David Leyonhjelm guest post. Liberals not liberal

Our governing party is guilty of cultural appropriation. It calls itself a liberal party but it is not liberal.

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘liberal’ as being favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms, open to new ideas and willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. In a political context it defines it as favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

The Liberal Party is none of these. Under Prime Ministers Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison it has led the charge in turning Australia towards a police state. The majority positions in the party on recreational cannabis use, assisted suicide and same sex marriage, for example, demonstrate no openness to new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own. And the policies of the Liberal government towards foreign investment show no liberal values either.

Following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Liberal Party has instituted the widespread tracking and retention of information from financial transactions, driver’s licences, passports, personal biometrics, phone and internet communications, devices and computers. Where this information is encrypted, the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Morrison has now implemented legislation to force tech companies to assist with decryption.

The Liberal Party has given police the power in certain areas to stop and search you and to seize your property without a warrant.

The Liberal Party has allowed Australians who are not suspected of an offence to be detained for up to a week, imprisoned for up to five years for telling someone about this detention or for not answering questions, and subjected to ongoing house arrest and the wearing of a tracking device.

If you are suspected of an offence, you can be detained without charge for more than a week, thanks to the Liberal Party. Your wealth can be seized if authorities consider the wealth to be ‘unexplained’. At trial, security agencies can withhold relevant evidence from you and present heavily edited summaries to secure a conviction. Once convicted, the Liberal Party plans to strip you of Australian citizenship even if it just suspects you are entitled to citizenship in another country. And once your prison sentence is served, the Liberal Party now allows you to be kept in jail indefinitely through continuing detention orders.

Unsatisfied with existing laws that make it a crime to incite specific terrorist acts, the Liberal Party has banned and censored actions, words, books, films and computer games deemed to be advocating, urging, promoting or praising terrorism or violence.

The Liberal Party has also banned Australians from associating with various groups, including the Kurdistan Workers Party, despite our armed forces fighting on the same side as this group.

And journalists reporting on security agencies face imprisonment if their reporting is deemed to interfere with security operations.

This only exacerbates the attack on the free press arising from powers introduced by the Liberal Party to spy on the communications between journalists and their sources. These powers have also been used by agencies to spy on communications between non-government parliamentarians and constituents.

This response of the Liberal Party to terrorism, outstripping the response in any other Western country, is the antithesis of respecting individual rights and freedoms.

For the Liberal Party to keep the word ‘liberal’ in its name is an abuse of language. If a business tried the same thing they would be taken to court for misleading and deceptive conduct.

In any other country, a ‘liberal’ is someone who accepts that different people make different choices, as long as they are not harming anyone else. And in any other country, a ‘liberal’ defends individual rights against encroaching police powers.

In any other country, conservatives hate liberals and wouldn’t be seen dead with them. But in Australia, with its compulsory and preferential voting, our governing party wants to keep ‘liberal’ in its name to help extend its appeal beyond conservatives, to those Australians who do not follow politics closely but like the idea of a party purporting to defend our freedoms.

The Liberal Party is hoodwinking the nation. Those greats who have stood for liberal values throughout the history of western civilisation — people like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman — would be appalled by the cultural appropriation perpetrated by the Liberal Party.

David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to David Leyonhjelm guest post. Liberals not liberal

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Yes. The Left have gutted the Liberal Party and are now wearing its skin demanding respect.

  2. Iampeter

    This article is going to largely fall on deaf ears, given the foolish readership at the cat.

    To be a “liberal” requires support for individual rights, while the conservatives that are dominant within the liberal party and read this blog, are religious/traditionalist and nationalist collectivists, so the leftist agenda they have advanced is not surprising.

    They just don’t understand their own agenda, or where they sit politically, as on top of being leftists, they also don’t really know anything politics.

  3. An excellent observation made by the only person in the entire ACT in possession of a BRAIN!
    I have long been a proponent of searching for root cause in defining a problem.
    The root cause for the fact that in Australia the Liberal Party is completely shambolic is that it doesn’t know what it is or what it believes in .
    While in a coalition with an agrarian Socialist Party calling itself the National Party, it presumes to be a CONSERVATIVE party.
    It should call itself the CHAMELEON party. In its attempt to be all things to all people, it has degraded itself since Menzies to the point that no-one know what it is, because it does not even know itself.

  4. Entropy

    While all this is true, how come he has nothing to say about the ALP, which on any of those measures at best is no better, if not reliably worse?
    Methinks it’s because Leyonhjelm knows he has a chance at attracting disaffected, otherwise liberal party votes. Votes are what he really wants.
    Just another politician.

  5. Tel

    The Liberal Party is generally useless at everything, including being “liberal” in the traditional sense. However most of the problems come from departments inside Canberra who are largely unaccountable and operate independently of either party.

    The left are always going to be more skilled at infiltration and stacking themselves into bureaucracy, and the so called “civil service” invariably sees itself as having the job of enhancing its own power and self-importance.

    Either we find a mechanism to shrink government or it’s all over.

  6. Rafe

    Shrink gov. The only hope indeed!

  7. Harry

    Hear, hear! Thank you Senator. On the nail, as usual.

  8. To be honest, I don’t think what the Senator posted reflects our biggest problems. The economy and the economy destroying results of climate madness are our most important issues. On the latter the LNP is little better than Labor/Greens.

  9. Tel

    Votes are what he really wants.

    So what’s your plan?

  10. Dr Fred Lenin

    Abolish career politicians ,one term and you are out for life ,that will fix all of them , including the senniter.
    Sennit ? As in Maxk Sennit the comedy guy from the silent movies ,well it is a bloody joke isnt it ? A governing body ? Pull the other one .

  11. Fred

    I don’t see what’s liberal about letting doctors kill their patients.

  12. duncanm

    Entropy
    #2928900, posted on February 9, 2019 at 9:44 am
    Votes are what he really wants.
    Just another politician.

    yes. And ?

    Let’s presume the best of him – how do you propose he pushes any change in government if he cannot garner votes in the first place?

  13. Percy Popinjay

    For the last fucking time, a man cannot be married to a man. The very concept is utterly fucking absurd.

    Your enabling of so called same sex marriage has simply gifted the state yet another excuse to persecute those who hold entirely rational beliefs that don’t accord with fashionable collectivist idiocy.

    Thanks a lot, you hypocritical dickhead.

  14. Percy Popinjay

    And BTW, I’m no fan of the liberal party or any other bunch of loathsome self aggrandising cockheads who assume they have some right to lord it over everyone else.

    I hope they all die in an inferno.

  15. duncanm

    Percy Popinjay
    #2928942, posted on February 9, 2019 at 10:40 am

    For the last fucking time, a man cannot be married to a man. The very concept is utterly fucking absurd.

    Agreed – but the libertarian solution surely is just getting the government out of the marriage business altogether ?

  16. Percy Popinjay

    but the libertarian solution surely is just getting the government out of the marriage business altogether ?

    Exactly how would this take place, given the various apparatus of state control that have been enabled through the state’s involvement in the marriage business? No prizes for guessing what they are.

    There’s zero point in being utopianist about this. Barring a complete collapse of society, I can’t see the state ever being removed from its role in sanctioning marriages.

  17. A Lurker

    The majority positions in the party on recreational cannabis use, assisted suicide and same sex marriage, for example, demonstrate no openness to new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own.

    All have the potential (and indeed already have in regards to ssm) to grow the State and reduce individual liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, and actually increase the need for surveillance so that we are all forced to celebrate ‘new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own‘.

    If you want a vision of a Lib.Dem. future then just “imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

  18. Rohan

    duncanm
    Agreed – but the libertarian solution surely is just getting the government out of the marriage business altogether ?

    If thats the case why did the senator vote in favour of SSM legislation? Because smaller government?

    Im glad he decided to run in the NSW senate instead of the federal senate. NSW can have him.

  19. gowest

    Conservative – averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

    This government has done the opposite – Anyone claiming they are conservative anythings in Canberra are lairs.

    Liberal – Party of many opinions… Rabble. And it shows!

    Serves them right;- they are depending on Mining/Petroleum to pay for all their progressive agenda’s – We all know what is going to happen – Greece here we come!

  20. Entropy

    So what’s your plan?

    I have a plan alright Tel, but it has no hope of being implemented:
    Politician are paid the average weekly wage
    Politicians do not get paid extra to be on committees. It’s their job.
    Politicians have exactly the same travel allowance as public servants
    Politicians cannot stand for election until they are 45.

    Now, the current mob will say that kills politics as a career. Which is of course is the explicit aim. A politician should have already had a career in something else, and chooses politics as a vocation, to make things better. Not because it is a lucrative career option.

    Also, require balanced budgets. This will put a brake on the size of government.

  21. Entropy

    Yes that’s right! How is expanding the role of government in how people organise their private lives a libertarian act? Better to repeal the marriage act altogether.

  22. struth

    The majority positions in the party on recreational cannabis use, assisted suicide and same sex marriage, for example, demonstrate no openness to new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own.

    Got to that and stopped reading.

    What a jerk.

    Hey Lyinghelm, are you Iampeter?

    Same level of civilizational ignorance and nothing short of wrecking anarchism.

    All your hip economic policies will never be able to be implemented because of your historical and civilizational ignorance.
    The west didn’t become the best civilisation the world has ever known by adopting the policies of the hippy movement of the sixties and smoking pot and singing kumbaya.

    Read a fucking book.

  23. Tel

    Better to repeal the marriage act altogether.

    It would be good to get the Commonwealth out of the marriage business (and the companion divorce business), but it’s in the Constitution so that would require a referendum which usually results in a “No”.

    What they have effectively done here is redefine the meaning of words, and therefore change the meaning of the Constitution without changing any of the words. No one back in 1900 would have intended the word “marriage” to have applied to any other situation than one man and one woman.

    Unfortunately other words like “national defense” have been rubber-banded in a similar manner and now mean everything (and nothing). This is a fundamental difficulty for any concept of limited government.

  24. Tim Neilson

    openness to new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own

    ‘Openness” in the sense of being willing to consider them, yes. “Openness” in the sense of having to surrender to every macro-fucknuckleism that emerges from the “progressive” id, no thanks.

    Would you be “open” to my “new idea” of ransacking your house, and to the different “behaviour” that I’d deploy to carry it out?

  25. Shy Ted

    Let’s start with a ban on all muslim migration to Oz. The Middle East is a much safer place now and there are many skilled migrants who are an asset to the country BUT the refugee program is 99%+ muslim and the same percentage of problems DL outlines are monitoring the unskilled, unemployed muslims. What would DL suggest is done with the current crop of muslims being monitored and actively planning and participating in a whole range of criminal activities?

  26. max

    Inventing the Individual: the Origins of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop
    Siedentop’s central thesis is that the Christian faith was the foundation upon which liberalism was built.

    Like Moroccans, ancient Greeks and Romans cared little for non-family members. Those “… outside the family circle were not deemed to share any attributes with those within. No common humanity was acknowledged, an attitude confirmed by the practice of enslavement.”

    Classical liberal individualism did not exist in the ancient world. Siedentop wrote, “Since the sixteenth century and the advent of the nation-state, people in the West have come to understand ‘society’ to mean an association of individuals.” For the ancient Romans and Greeks society consisted of a collection of extended families. The heads of the families, including family-based clans and tribes, held all the power and made all of the decisions. Only the heads of families could become citizens in the polis.
    Antiquity had no notion of the powers of the government being limited by the rights of individuals, even for family heads. “Citizens belonged to the city, body and soul.” Women, children, slaves and non-citizens held no rights and lived only at the pleasure of the family head.
    The ancients had no concept of the equality of man, either. Even for Plato and Aristotle, a natural hierarchy of humanity existed, much like the caste system of India. Some were born to rule, others to serve or fight. Submitting to the needs of the city as determined by the family heads was the only reason for existence and any person who failed to contribute to the cause could be legally killed — or worse — exiled. Politics and war became the noblest occupations while commerce was held in contempt.

    The story of the painfully slow gestation of individualism from its conception in early Christianity through the monastic movements, revolutions in church government, the creation of secular space, and finally its birth during the Reformation is rewarding, but the real value of the book lies in the understanding that this process took place only in the West and nowhere else in the world in history.

    Of course, to round out the topic people need to read Hayek’s essay, “Individualism: True and False” to understand how socialists created a pseudo-individualism that is for the most part a resurrection of ancient Greek and Roman collectivism.
    Classical liberal individualism does not exist in the modern world outside of the US and Europe, and it is dying here. The collectivist cultures of the rest of the world differ little from those of ancient Greece and Rome. If economists and politicians understood the uniqueness of classical liberalism, they would quit trying to pour new wine into old wine skins, which causes the old to explode. And they would mourn the rise of socialism.

    https://mises.org/library/how-west-invented-individualism

  27. Roger

    Shrink gov. The only hope indeed!

    To get a mandate to do that you first need to reform the voting system.

    Only those who pay net tax should have a vote on who sits on the Treasury bench.

  28. struth

    Just on the marriage thing.
    In the catallaxy party government of the future, the government would be unable to recognise sex and race by law.
    The government won’t need to know who is married and who isn’t because it won’t make a difference to government policy.
    Here’s the difference between your thinking and mine.
    If a government is allowed to develop policies for different sexes and skin colour, who is allowed to be married becomes incredibly important. There is much to gain or lose.
    If it can’t, you’ve got government right out of the marriage business.
    But you can’t have sexually discriminating government in other areas, in the marriage game.
    They should be unable to make policy based on sex, or race.
    Anywhere.
    But while they can, advocating that a sexually discriminating government should “allow this or allow that” you show a level of government subservience and basic stupidity, as to irrelevant.
    In reality such a small number of homos want to get married as to be irrelevant.
    And outlawing government noticing, developing policies based on sex or race, you would have no talk of it in schools brainwashing children into depravity.
    This half and half stuff can’t work.
    The government must be out of all sexually discriminating, marriage status discriminating (tax rates) , considering sex of the divorcing in courts.
    Until you have government utterly withdrawn from everything racial and sexual in it’s policies, ……….everything, this half arsed theory just messes up more as we see.

    Look at the big picture, not just your favourite Byron bay topics.

  29. Petros

    Presumably Leyonhjelm is open to all the “great” ideas from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and would of course implement them. If not then he is closed-minded and no better than the people he criticizes. Lyin’hjelm?

  30. Iampeter

    Just on the marriage thing.

    Just on the marriage thing?
    That’s the only thing, you clueless leftists care about.
    You know nothing about politics, but discussing why marriage should be regulated makes you feel like experts.

    Presumably Leyonhjelm is open to all the “great” ideas from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and would of course implement them

    *facepalm*

    Welp, my first post in this thread had turned out to be spot on.
    The cat readership isn’t really buying what David would be selling.
    Nor do they have any idea where they are, or what’s going on, or anything really…

  31. struth

    Just on the marriage thing.

    Just on the marriage thing?
    That’s the only thing, you clueless leftists care about.
    You know nothing about politics, but discussing why marriage should be regulated makes you feel like experts.

    Coming from a self appointed expert.

    FMD.
    The adults are talking here, Shitfabrains.
    Toddle of back to the sand pit of insanity.

  32. Boambee John

    In any other country, a ‘liberal’ is someone who accepts that different people make different choices, as long as they are not harming anyone else. And in any other country, a ‘liberal’ defends individual rights against encroaching police powers.

    You haven’t been keeping up with the news from the US, have you?

  33. Iampeter

    The adults are talking here, Shitfabrains.

    LOL XD

    You couldn’t make this level of delusion up.

  34. Unexplained wealth is normally something associated with proceeds of crime particularly drug dealers. I don’t have a problem with such people being asked to explain such wealth and it being seized if can’t be explained by lawful activity.

    What is missing from the above post is that many of the powers he mentions are associated with crime and terrorist targets. He makes it seem like the police will be using such powers against everyday citizens when the reality is they don’t have enough manpower to go after all the suspected crime targets and potential terrorists. Based on the above I am guessing the Senator did not approve of the FBI trying to get Apple to access the phone of a school shooter in the US to see if others were behind it.

  35. struth

    Presumably Leyonhjelm is open to all the “great” ideas from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

    Lyinghelm has his little pet “hippy” projects.
    What you have never seen from this guy is an understanding of history.
    It’s the big catch.
    They’re too “new wave” counter culture in their own minds to need to learn from the past.
    That’s for stale old conservatives.
    Open some borders, smoke a bong and kill off Nanna, and GET THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW same sex marriage, etc, never once looking at history or the big picture.
    They’re not even consistent.
    Thick is not the word.
    It’s arrogance , naivety and ignorance all rolled in together.

    In proposing a government that is outlawed completely from making laws regarding sex or race, anywhere at anytime, I prove to be more libertarian than they are , because the important thing to remember about anarchists , say, like Iampeter, is they actually hate and fear government, and run on that emotion, without thinking about controlling the government as a possibility, they just want to wreck the joint.
    And call that right wing.
    But thinking things through is a tough when emotion rules, and that’s why they end up wanting to wreck and are closer to the left ………….emotional responses.
    Irrational, poorly though out, historically illiterate, responses and knee jerk suggestions.

    My suggestion would half government, by one change to the constitution, put power back in the hands of the people in all things cultural, there would be no diversity picks, quotas or any other sexist, racist government policies allowed.
    But Lyinghelm comes on here as a pseudo libertarian like all of them, with their little civilizational ruining pet subjects, and Iam peter , a legend in his own lunch box, never has a suggestion about anything.
    Just comes in and declares himself an expert, the great holder of knowledge.
    Full of shit, is more to the point.
    All this half arsed stuff from these wreckers.

  36. Tim Neilson

    I don’t have a problem with such people being asked to explain such wealth and it being seized if can’t be explained by lawful activity.

    Lots of Labor politicians and trade union officials would (if there were a remote chance of such a law being applied to them).

  37. Mundi

    Based on the comments here, can the cat even be considered a liberal libertarians blog? Seems like there are a lot of butt hurt LNP people here, angry at any criticism not going to the ALP

  38. Petros

    Let’s face it, we cannot simplify the discussion enough for Iampeter to understand.

  39. struth

    Based on the comments here, can the cat even be considered a liberal libertarians blog? Seems like there are a lot of butt hurt LNP people here, angry at any criticism not going to the ALP

    Would you like to ban people who call themselves conservative from the blog?
    Not LNP people at all.
    Conservatives.
    Of course not, because that wouldn’t be very Libertarian of you.
    What’s your position on open borders?

  40. Iampeter

    Based on the comments here, can the cat even be considered a liberal libertarians blog?

    Yep, welcome to the Cat, home of the most politically illiterate leftists you will ever meet anywhere.
    Posters here are so clueless that they spend their entire time arguing against capitalist ideas, but at the same time, think they are fighting the left, or something.

  41. Gilas

    DL is of course completely correct.
    We are governed by a cabal of (non)intellectual pygmies led by the nose by bureaucracies ruled by postmodern, moral relativists who worship at the altar of cultural Marxism.

    The metastasising cancer of the West.
    And yet, they constitute only some 5-10% of the population. Yet they get away with restricting the lives and liberties of the other 90+%.

    Trump is the only (partial) exception to all this, but he won’t last long enough to make a real difference.

    These degenerates can only fool most of the people some of the time.
    There will be blood in the streets, the only uncertainty is when.

  42. Pay no attention to Iampeter. His idea of rights is grossly underdetermined. He’s only here to throw shit around the room.

  43. struth

    Yep, welcome to the Cat, home of the most politically illiterate leftists you will ever meet anywhere.
    Posters here are so clueless that they spend their entire time arguing against capitalist ideas, but at the same time, think they are fighting the left, or something.

    Exhibit A

    and Iam peter , a legend in his own lunch box, never has a suggestion about anything.
    Just comes in and declares himself an expert, the great holder of knowledge.
    Full of shit, is more to the point.

  44. Old School Conservative

    The good senator is also guilty of appropriation – he is using the LNP’s goodwill/branding in his own party’s name.
    By slamming the LNP policies on anti-terrorism without recommending alternatives, we are left with the sense that he is just a negative campaigner with no hard solutions.

    Good luck Mr DL in explaining to Melburnians that the planned attack on a full MCC went ahead because you opposed anti-terrorism measures.

  45. min

    If all humans took responsibility for their own behaviour, respected the rights and freedoms of others perhaps a “liberal” society could exist . Unfortunately David and his fellow believers do not know or understand how humans behave.
    Everyone is looking for their Utopia but how you get it differs with ideologies . The three in conflict at the moment are Judaeo-Christian, Islamist and Postmodernism / cultural Marxism. Revolution the only answer!

  46. dover_beach

    The majority positions in the party on recreational cannabis use, assisted suicide and same sex marriage, for example, demonstrate no openness to new ideas or acceptance of behaviour different from one’s own.

    DL supported the government redefining marriage. How that expresses ‘openness to new ideas’ or the ‘acceptance of behavior’ given that the government simply privileged the new definition over the older one, and did not allow any behaviour that was previously prohibited from now occurring is puzzling indeed.

    That the Liberal Party is a sorry example of a centre-right party is without a doubt. And it is this precisely because it is liberal. It failed completely to even present the case for the traditional definition of marriage; in fact, the leader of the party and PM at the time of the plebiscite, Turnbull, who bought about the plebiscite and presented the SSM bill to Parliament, supported SSM as did his lieutenants throughout the public discussion. It is more than a little disingenuous to say that the party’s ‘majority position’ didn’t support SSM.

  47. struth

    DL supported the government redefining marriage.

    Exactly.

    About as anti libertarian as you could get.
    Empowering government, right down to euthanasia.

    About as bright as a blown globe.

    This is what happens when you get one time hippy lefties who read a book on Libertarianism.
    Iampeter thinks a country is an abstract concept.

    These people are pure wack jobs and through their actions and their libertarian brain farts actually ensure more government control.
    Conservatives are trying to conserve the institutions that enable liberty, and are therefore, in practice, far more Libertarian than these dizzying drop kicks..

    Case in point, borders that you must have for democracy which you must have for freedom.
    The anarchic world they envisage of borderless utopia would have violently oppressive socialism in control before you could say “Der”.
    They, like the left, are attempting to wreck the only thing that stands in the way of tyranny.

    Historically illiterate morons.

  48. anonandon

    Hey, Iampeter

    You’ve got no mates.

  49. bespoke

    If I had voted it would have been yes but David cant even acknowledge the ever increasing intrusion of the Yes activist demands that’s turning out to be more detrimental on fee speech then we had before. Anti-termism laws being used against citizens to shut down speech that David disagrees with. What say you David?

    Struth your wrong about Imp he’s an authoritarian that would “protect government rights” by “banning protests”.

  50. bespoke

    If I had voted it would have been yes

    Actually I didn’t vote because I didn’t have the option of none of your business.

  51. Tim Neilson,
    The classic example of a Union guy with “unexplained” wealth would be Mike Williamson of HSU who got about $20 million over the years through various methods. Plus the female whose name escapes me. Problem is there is no way the other HSU leaders were not aware of what was going on.

    There have been many other examples in various unions and even today Union leaders don’t have to reveal their credit card expenditure despite many proven cases of abuse.

    I have no doubt Shorten will be encouraging Union members to dob in their leaders who rip off Union funds. Oh wait, did he ever speak up about MP Craig Thompson and his credit card expenditure of escorts. If only he could have dobbed in the AWU Union leader who received a $40,000 benefit towards his campaign for parliament.

  52. mh

    So DL has decided to run in the upcoming NSW state election, and decides to write a column about the definition of a word.

    Not very inspiring.

  53. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Plus the female whose name escapes me.

    Kathy Jackson?

  54. cohenite

    The senator advocates individualism and smaller government, worthwhile principles no doubt but for those worthy principles to be achieved you need facilitating values, core principles. SSM, assisted suicide and unregulated drug use all encroach on those principles. With SSM we have seen that, as predicted, once the door opened on mitigation of conventional marriage and the family unit we saw a doubling down on similar values as SSM such as safe schools, subversion of the education system generally, expansion of gender diversity and the rest of this bullshit. Some government is necessary, especially government which supports core principles. I’m not sure the senator has embraced. But having said that he is streets ahead of the rest of the bovine bastards.

    Which brings me to the point. At a state level who would you vote for in the LC:

    Leyonhjelm
    One Nation
    SFF
    AC

  55. Cameron

    I have a serious problem with this type of thinking which seems to border on anarchy. I am currently reading a book called: Know Thine Enemy: A History of the Left by Mark Melcher and R Soucup. They restate the idea that the current concepts of left and right grew out of the French revolution.

    I found this passage relevant to this discussion:

    The ongoing political conflict between the Right and the Left is illuminating because it points up the fact that this battle is not a typical contest of the kind that Plato had in mind when he asked his famous question, “Who shall rule?” It is not a matchup between two political factions with differing views as to how to achieve a similar end. It is instead a perpetual revolution, in which one side is ceaselessly attempting to demolish the existing order, which was once called Christendom and is now more commonly referred to as Western Civilization, while the other is constantly fighting to conserve it. All of which explains Lord Acton’s famous claim, “Tell me what you think about the French Revolution, and I will tell you what you think about everything else.”1
    In short, then, the Right, or conservatism if you will, is not an ideology. It has no Holy Writ, no manifesto, or as Russell Kirk, who is widely known as the Father of American conservativism, put it, “conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogmata … conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors … they are dubious of wholesale alteration … they think society cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine.” According to Kirk, conservatives generally share a belief in a transcendent order; the conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes; the understanding that freedom and property are closely linked; a distrust of those who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs; that custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchist impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power; and that hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.”

    To assume, as David does, that you can willy nilly scrap thousands of years of perceived understanding of human nature as it relates to the culture you live in and institute any damn thing in it’s place always leads to disaster. Passages in the book which lay out the thinking of the Jacobins looks very similar to how David describes his Utopia.

  56. egg_

    The Left have gutted the Liberal Party and are now wearing its skin demanding respect.

    Nailed it.

    Mick Trumble’s Gliberal Pardee.

  57. mh

    Real Mark Latham
    ‏@RealMarkLatham
    Of course new schools are being built in Sydney.
    Ms Berejiklian has been a lifelong supporter of Big Australia immigration, jamming an extra 100,000 people a year into the city.
    New schools don’t add to education quality, they simply try to keep up with the population explosion.

  58. A Lurker

    Which brings me to the point. At a state level who would you vote for in the LC:

    Australian Conservatives in a heartbeat – followed by SFF and then One Nation.

  59. mh

    Real Mark Latham
    ‏@RealMarkLatham
    Where’s the reporting on the fiasco in NSW Government energy policy where Minister Don Harwin says the goal is to “drive low carbon investment and new renewables energy generation across NSW” while Premier Berejiklian says she wants baseload power for “energy security”?

    Latham tackling the real issues facing NSW.

  60. Tel

    Hey Real Mark Latham, it’s not a fiasco, it’s common or garden duplicity … what’s your problem buddy? You must be new to this game!

  61. You have been utterly defeated, Iampeter. Your tears fill my cup.

  62. Iampeter

    You have been utterly defeated, Iampeter. Your tears fill my cup.

    This is true, you have indeed defeated me.
    The thing is, you’re a complete imbecile and I strongly suspect there’s something actually wrong with you.
    I mean, you’re definitely on the spectrum.
    So, for any normal person to engage with something like you, can only lead to defeat.
    I did so because I felt sorry for you. You’ve been following me around this site for years, desperate for my attention.
    It’s my bad. I promise it won’t happen again.

  63. A Lurker

    You’ve been following me around this site for years, desperate for my attention.

    Interesting – I wonder who Iampeter’s previous personality was?

  64. Jannie

    The Liberal Party is neither Liberal or Conservative. It is an authoritarian monopoly party in coalition with an authoritarian socialist party.

  65. jupes

    Once convicted, the Liberal Party plans to strip you of Australian citizenship even if it just suspects you are entitled to citizenship in another country. And once your prison sentence is served, the Liberal Party now allows you to be kept in jail indefinitely through continuing detention orders.

    Terrorists. The policy is about dealing with terrorists. If it was up to me I would just shoot the fuckers but if I can’t do that then jailing them indefinitely is the next best thing.

    DL of course would rather give them their freedom. Insane.

  66. Publius

    Why didn’t the OP abstain from the SSM vote so that Govt would get smaller and butt out of our lives? And empowering others in power (doctors, adult children vs infirm parents etc) to kill another is a real eg. of shrinking govt role in our lives. Not!
    Someone pls turn ont the light at Libertarianism HO. They are all brain dead in there. And this vet OP needs to be put to pasture soon as daylight tomorrow.

  67. Iampeter, my cup now runneth over with your tears. Your complete failure at explicating what does or does not count as a rights-violation in the case I presented was very instructive.

  68. struth

    conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors … they are dubious of wholesale alteration … they think society cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine.” According to Kirk, conservatives generally share a belief in a transcendent order; the conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes; the understanding that freedom and property are closely linked; a distrust of those who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs; that custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchist impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power; and that hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.”

    Not this conservative.
    I believe in democracy, property rights, individual responsibility, free markets etc.

    The problem with academics describing conservatives is that they tend to portray them as non thinking sheep who are scared of change because those that came before. us knew better.
    Not at all, and in many cases we must learn from their mistakes.
    We are individualists and free thinkers, and decide for ourselves what we believe is right.
    The big difference between conservatives and others is that we learn from history.
    You don’t know history you are bound to repeat it, and that is why the history wars are so important to the left.
    We don’t just blindly accept the vision of those before us and academics claiming such nonsense need to get out more, (as is often the case)
    And orders and classes, well that’s just a fucking insult.

    Sorry, burp,…………….fail.

  69. Percy Popinjay

    LOL. That appallingly ignorant, illiterate, inbred drooling cretin (BIRM) iampoofter gets pilloried (again).

    Gee, no one could have predicted that.

    roights da protectin’ gubment, duuuhhhh“…

    You staggeringly stupid, homosexual, imbecile.

  70. Percy Popinjay

    iampoofter takes a break after bloviating incessantly about a “duuuuuuhhhh roights protectin’ gubment, duuuhhhhhhhh” …

    Beyond parody. You fucking moron.

  71. C.L.

    Agreed – but the libertarian solution surely is just getting the government out of the marriage business altogether?

    Hey. once more around the block with this mindless slogan. No, the state has a role protecting real marriage from homosexualist gauleiters. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman would all agree.

  72. C.L.

    If there are treatises by Locke or Mill insisting that two men can “marry”, let’s have the links.
    GO!

  73. Nato

    You lot are funny when you’re angry, but it does show why individualism will never compete with the organized social conservatives and political left.
    As the only politcal issue within cooee of the Overton window, do you think the senator would careif some blog commentor proselytised that the death penalty should not apply to the crime of being (old and sad and) unable to keep buying meds, and to have it for serious offences like rape, murder and standing still on the right of the escalator?

  74. max

    Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

    Some of us call ourselves “individualists,” but others point out that the opposition often uses that word to describe a heartless person who doesn’t care about the problems and aspirations of other people.

    Some of us call ourselves “conservatives,” but that term describes many persons who base their approval of an institution more on its age than on its inherent worth.

    Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

    Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”

    https://fee.org/articles/who-is-a-libertarian/

  75. max

    Frank Chodorov:
    The bottle is now labeled libertarianism. But its content is nothing new; it is what in the nineteenth century, and up to the time of Franklin Roosevelt, was called liberalism — the advocacy of limited government and a free economy. The liberals were robbed of their time-honored name by the unprincipled socialists and near socialists, whose avidity for prestige words knows no bounds. So, forced to look for another and distinctive label for their philosophy, they came up with libertarianism — good enough but somewhat difficult for the tongue.”

    Leonard Read:
    The term libertarian is used because nothing better has been found to replace liberal, a term that has been most successfully appropriated by contemporary authoritarians. As long as liberal meant liberation from the authoritarian state, it was a handy and useful generalization. It has come to mean little more than state liberality with other people’s money.

    https://fee.org/articles/where-does-the-term-libertarian-come-from-anyway/

  76. Procrustes

    CL

    Libertarians – or classical liberals as I prefer – do not need tracts by Locke, Mill or anyone else to guide our views on specific issues like SSM. The principles – such as individual freedom and non aggression – are what matter.

    That is what conservatives and progressives fail to grasp.

  77. None

    There was no plebiscite for ssm, Dover, just a non binding postal survey.
    AND
    if Leyonjhelm thinks having some man shove his dick up his shithole is being open to new ideas then Leyonjhelm is as closed minded as they come.

  78. None

    Leyonjhelm is still shitty at Howard taking his guns. And Leyonjhelm the grifter libertarian 😂😂😂😂 is still sucking off the public teat and now looking for another trough to stick his nose in.

  79. None

    That is what conservatives and progressives fail to grasp.

    And what libertarians fail to grasp is that ss. Is the most authoritarian intrusion into all our lives. I note not a singkr libertarian stands up to defend any parent demanding school teachers but out if teaching their kids gay is ok and so is anal sex. In fact the stone cold silence of libertarians in defending parental rights and protecting children is not non aggression – it is cowardice and duplicity.

  80. C.L.

    The principles – such as individual freedom and non aggression – are what matter.

    That must be why libertarians incite hatred against Margaret Court and try to ban a stadium being named after her, right?

  81. dover_beach

    Libertarians – or classical liberals as I prefer – do not need tracts by Locke, Mill or anyone else to guide our views on specific issues like SSM. The principles – such as individual freedom and non aggression – are what matter.

    That is what conservatives and progressives fail to grasp.

    Alternatively, there simply may be no necessary connection between the principles you mentioned and your approval of SSM; libertarians may have simply read the latter into the former for no other reason than reflecting the permissive culture within which they reside. That would certainly explain its absence from Locke, Mill, etc.

  82. dover_beach

    For instance, all that the principles of individual liberty, whatever that is, and non-aggression could justify is a regime in which ss-couples could live together. It doesn’t justify redefining marriage in order to included ss-couples within the insitution of marriage.

  83. Iampeter

    Iampeter, my cup now runneth over with your tears. Your complete failure at explicating what does or does not count as a rights-violation in the case I presented was very instructive.

    LOL, you mean a thread where you repeatedly failed to make a case, despite me begging you to do so?
    Like I said, victory for me is impossible against an insane person like you.
    Here’s what’s going to happen next: I’m going to back to ignoring you and you’re going to go back to responding to every single one of my posts in every thread, like the crazy internet person that you are.
    Remember to respond to this one too, nutjob.

    Bye bye.

  84. Iampeter, you failed the challenge to explain what does or does not count as a rights-violation in the basic case I presented. Given this, you could not possibly determine whether or not a nonmember’s right was violated by denying them entry. Your humiliation only increases as you continue to avoid this plain fact.

  85. NuThink

    The first time I understood the difference between the left and right was when talking to an Australian war reporter who was living on a boat in the Maldives in 1983/4.
    He explained the difference simply (paraphrased).
    The Right say we have a set of rules by which WE live, and you are welcome to disagree with them.
    The Left say that we have a set of rules by which YOU will live, and you cannot disagree with them.

  86. DrBeauGan

    If a couple of blokes want to call their relationship a marriage, I have no objections. There is, however, nothing Liberal or liberal about a law requiring me to call it a marriage.

    I did consider whether I should call it a marriage. I spent several seconds of thought on the matter. I came to the same conclusion as Percy P above. It’s a ludicrous misnomer.

  87. Iampeter

    If a couple of blokes want to call their relationship a marriage, I have no objections. There is, however, nothing Liberal or liberal about a law requiring me to call it a marriage.

    There is no law requiring you to call it anything.
    This is a gross misrepresentation by conservative leftists of the SSM issue.

  88. If I were a civil celebrant, or a clerk at a law office, or an officer at Centrelink, or any other person that has to acknowledge a relationship as marriage as defined by law, than the law requires me to call it marriage. Even dictionaries now refer to marriage as a relationship between persons and not between the sexes. It is completely disingenuous to claim that the new law does not require us to call it anything.

  89. Leo G

    There is no law requiring you to call it anything.

    The great Iam assures us no-one will face litigation, prosecution, or other punitive actions for their beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

  90. Tel

    The great Iam assures us no-one will face litigation, prosecution, or other punitive actions for their beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

    Clearly never baked a cake in his life.

  91. max

    do not blame Libertarians – or classical liberals for today problems — problems started long time ago — blame your fathers and grandfathers

    A Political Alliance of Bastards:
    by Gary North – January 23, 2015

    There is an international alliance between the bastard children of the welfare state and the self-made bastards who designed the welfare state and then sold it to the voters, beginning in the French Revolution. The alliance rests on a crucial two-part idea: the moral legitimacy and economic efficacy of central economic planning.
    POPULATION CONTROL
    Here is a fundamental law of nature: you cannot change just one thing.
    Here is a fundamental rule of politics: the state cannot regulate just one thing.
    Here is a fundamental rule of economics: economic control means people control.
    Beginning in the French Enlightenment, and continuing to the present day, there has been an anti-population growth faction among Western intellectuals. These people favor central planning.
    At the same time, there has been a pro-population growth commitment of central planners.
    It may seem odd that we find both positions represented among central planners and those who believe in central planning, but it is not difficult to explain. On the one hand, if you believe that population growth will exceed economic growth per capita, you want to control the growth of population. You want to keep per capita wealth high, so you need to reduce the rate of population expansion. On the other hand, if you find, as central planners always do, that central planning needs more “free” resources to confiscate, especially for military purposes, and the population is failing to grow, you have a problem. The problem is this: you need new workers to pay off old political promises to the voters. The politicians have made enormous promises with respect to old-age security, and there are not enough new workers coming into the labor force to tax. Furthermore, the military finds it more difficult to recruit willing or even unwilling subjects. So, we saw in the 1930’s that fascist governments in Europe promoted large families. We are beginning to see the same kind of government programs, such as free daycare and paid leave for recent mothers, in Western Europe, which is facing population decline among the original population, and much higher birth rates among immigrant groups, especially Muslims. So, central planners want it both ways.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/13371.cfm

  92. mh

    There is no law requiring you to call it anything.
    This is a gross misrepresentation by conservative leftists of the SSM issue.

    🤦‍♀️ 🤦‍♂️

  93. max

    Bastard Nation: America’s Welfare State Comes of Age
    Written by Gary North on September 5, 2014
    You knew this, but it’s nice to be reminded. We get what we pay for. Conservatives 60 years ago said this would happen. It happened. It will keep happening. There is no turning back until the welfare state runs out of other people’s money.
    You want an explanation for America’s growing inequality? Start here. The federal government, of course, never starts here. State and local governments never start here. Liberal media never start here. But we should.
    When a society defines a family as a married couple, the following does not happen. When it defines a family as an unmarried mother, children, and a welfare check, this is the result.
    It can be summarized on a bumper sticker. “They copulate. We pay.”
    Yes, yes, I know: I am not politically correct. Tough.
    All of this follows from a fundamental economic law: “When the state subsidizes a particular lifestyle, it gets more of this lifestyle.” Simple. Easy to remember. Never mentioned in polite company.
    Call me impolite.
    The voters have always known this. But the voters have been guilt-manipulated by liberals. The voters have chosen not to pay attention to economic cause and effect.

    http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/09/05/bastard-nation-americas-welfare-state-comes-age/

  94. You can already see how some libertarians will segue seamlessly to supporting gender-neutral pronouns.

  95. faceache

    The reason why Western civilisation became the “best” is because of something Jesus said. And that is “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, give unto God what is God’s”

  96. Iampeter

    The great Iam assures us no-one will face litigation, prosecution, or other punitive actions for their beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

    If you want to ban SSM then you’re the one supporting, “litigation, prosecution, or other punitive actions for their beliefs about marriage and sexuality.”

    Clearly never baked a cake in his life.

    The funny thing is, you clowns opposed these lawsuits when they were used against a Christian baker, then without skipping a beat, supported it when Prager sued YouTube.

    You guys can’t seem to post anything without contradicting yourselves.

  97. Leo G

    The funny thing is, you clowns opposed these lawsuits when they were used against a Christian baker, then without skipping a beat, supported it when Prager sued YouTube.

    The really funny clown thing is that Iam argues the equivalence of the right to restrict a person’s practice of religious belief with the right of a broadcast medium to censure political advocasy on its own network.

  98. Tel

    The funny thing is, you clowns opposed these lawsuits when they were used against a Christian baker, then without skipping a beat, supported it when Prager sued YouTube.

    Prager had an agreement with YouTube and they did not adhere to their own rules.

    You do understand the concept that people can make agreements … don’t you?

    Oh wait. We have been over this. You get it wrong every single time, then you promise to piss off and go away, which would be just fine by everyone here since you contgribute nothing. However, just like YouTube, you are unable to stick to your own promise.

  99. dover_beach

    The really funny clown thing is that Iam argues the equivalence of the right to restrict a person’s practice of religious belief with the right of a broadcast medium to censure political advocasy on its own network.

    Indeed, particularly so when that broadcast network censured PragerUni surreptitiously. The fact that Iampeter says nothing about the resources PragerUni invested into publishing their material on Youtube only to have them censure their content surreptitiously says all you need to know about his claim to be a champion of freedom.

  100. Tel

    … that broadcast network censured PragerUni surreptitiously …

    And then lied to Congress, when Sundar Pichai claimed “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result”. Dunno if a “rights protecting” government means it’s OK to break contracts and tell lies to Congress. I’m guessing probably not.

  101. Percy Popinjay

    If you want to ban SSM

    How the f*ck can you “ban” something that never existed in the first place, you loathsome degenerate inbred imbecile?

  102. Percy Popinjay

    Once more, for the tragically AIDS afflicted among us: “duuuuuuhhhhhh, roights protectin’ gubment, duuuhhhhh….”

  103. Iampeter

    The really funny clown thing is that Iam argues the equivalence of the right to restrict a person’s practice of religious belief with the right of a broadcast medium to censure political advocasy on its own network.

    It IS really funny because you’ve confirmed exactly what I said.
    If only Zuckerberg was a Christian and an embryo, then you idiots would be all about protecting his “rights.”

    You people really are the most clueless leftists on the planet.

    How the f*ck can you “ban” something that never existed in the first place, you loathsome degenerate inbred imbecile?

    Woah, woah, you kiss your death cult with that mouth?

  104. What does Zuckerberg have to do with Youtube, dummy?

  105. Ivan Denisovich

    If only Zuckerberg was a Christian and an embryo, then you idiots would be all about protecting his “rights.”

    Peter, is abortion on demand a right?

  106. dover_beach

    If only Zuckerberg was a Christian and an embryo, then you idiots would be all about protecting his “rights.”

    Even if you set aside the error of using Zuckerberg, this makes no sense on its face. Where have we ever said that only Christians or embryos have rights, as opposed to simply arguing that we do not lose the rights proper to human beings simply in virtue of being either Christians or embryos? It goes to show you how moronic Iampeter is that he cannot rise above this sort of idiotic riposte.

  107. bespoke

    They refused to decorate that cake bid difference, Imp. And Zuckerberg isn’t human.

  108. mh

    Peter, is abortion on demand a right?

    Does Iampeter’s rights-protecting government protect the right to choose post-natal abortion, too?

  109. Iampeter

    Peter, is abortion on demand a right?

    Does Iampeter’s rights-protecting government protect the right to choose post-natal abortion, too?

    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion” you InfoWars retard.

  110. Tel

    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion” you InfoWars retard.

    https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html

    No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics …

    Just out of morbid curiosity, have you ever been right about anything?

  111. Iampeter

    LOL Tel, so if an equally stupid leftist, linked to an article suggesting men could be women, I guess that would persuade you?

  112. Tel

    LOL Tel, so if an equally stupid leftist, linked to an article suggesting men could be women, I guess that would persuade you?

    Nice little red herring but you’ll fool no one that way.

    Finding the origin of a term implies finding out who used that term, and when it was first used. The link above includes references and details. It’s a pretty simple concept, I’m sure deep down you do understand how it works … even if you choose to play dumb when convenient. PS: a real Randian would not need to resort to such tricks, and that’s how I know you are a faker.

  113. Iampeter

    Red herring?

    “Post natal abortion” is a self contradiction and therefore there is no such thing.
    There’s nothing to debate about this, as like with all self contradictions, it is SELF EVIDENT.

    The fact that you missed the self evident fact and linked to an article using this term you know is nonsensical, thinking this proves anything other than your stupidity, is unbelievable.

    Are you dovers other account by chance?

  114. dover_beach

    Tel, do you notice that Iambeggingthequestion never actually explains how it is a contradiction? If abortion is simply the killing of a human being in utero, how is post-natal abortion (or infanticide) a contradiction? It is simply the extension of killing a human being beyond the in utero stage to the neonatal stage of development. No, Iambeggingthequestions believes that merely shouting ‘self-evident’, ‘self-contradiction’, etc. serves as a substitute for thinking.

  115. Tel

    Dover, you have to understand that Iampeter is someone putting on a fake personality pretending to be a Randian. At first they were able to successfully come across as a bit young, ideological, short of life experience. However, you can see a clear cognitive reset happen when this fake personality gets called on the details and runs out of ideas. Don’t think of this as a misguided person who might be set straight if everything was explained properly … but instead like someone having a game with you where the challenge is to cause you to waste more of your time and effort, than the other side needs to waste their time and effort.

    It’s efficient and superficially plausible to act like you are way too smart to explain anything or that you already explained it but can’t be bothered pointing out where. Doesn’t take long to identify the lack of genuine content. I doubt that Iampeter has contributed one useful idea to this blog, beyond being a bit of background filler. I’m willing to be proven wrong on that if anyone has a link of a deeply thoughtful post from Iampeter what was well explained, not abusive, and contained a new idea. I’m not interested in searching real hard for that.

    As I already linked above, there’s reference to where radical leftists put forward both the concept and the terminology of after birth abortion … no one at the time had difficulty understanding what they were talking about, so the meaning has always been quite clear. If you prefer a different term then by all means call it something else. Iampeter only has the purpose of distracting you with some arbitrary and pointless detail that will promptly be forgotten when the next cognitive reset comes through. Don’t worry too much about it. If it keeps you a little bit sharper to point out the flaws in Iampeter’s arguments (to the extent that he actually puts forward an argument) then it might be amusing … but don’t get shocked when he absorbs nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.