “on the nose” means in this context. But if you’re trying to say that shooters face more prejudice than gay people… Well I’d like to know how many shooters commit suicide over being shooters.

    You’re right that we don’t want elitism or exclusion to be a part of the libertarian movement. But also think back to when Sukrit was a regular and how he was treated. He’s not the only one that drives people away.

  129. Shooters face more prejudice but it isn’t nearly as intense. Being anti shooter is socially acceptable. Of course people committing suicide for who they are is very upsetting, and highlights the intensity of the bigotry gays can face. I went to an all boys school for part of my life and if anyone came out then, they would have had the shit kicked out of them. Of course many came out after school (some of whom I remember having girlfriends when they went to a co-ed school or from the all girls school). All I can say about that in an educated manner is I’m glad I’m not gay. Getting back my shooters rights as they once were is an arduous task however. I think we’ll have gay marriage or something like it first.

    I assumed Q meant queer. But what was the “i”?

  130. “i” is intersex and refer to hermaphrodites, generally.

    Queer theory takes a deconstructive approach to gender and sexuality. It is political in the sense that it discusses the nature of power and hierarchy, but it doesn’t just deal with the coercive power of government.

    There’s more to alternate sexuality than just gay marriage. Part of it is about fostering a liberal social discourse. I guess some libertarians are just socially conservative, rather than socially liberal. They believe people should be free from government to do X, but they don’t think people should go around doing X.

    Personally my liberalism extends to the non-coercive domain. I’m more supportive of expression free from ridicule, free from discrimination, etc. Power and hierarchy would exist without government. I don’t think that government is the ONLY problem, although it is the biggest.

    I guess I also believe that a political party espousing liberalism has a leadership role to play, too. It should be fostering free expression “tokenistically”. A libertarian PM should not just make gay marriage legal, but express that it’s “okay to be gay”, or “okay to be Christian”.

  131. I would say that there are ‘socially conservative’ and ‘socially liberal’ libertarians because it doesn’t venture too far into morality. The main moral principle of a libertarian is supporting an individual’s right to freedom and property.

    Reason might take you further into morality.

Comments are closed.