The LDP’s policies are quite carefully stated under the link below. All else is personal opinion, some being very good, some the other kind.

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/index.html

When the LDP states a policy it should also state a strategy to reach that policy.

This blog is the Australian Libertarian Society blog, not the LDP blog, not to be confused. I advocate absolute legalisation of currently illicit drugs as an end goal, this is my opinion, not the LDP’s. I still support the LDP’s position over either the Labor or Liberal parties.

I do agree. That’s the principal reason the LDP has not adopted it as policy. I’m not sure why you think anyone is advocating it.

–

Thanks Dave but there may be a lesson for libertarians here: be careful about how you state your policies. A number here have advocated a full loss of prohibition in what appears to be a one off move.

This raises an issue that I thought I might be useful. When the LDP states a policy it should also state a strategy to reach that policy. This will help lessen the “radical” import of the policy and help people to see how to get there.

I think Dead Soul makes some valid observations about “freedom” but perhaps misses the meaning of freedom in the political context. The word “freedom” when used generally by libertarians means “freedom from physical force and coersion”. It is not meant to mean freedom from the consequences of society and physical reality.

In terms of instinct, human population is now too large (and interconnected) to allow any significant further biological evolution.

—

Thanks for the correction Terje.

Evolution never stops, the contingencies may change but evolution is inexorable.

I do agree. That’s the principal reason the LDP has not adopted it as policy. I’m not sure why you think anyone is advocating it.

In terms of instinct, human population is now too large (and interconnected) to allow any significant further biological evolution.

I refer to socialism and fascism as “great” because they convinnced people to believe in them; libertarianism is squalid because no-one thinks it’s a goer, and it just keeps hanging around like the pimply economics nerd at the frat party.

What do you mean? Moderate economic libertarianism is the norm in Western societies. That is what has made them wealthy. Australia is by and large a libertarian society. Where the disagreement with the status quo arises is that it doesn’t go far enough. There is much to be improved upon.

Libertarianism is basically what happens when you leave people alone. An example of a non-libertarian society would be India. A comparison of the levels of economic freedom between India & Australia would show there is a causal link between the degree of freedom and the common man being better/worse off. The best book on this general theme is Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.

Just because the intellectual links take time to develop does not mean it is a discredited philosophy. I think pretty much everyone here started off a socialist. No one is ‘born’ a libertarian. That takes time and lots of persuasion (people need to be convinced libertarianism is not anarchy).

It would be certainly prove to be more informative than this post -colonial, ‘assimilationist, unreflective tripe written above.

What is wrong with it exactly?

Perhaps getting an Indigenous person, academic, leader to write a piece on assimilation for your party would be a good start.

1. Indigenous person: Talk about reverse racism… aren’t aborigines Australian? So am I.

2. Academic: what makes these people better than the rest of the non-university going population? I completed a semester length university subject in indigenous affairs and I plan to take more subjects in this area as part of my law degree. In the arts subject I did, I noticed that the course was heavily biased in favour of the sort of views you advocate, both in the marking and presentation of the course. Some balance is needed in the indigenous policy debate. I have offered what I think is a classical liberal perspective.

3. Leader: ok, you got me there. I’m not one of those people who goes around on a taxpayer salary claiming to speak on behalf of an entire population. That hasn’t interested me so far, perhaps it should. However, I know that this is another appeal to authority and I can understand that it’s necessary to demolish my personal credibility when you have no actual arguments to offer.

DS, we don’t need to do those things. We merely have to point out that everyone is affected by choice. They can make that choice themselves or let others (specifically the government) make it for them. They will choose the former, because most people like to think they have control over their own lives.

Drug prohibition affects most people through crime rates. Once that is understood, most will choose less regulation.

Gun control affects people through their right to self defence. Once that is understood, most will choose less control.

It’s not such a difficult feat. I’m sure you agree, and despite your protestations you are not really any different from most people.

–

Can’t agree there David, I think it is important for any political party to make their philosophy “seen” in the real world. “Choice” is just too ambiguous for most people, typically they would prefer something more concrete like the right to choose for private health insurance or pay for public health system. That sort of thing is what I am driving. Simply promoting “choice” will not win the day.

Yes, I think many people, when appropriately informed, will opt for a radicaly different approach to the drug problem. Steady and carefully though, not a full blown legalise everything approach because we don’t know yet where that will lead. Interestingly though, the drug problem may markedly wane with the changing demographics. (recently read some interesting stuff on how the popn of men 18-30 years figures very highly in crime, drugs and violence and with an aging population … ). Surely though David you would have to admit that many parents would be terrified by the prospect of blanklet legalisation? I don’t think society is ready for that yet. Steady as she goes …