Will Australia ever have a Ron Paul?

This question is one that brings a mix of emotions to Australian libertarians. For me it draws emotions of optimism for Australia’s political future, but on the other hand I feel overwhelmed by the prospect of how far we may have to go before we can boast a strong libertarian presence in Australian politics. When I ask the question whether Australia will ever have a Ron Paul, I am referring to whether Australia will ever have such a prominent representative of libertarianism in mainstream political debate. I think a better question to ask though is ‘How will Australia get a Ron Paul’.

Ron Paul stands out internationally as being on the forefront of bringing the libertarian movement into mainstream politics, but we are not fortunate enough as of yet to have such a prominent figure in Australian politics.  Perhaps Ron Paul’s greatest contribution to the Libertarian cause is the fact that he has been able to be part of the debates, giving people the world over access to the ideas of free market economics and personal liberty. Ron Paul’s success comes not from his ability to communicate his policy perhaps, but from the mere fact that he has been able to communicate his policy. I know many of you will argue that he has not received equitable coverage in his campaign, but it cannot be denied that his bid for presidency has had far reaching effects on libertarian thinkers all over the world, and if even he doesn’t receive the Republican nomination, he will have done that, which is no small accomplishment.

What has given Paul strength is that he was able to make his case in the mainstream media and political scene, which would have been exponentially harder without the backing of a mainstream party. In Australia it is almost unthinkable that a libertarian candidate could arise from the Liberal Party, arguably the closet Australia has to an economically conservative mainstream political party.

As mainstream political party members in Australia, we do not get the privilege to be so involved in process of choosing party leadership as our American counterparts. As members of a party we are expected to support whoever gets appointed behind the closed doors of caucus. The system of choosing party leaders in Australia will always favour the more populist of politicians, without even giving a platform for the rare ideological candidates to be heard. The American system is by no means perfect, but it certainly makes it possible for more ideological candidates to be heard.

There is no doubt that there is a wealth of libertarian thinkers in Australia, but there is a mixed consensus on how to advance the libertarian movement in mainstream politics and what needs to be done to get us there. If we are to have an Australian Ron Paul, it is going to come about in either from one of the smaller parties, or after a radical change has occurred within the mainstream political parties. It can be argued that if a prominent figure representing libertarianism is going to arise anytime soon, they are probably already involved in politics, and if they are anything like Ron Paul, they are earning a tenure representing a mainstream political party. Although neither of the mainstream parties are very libertarian in their policies, they do provide a framework for success, success that can give opportunities to ambitious, ideological up and comers. Working within the framework of the mainstream parties holds certain advantages that currently are not available within any of the minor parties, but the advantages aren’t as great as they are in the U.S. One thing is clear though, that for there to be a libertarian presence in Australian politics, libertarians need to make an effort to be present in Australian politics. You can argue all day about economic theory, but at the end of the day it doesn’t make us any closer to having a Ron Paul if you aren’t championing the rationality of libertarian philosophy. Ron Paul has done us a huge favour by representing the cause, but he wouldn’t be able to do so if he didn’t fight to make himself heard.

35 thoughts on “Will Australia ever have a Ron Paul?

  1. I wonder what the effect would be if the major parties started doing open primaries?
    Populist candidates will gain prominence in any democratic system, not just caucus based ones, it’s populism’s very nature. The benefit of open primaries is it lets people tell the parties what they want rather than the parties telling us what we want and us choosing between socialism and socialism but in a different coloured shirt.

  2. What we need is the removal of executives from the house to allow the proper separation of powers and give legislators the ability to decide what there electorates want no just represent there parties. This way less mainstream politicians can enter the major parties and represent themselves in the parliament. I also agree with Dom that a primary system would encourage this.

  3. Ron Paul’s greatest contribution to libertarianism is his consistent voting record, his sound ideology and his corresponding stances on issues.

    American has a strong tradition of libertarianism because it was founded expressly on libertarian principles. Australia’s constitution does not have a Bill of Rights protecting liberty and property. It only allows the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects guaranteed by the parliamentary system and an independent judiciary. Australians never had a popular, articulate and sound liberal tradition.

    That is why the first task of libertarians in Australia is to inform Australians of libertarian ideas and popularise those ideas here. Australians can’t vote for something they don’t know anything about. If we had a Ron Paul here, he’d probably just confuse most Australians.

    Ron Paul confuses most Americans. Americans have strayed so far from their founding ideals that they have forgotten what they are. Ron Paul’s most bitter enemies are the majority of American conservatives, people who support the party he (unfortunately) belongs to.

    Just the fact that American conservatives support the Republican Party shows how far they have strayed from their founding principles. The Republican Party was mercantilist from it’s founding and is as socialist (behind it’s conservative mask) as the Democratic Party.

    Consequently most conservatives mistake Ron Paul’s policies as being “liberal” ones. They can’t pigeonhole Ron Paul in their false conservative way of thinking so they assume he must be liberal. There is some excuse for this in the fact that many liberal policies are actually partly correct.

    For example, they say he is pro-Palestine, anti-military, pro-drug, pro-prostitution, pro-abortion and so on. But most conservatives who think that have just not listened to Paul’s explanations of his policies.

  4. Like it or not, Barnaby Joyce is the closest we have to Ron Paul.

    I think libertarianism needs a distinctly different flavor in Australia that it has in the US. We don’t have their history; we need to look to our own for the stories, imagery and deeply Australian characteristics.

    And they are there. Beaten down, repressed, glorified by the passing of time. But they are there, and form the basis we need to build upon.

  5. I agree Chris, Australia needs its own Libertarian flavor. For example the obsession Amercians have with the abortion, and guns debate is not Australian. In fact, I think overwhelmingly Australians see this kind of debate as ideological extremism. To be honest, even to me, Ron Paul’s positions on these issues seem to me flawed logic.

    If your government is restrained within legal bounds which guarantee individual freedoms (within the constraints of causing no harm to others) than why do citizens need for guns at home (without reasonable restrictions, purpose, licensing, etc)? It is a circular argument: why does one need to possess lethal weapons if you are not threatened by your government and your government is sworn to protect you from any interference to you personal liberty?

    Similarly, Abortion comes down to what point you believe the foetus is a human being with rights and when those rights trump the mother’s rights. Aside from the cultural realities within the US, I cannot understand how Paul can make a categorical call on the subject one way or the other. Notwithstanding, his Doctor credentials.

    However, when it comes to economics, the role of government, excessive regulation (governance) and the assault on individual freedoms and thoughts, I think australians are very ready for an articulate libertarian voice.

    Unless Ron Paul is successful in obtaining the GOP nomination our mass media is unlikely to give the subject any oxygen. .

    Further, I am not so sure that only the liberal party offers the necessary soil for a libertarian surge in Australia. With the demise of large scale manufacturing and the re-organistion of labour in this country – The Australian Labour Party is hopelessly lacking any ideological basis. It is in US terms a progressive movement with no clear direction or base. For Libertarianism to succeed it will need to find foot holds in all major parties regardless of their percieved left right status..

  6. “Like it or not, Barnaby Joyce is the closest we have to Ron Paul.”

    He apparently has an independent and principled spirit but ideologically… somebody needs to hand the guy a copy of “Economics In One Lesson” by Hazlitt. He called himself an agrarian socialist, and not without some good reason. At least he doesn’t fly with Family First and One Nation.

    “I think libertarianism needs a distinctly different flavor in Australia that it has in the US. We don’t have their history; we need to look to our own for the stories, imagery and deeply Australian characteristics.

    And they are there. Beaten down, repressed, glorified by the passing of time. But they are there, and form the basis we need to build upon.”

    There probably are stories in our history which can serve to illustrate libertarian ideas. However, I am wary of appeals to broad nationalism, which is implied in your use of the words “distinctly Australian flavour” or “imagery” and “deeply Australian characteristics”. Each country has it’s own characteristics, but tradition for its own sake can stifle diversity and innovation as well as submerge the individual’s character. Such images can be inaccurate and completely delusional. They make good poetry and story telling but usually don’t stand up to genuine investigation. Historians constantly argue about them.

    Nationalism is collectivist. I distinguish nationalism from patriotism. Nationalism requires conformity to an ethnic, cultural or racial type. Eventually it leads to ideological conformity. Patriotism is the defense of one’s country or society. Nationalism dictates how individuals live in that society. Patriotism defends the freedoms one enjoys in one’s society.

    However, I do understand that aspects of a country’s culture has to be protected in order for it to remain free. Positive cultural advances have to be preserved while at the same time preserving the liberty of each individuals to choose his way of life. I don’t think any kind of government intervention is necessary for that to happen.

    In fact, it is government intervention which is destroying positive Australian culture. Western government intervention is what creates most of the foreign wars and keeps the undeveloped world from developing. This creates a steady flow of refugees from cultures antithetical to our own. Actively “muliticulturalist” domestic immigration programs favour refugees and other immigrants from countries with cultures which disagree with our own political institutions.

  7. “If your government is restrained within legal bounds which guarantee individual freedoms (within the constraints of causing no harm to others) than why do citizens need for guns at home (without reasonable restrictions, purpose, licensing, etc)? It is a circular argument: ”

    Laws alone don’t enforce themselves. Law enforcement requires the use of force. Even a limited government can resort to “emergency measures” to impose dictatorship.

    “why does one need to possess lethal weapons if you are not threatened by your government and your government is sworn to protect you from any interference to you personal liberty?”

    The police are not sworn to protect people. Both Australian and US police are under no obligation to defend an idividual who’s rights are being violated. This has been proven in court cases where police failed to do so. Police have no more obligation to intervene than do regular citizens.

    “Similarly, Abortion comes down to what point you believe the foetus is a human being with rights and when those rights trump the mother’s rights.”

    I agree it;s a difficult one. Who decides biological and moral realities for the individual mother? However, it goes the other way too: If an unborn baby does not deserve rights, then by extension he may not derserve rights after birth. The difference is a matter of minutes. Peter Singer believes that newly born babies are not people. The more science has investigated fetal development, the earlier they find it to have fully human features. Where do you draw the line? We know that babies can be born prematurely by months and be considered fully human immediately after birth.

    However, Ron Paul’s only policy on abortion, as a congressman, is that abortion laws should be decided by the states and that the federal government should not fund clinics.

  8. “However, when it comes to economics, the role of government, excessive regulation (governance) and the assault on individual freedoms and thoughts, I think australians are very ready for an articulate libertarian voice.”

    I find some Australians to be receptive to my ideas. But without a full understanding of libertarian concepts, the Australian mind resists the idea of limited government. Australia has a strong history of paternalism. It’s one thing for an Australian to complain about having to pay heavy taxes or about not being allowed to develop his property because of ridiculous and misapplied environmental heritage laws. It is another thing for him to understand why government intervention is unnecessary and at the root of social and economic problems. Part of the problem is that Australians see government intervention two ways: Good and necessary when it benefits themselves, bad and unnecessary when it needlessly penalises themselves.

    “Further, I am not so sure that only the liberal party offers the necessary soil for a libertarian surge in Australia. With the demise of large scale manufacturing and the re-organistion of labour in this country – The Australian Labour Party is hopelessly lacking any ideological basis. It is in US terms a progressive movement with no clear direction or base. For Libertarianism to succeed it will need to find foot holds in all major parties regardless of their percieved left right status.”

    In other words, both parties have made big enough advances in expanding power for themselves that they don’t need to continue pretending to have genuine ideologies. The only soil both parties provide for libertarianism is disillusionment with the parties themselves. Neither party was ever genuinely progressive, they were just good at marketing themselves (with nice-sounding ideologies) and probably somewhat misguided themselves. Their direction always was and now remains expansion of government and monopolisation of buiness.

    Whether libertarian candidates operate within or without the major parties, they are going to be in fundamental ideological combat with the party leaderships all the way.

  9. “Similarly, Abortion comes down to what point you believe the foetus is a human being with rights and when those rights trump the mother’s rights. Aside from the cultural realities within the US, I cannot understand how Paul can make a categorical call on the subject one way or the other. Notwithstanding, his Doctor credentials.”

    Another factor people overlook in the abortion debate is that the “pro-choice” side do not merely advocate choice. They have a left-wing agenda (largely environmentalist and feminist) which advocates abortion as a means of birth control and “liberation” of women from the nuclear family. Both these goals are in line with the overall elite, socialist agenda for society: population reduction, reproductive controls and the marginalisation or abolition of the family as a unit of society.

    My point being, that if this subversive, ideological influence were removed, abortion would be a less attractive option for most women, and probably less frequently a necessity,. This influence has gained its dominance the financial and institutional support of the government and therefore would be eliminated through application of simple libertarianism. That would at least greatly reduce the number of cases of the abortion dilemma, if not eliminate it altogether.

  10. Ron Paul has gained a lot of traction because of the economic/military woes in the US. I think Australians would be a lot more receptive to a libertarian figure/message if they were faced with higher unemployment and continual massive deficits due to failing overseas wars and financial bailouts etc etc.

  11. I think Ron Paul’s stance on abortion succeeds in making it less of a political issue, but a medical issue, which it fundamentally is. The U.S has gone way over the top in making it an issue of women’s liberation, rather than an issue of individual freedom to choose the morality of medical procedures.

    Youth politics might be an indicator of what the future holds for the major political parties. A YLNP/ Young Labor debate recently turned into a pissing competition to see who is the most free market in their ideologies. Libertarianism as a political ideal has a certain logic and rationality that is not present in socialist, big government ideas, and I think there is a possibility that youth politics on both sides are picking up on this.

  12. Also, why do you guys think Barnaby Joyce is the closest thing we have to a prominent libertarian in mainstream politics?

  13. I would say Paul (and the GFC and failed keynesian response) has probably brought austrian economics into the mainstream more than libertarianism. He didn’t actually achieve that much in 2008 in the scheme of things. This year, however, he is by a country mile the best known anti-war candidate (Obama was in 2008), which brings a significant, if soft, constituency.
    Personally I’m hoping Gary Johnson picks up the better part of Ron Paul’s support in the general election when Paul inevitably loses the Republican nomination.

  14. Ok.. a few bits to comment back on here.

    David – point made regarding guns and abortion. They, except for small groups, simply aren’t issues here.

    As to the existing parties – I think both display different weaknesses. The labor party you’ve described; the’ve lost their core. The liberal party suffers from centrism; they have no effective stalking horse to put ‘extreme’ views out there to be ‘sensible’ compared to.

    Barnaby Joyce is prepared to put out there ideas and comments that are outside the mainstream but correct, just as Ron Paul does. He’s prepared to be thought wrong to be right. I’m not saying that he is the most Libertarian, but that he is the closest to Ron Paul.

    BTW – If you want a major party to co-opt, the Nationals are probably the go.

    Loki – regarding Australian imagery – if you don’t draw from pictures, stories, basis that people already possess, you cannot touch their emotions. Sure, there is an intellectual side to Libertarianism, but that is dry and does not possess the capacity to reach people. No, the route to an Australian Libertarianism (and I’d avoid ‘Libertarian’ as a identifying word as it’s societal meaning is someone who has no ethics) is through our rich history of larrakins, of swagmen, of bushrangers, of independence, struggle against nature, of the evil squatters and our disregard for authority.

    Mitch – Paul is not presenting ‘Libertarianism’ as such, but constitutionalism. Sure, that is more ‘libertarian’ in nature, but that is not really the point. He is reaching back in history to the old stories and touching people.

  15. Oh and as to Gary Johnson – nice thought, but too arrogant in approach. The way forward, like it or not, is to be there to pick up the mantle if Ron Paul is unable to carry it far enough.

    Unfortunately, Johnson is trying to create his own brand and won’t be able to carry Ron’s momentum forward as he is simply not laying the groundwork necessary. He is going to fracture things rather than continue them.

  16. I personally think Ron Paul has done everything he ever will do for libertarianism in Australia. I agree that for libertarianism to take off here it must have a distinctly Australian flavour, something to make relevant to Australians in more than a purely ideological way, which is what I believe libertarianism is in Australia. Paul has appealed to Americans with American issues, but in Australia we libertarians just ride of America’s coat tails, with little to no success of our own making.

  17. “Loki – regarding Australian imagery – if you don’t draw from pictures, stories, basis that people already possess, you cannot touch their emotions. Sure, there is an intellectual side to Libertarianism, but that is dry and does not possess the capacity to reach people.”

    Whether libertarian ideas are “dry” depends on how they are presented. If you read it straight out of Hayek, they would be dry to most people. But if you present them in terms of how the average person is affected by such concepts, they become real and motivating and readers or viewers will wet their pants over Hayek like a teenage girl at a Beatles concert.

    “No, the route to an Australian Libertarianism (and I’d avoid ‘Libertarian’ as a identifying word as it’s societal meaning is someone who has no ethics) is through our rich history of larrakins, of swagmen, of bushrangers, of independence, struggle against nature, of the evil squatters and our disregard for authority.”

    Cheesy stories about swagmen and convicts are more likely to make Australians likely to switch off. Australians aren’t interested in their history and why should they be – it’s a long, tedious, depressing tale of brutal paternalism. Such illustrations are also not as simple as you make out.

    For instance, the squatters oppsed the government when it suited their financial needs and sided with government just as quickly to oppress other pioneers when their financial interests were threatened. They were not libertarians, they were unprincipled opportunists.

    Swagmen? Individualists, yes, but sadly also the first supporters of socialism. The socialist Labour party founded itself on the support of these itinerant workers. Bushrangers – are you kidding? Most of them were predatory murdereres and thieves. The fact that the governments of their time were as bad as they were does not absolve them of that.

    We should not be advancing libertarian ideas by confusing people with myths about our history. We should learn from our history, not be deluded about what happened in it. The value Australian history has for libertarians is in illustrating the futility of popular paternalism, which is the ignorant idea which Australians laboured under for so much of it’s history. We made big advances, but it took a long time because paternalism held us back.

    What libertarianism needs is a fresh look at Australian history in the light of libertarian ideas.

  18. Another libertarian approach to history is to recall all the successful inventors which have turned up in Australian history. Many of them became wealthy- without the government telling them what to do! The Hills Hoist, the Victa mower- if Australian history catalogued the inventions that individuals have come up with, we’d all be libertarians!

  19. “What libertarianism needs is a fresh look at Australian history in the light of libertarian ideas.”

    Which is basically what you have just missed the opportunity to do. You’ve looked at our history in the light of socialism, in the light of corporatism, rather than in light of libertarianism. It’s just perspective. Where things were taken is not indicative of where they can be taken starting from the same culture.

    All ideas need to find roots in culture to survive. Without them, they do not ring true, because people cannot find the connections required for them to make sense, to match their experiences.

  20. It’s like St. Paul said, when trying to spread the Gospel- I am all things to all people. That way, you have some common ground, and can form a friendship with that person, and go on from there!

  21. ” “What libertarianism needs is a fresh look at Australian history in the light of libertarian ideas.”

    Which is basically what you have just missed the opportunity to do. You’ve looked at our history in the light of socialism, in the light of corporatism, rather than in light of libertarianism.”

    No, I am saying we should look at the results and influences of those things in our history and show how they caused many of our problems. In other words, I am saying to use history for the reason we study it: to learn from our mistakes. There is no “light” of libertarianism in our history. We should study it in the light of present libertarian knowledge.

    “It’s just perspective. Where things were taken is not indicative of where they can be taken starting from the same culture.”

    If the culture is paternalist, things will be taken in a paternalist direction. Therefore we cannot use that culture for libertarian purposes. We can only study the results of that paternalism and use them as illustrations of what not to do and why libertarianism is the correct alternative to it.

    Let’s not fool ourselves. If Australian culture and history were so chock full of libertarianism, we would not be sitting on the outside of Australian politics still waiting for our Ron Paul to show up.

    “All ideas need to find roots in culture to survive. Without them, they do not ring true, because people cannot find the connections required for them to make sense, to match their experiences.”

    There is some liberalism in British culture but it has not been the dominant, popular, much less widely and articulately understood, ideology. But we began as a convict settlement and we didn’t get very far out of staying one in terms of real liberties, and we are very quickly falling back to it. Australia is being turned into a big prison colony.

    What would definitely not ring true to Australians is cajoling them with “ridgey-didge, fair dinkum, Aussie culture and history” tacked clumsily to libertarian messages. Those same cliches have been used by our elites to keep us ignorant and content.

    Yes, there were many genuine pioneers in this country. They could certainly teach Australians individualism. They do provide some cultural roots. Unfortunately even they are also lessons in how government confounds individual enterprise. There have been such individuals in all cultures and in all periods of history. They are not unique to Australia. But they are there, they are Australian and they could serve as positive examples of what individuals can achieve without government help – if indeed they did.

  22. “It’s like St. Paul said, when trying to spread the Gospel- I am all things to all people. That way, you have some common ground, and can form a friendship with that person, and go on from there!”

    Well that’s a different thing. Yes libertarians have common ground with all other Australians. Nobody likes being thrown in gaol or having their property confiscated. Pick any episode of Australian history to scare them into being libertarians.

  23. Loki – the roots are not to be found in the government interference, but in the opposition to it. This is why your rejection out of hand of the anti-government actors of their day deprives you of any chance to identify the very thing you are looking for.

    It is in our convict heritage that the roots you are looking for can be found. Australia has a strong an anti-establishment history as could be wanted anywhere. Where it has been different is that it has been both unsuccessful and co-opted into unionism.

    The problem is as always, that the prisoners fight amongst themselves not realising the gaolers have the power.

    The roots that Labor holds can be captured.

    The roots that the Nationals hold can be captured.

    The roots that the Liberals hold are actually more strongly held but are least different to how we perceive libertarianism.

    The above is just one of the reasons I believe that the Georgist view – which holds that there is property that should never, ever be private – provides a better key into the average Australian worker than does the ‘free market’ libertarian stream.

    Like it or not, ‘libertarianism’ is viewed in the ‘civil libertarian’ sense – i.e someone who has no moral or ethical code and thinks all things are both permissible and good.

    That key differentiation – that there should be a substantive difference between what is legally permissible and what is culturally appropriate – has not been made in Australia.

    We actually need to act to strengthen culture. Responsibility to self and to those around you lessens in a welfare society. The press to reduce welfare needs to come because responsibility for the unfortunate is picked up.

  24. IR – I’m having trouble following you. You’re going to have to slow down.

    There has been opposition to government in Australia’s history and throughout all history. But opposition to government is not opposition to the idea of government intervention, It may just be opposition to “unfair” government intervention. While in fact, all government intervention is inherently unfair, except that for protection of liberties.

    The convicts were victims of government (except for the truly criminal cases). Their oppression does serve as an example of government oppression. But every Australian school kid knows about the convicts. Previous generations of those kids grew up to be socialists – supporters of the socialist Labour Party or of socialist Liberal Party. Some of them became outright socialists. They never made the connection between government intervention and government oppression. They think there is “good” and “bad” government intervention.

    So if you illustrate your libertarian film with Australian convict history, it won’t connect. You don’t even have to go back into history. Even when the local government stops some home owner from knocking down a tree to put in a driveway he still doesn’t get it. He doesn’t want to abolish the government, he’s just mad at the government for doing the wrong thing by him. Every labourer gets about $80 of his own money confiscated at gun point and they never think of even questioning the income tax let alone government.

    The convicts weren’t anti-establishment, they just wanted to get out of gaol. They were oppressed by the establishment but they did not oppose the whole idea of having an establishment. Even socialists use convicts, bushrangers and swagmen as icons for their movement. Just as they use Robin Hood. Robin Hood was “anti-establishment” too. Socialists are anti-establishment and they are the ones working to impose it!

  25. “Like it or not, ‘libertarianism’ is viewed in the ‘civil libertarian’ sense – i.e someone who has no moral or ethical code and thinks all things are both permissible and good.

    That key differentiation – that there should be a substantive difference between what is legally permissible and what is culturally appropriate – has not been made in Australia.

    We actually need to act to strengthen culture. Responsibility to self and to those around you lessens in a welfare society. The press to reduce welfare needs to come because responsibility for the unfortunate is picked up.”

    Libertrianism is not necessarily anarchic. Government can still legitimately serve the role of protecting individual liberties. (Other kinds of government intervention violate individual liberties.) There are merely some libertarians who believe that government is not necessary for those functions to be fulfilled.

    I agree that there is a cultural basis to libertarian society, because in order to recognise individual rights at all one must have a philosophy which recognises that individuals are inherently entitled to those rights. That concept came to us through the Christian religion and rests four-square upon that religion.

    Libertarianism can’t work in a society of people who don’t believe in personal liberty. We took centuries just to discover it and even since that time we have failed to implement it.

    But culture in that sense has little to do with accidental historical phenomena such as trasnportation of convicts, swagmen, squatters and bushrangers. They are nothing to do at all with the true essence of our culture. They are examples of what happens when we regress in our culture. By themselves, they could not strengthen us against a government welfare society or to increase individual charity. Culture in that sense is something fundamental and meaningful.

  26. “The roots that Labor holds can be captured.

    The roots that the Nationals hold can be captured.

    The roots that the Liberals hold are actually more strongly held but are least different to how we perceive libertarianism.”

    All of those parties represented sectarian interests within society, the interests of one group in favour of another. That is a socialist principle: Government intervention on behalf of one group at the expense of another. It is the principle that government must intervene in MY special interests. It is almost the sole principle upon which big government is justified.

    All you are saying is that farmers, workers and businessmen, butcher, baker, candlestick maker and industrialist can benefit from libertarianism. But those parties were never libertarian.

    Face it – the only way forward is to wake Australians from the “Australian Dream”, not to patronise or cajole them with more idiotic myths. There are many examples of great acheivement in Australian history, and they can stir feelings of individual enterprise; but to inspire Australians with libertarian principles, we need to give them libertarian ideas. We need to show them how big government consistently failed them throughout our history and how it fails them and oppresses them now.

    If you want to win hearts and minds today, you need look no further than right where they are living now: under crushing government taxes, regulations and impoverishing meddling and stifling restriction in every area of life. Hold that whole picture right up to their faces, with an arrow marking “you are here”, and they’ll drop government like a schoolbag.

    History is far away from where people are; but it is what got us here.

  27. Oh, David Kompes- As regarding weapons, have you heard about people called ‘burglars’ and ‘robbers’? You might need to look those terms up. Whilst you are there, also look up ‘rapist’. These people are often armed with weapons. Should I be defenceless against them? If so, why?
    As for your point about ‘trusting’ Governments- how naive! You can trust them to increase their powers, and to get elected by talking about problems they can solve- and then claiming a mandate to increase their powers to solve the problem they originally identified. You can trust them to never give back powers and taxes.
    Taking those two points together, I would prefer to be armed in case the government turns out not to be run by living saints, as might someday happen.

  28. “if a prominent figure representing libertarianism is going to arise anytime soon, they are probably already involved in politics, and if they are anything like Ron Paul, they are earning a tenure representing a mainstream political party…”

    Rubbish, Ron Paul has never earned tenure with the GOP.

    In the very beginning of his political career he supported the young, idealistic Ronald Reagan (before the latter sold out his principles) but since realising that mistake he has been thouroughly opposed to the war party’s evil ways and has never deviated from the Rothbardian view on man, economy and state that I believe RP holds, hence why the GOP marginalises him as much as they can even though polls show he is the only one who can realistically challenge Obama.

  29. Also, I stumbled across this blog a few days ago, seems to have a consistent libertarian view point but the comment section is horrible to read, I’d highly recommend disqus or another platform because it is extremely difficult to see where one comment ends and the other begins using this platform.

  30. ^ Ronald Reagan never had any genuine conservative principles. He merely pretended to be a conservative and implemented his socialist principles under that guise.

  31. Loki, I realise Ronald Reagan ultimately had no principles, however as a candidate he ran as an old right republican which is when Ron Paul supported him, hence why I specifically mentioned “the young, idealistic Ronald Reagan (before the latter sold out his principles)” and not simply “Ronald Reagan”.

  32. “why does one need to possess lethal weapons if you are not threatened by your government and your government is sworn to protect you from any interference to you personal liberty?”

    Because it’s none of your business?

    Because other people are not your property?

    Because harming others is already illegal?

    Because “your government” a) is not sworn to protect you from any interference to your personal liberty, and b) you wouldn’t have the faintest idea of all the circumstances in which it cannot be relied on to provide a service; and it is itself the worst offender *by far*.

    Because, so long as they are not harming anyone, other people have a right to be free to go about their own lives as they see fit, without having to answer or obey your ignorant self-opinionated meddling?

Comments are closed.