95% of economists want no minimum wage or totally free trade (although not necessarily the same 95% in both cases).

It is not “fundamentalist” to pursue such a policy when it is an economic policy, made on the advice of qualified people.

Are people who advocate free trade “extremist” since free trade is unpopular?

This being the refuge of stubborn ideologues who refuse to support incremental change and are therefore condemned to be locked out of policy debates.

I suggested gradualism. I don’t think the LDP should support the scrapping of the minimum wage – just keeping it very low as one part of an overall safety net which encourages people to work even if on welfare. Negative income tax achieves this. I don’t think it should support concealed carry, but legal reform protecting the rights of citizens to defend themselves and reinstating self-defence as a legitimate reason to own a firearm. I don’t think all drugs should be decriminalised, but marijuana decriminalised, medicinal use legalised and decriminalisation of party drugs with reform based around safe consumption. All of this would sit comfortably with a healthy section of the Liberal Party if it was marketed correctly and it all loosely fits current LDP policy last time I looked. It’s the way those policies are presented that damages the image, making it look like an angry reaction to being told what to do rather than much more sensible alternative.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/andrewnorton/files/cl&libertarian.pdf

Surely there aren’t really people out there calling themselves libertarians who would not want to abolish the minimum wage?

lol? Did you bother to read Norton’s post before commenting?

Sutcliffe:

The LDP’s policies are sufficiently moderate, just marketed really badly (sometimes really, really badly).

This is a bare assertion, completely unsupported by the evidence. How do you square this with Norton’s finding that scrapping the minimum wage is barely even supported by a majority of those calling themselves libertarians?

Both the last two comments exhibit the calling cards of fundamentalist parties everywhere: (a) more people would support our positions if only they were better educated on the issues (sometimes true but generally wishful thinking) and (b) it’s impossible for us to moderate our positions because otherwise we will lose our values. This being the refuge of stubborn ideologues who refuse to support incremental change and are therefore condemned to be locked out of policy debates.

I support the decriminalisation of all drugs, but I would not advocate that becoming part of the LDP’s policy position because I recognise that a lot of people – even those who support the cause of liberty – are uncomfortable with what it might unleash. I support the incremental change of the decriminalisation of marijuana and so – sensibly – does the LDP. Are advocates of strong libertarian policies in other areas willing to grant me the same courtesy? The hell they are. It’s straight into privatising the water supply, scrapping school curriculums, concealed carry, abolishing all government interference in the labour market, etc etc etc. The problem with these policies is not marketing. It doesn’t need a new sales pitch. They are genuinely radical policies, even for those with classical liberal inclinations.

How? From an outsiders prospective the LDP seems to have made a real effort to tone down most of its policies while still holding libertarian ideals. Not easy to do. The American Libertarian party seems to have lost its way on this.

What part of the LDP policies can be considered radical from a libertarian prospective? If you mean; “If self-identifying libertarians are reluctant to abolish the minimum wage, presumably on the grounds that it might cause poor Australians to suffer, how do you think they might react to this?” Surely there aren’t really people out there calling themselves libertarians who would not want to abolish the minimum wage?

I agree with Michael Suttcliffe; it seems more of a marketing/education issue to me. On the education side I doubt that the average Australian has heard of the term “Libertarian” and would recoil in horror at most of the objectives. Big government/welfare has been pumped into the water supply for so long that I doubt that most people are even aware that an alternative could exist.

On the marketing side the LDP being a small party is probably light on resources. Still it doesn’t cost much to be active and accessible on the internet and try to engage people, especially the youth. Maybe they are doing this already but I haven’t noticed.

I know plenty of Liberal Party people who would be comfortable with 90% of LDP policies, and guns certainly aren’t the most difficult issue. I’d say it’s more of a fear of anarchy if there isn’t a steady government hand on the tiller, whether that’s social decay if you legalise drugs or rioting poor people burning your house down if you reduce welfare. In my opinion there’s two problems 1. The one or two libertarian positions that each person disagrees with varies between people and creates a point of argument that always seems to drive a wedge in. 2. It involves putting your ego on the line to commit to a non-populist value system. You become a target to some extent even if you’re a ‘normal’ person. Most people don’t want this level of discomfort, and a lot are involved in politics as part of their social life and want to be popular as much as anything else.

The LDP’s policies are sufficiently moderate, just marketed really badly (sometimes really, really badly). It just needs to learn how to market itself as the progressive, sophisticated but not up itself, solution-providing party which delivers political leadership. The two necessary ingredients are 1. great marketing and 2. terrific leaders. If the LDP people cant get those things in a hurry then LDPers should do an active stint in their local Liberal or Labour party branch and learn the ropes before returning to their values and having another shot at it. Also, sometimes a bit of gradualism can make those contentious policies a whole lot more palatable. It’s really the commitment to values that gives the LDP any strength it has; make the policy too wishy-washy and the LDP ceases to have a reason to exist.

That’s a big assumption.

The LDP has zero media presence. It’s not on the first Google page for “libertarian”, even for Aussie-only sites. It’s at the bottom of a search of Aussie-only sites for “libertarian party”. It’s run in just one federal election, with minimal activism by the candidates. Why should libertarians have ever heard of the LDP?