There has been some bad blood between supporters of the Australian Shooters Party and some people in the Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP)… but I had always assumed that policies would be more important than personalities when it came to the actual campaign. I was wrong.
When Senate preferences were revealed we saw that the Shooters put the LDP low down the preference list, below many parties that are anti-shooting. In NSW they put us 53rd, behind Liberals, Nationals, Family First, Pauline, Climate Change Coalition (CCC), What Women Want (WWW), Independents, Hear our Voice (HoV), Senator on-line, Conservatives for Climate, DLP, Fishing Party, CDP, One Nation and Carers Alliance. Given that the LDP has a real chance of getting Terje elected in NSW, it is very disappointing to see the Shooters Party working against a pro-shooting candidate.
The story was much the same in the other States. In Victoria they put us at 48. In Qld we are at 37 and in S.A. we are 31st. Several of the parties in front of the LDP (eg WWW, CCC, HoV) share the same philosophy as the Greens and are certainly hostile to shooting.
In contrast, the LDP preferenced the Shooters Party relatively high in every State. In Qld and SA we put them as high as 6th and 7th respectively. In NSW we put them at 19th, in front of the majors. A vote for the LDP is a vote for both pro-shooting parties. A vote for the Shooters is not.
The anti-LDP hostility seems to have spread to the Australian Shooters Journal (run by the SSAA), which recently distributed electoral information giving details about the shooting policy of various parties. They included Family First, DLP, Fishing & Lifestyle, Democrats and other groups, but they somehow forgot to include the LDP. When I e-mailed and asked them if we could send them some information, they didn’t respond.
David Leyonhjelm has responded with a press releases lamenting the anti-shooting preferences of the Shooters Party.
November 8, 2007 at 11:27 am |
It is very regrettable.
Peter Whelan has explained some of the history in this to me. In my opinion, the best thing the LDP could do is ignore it and get out a positive message instead.
The mis-steps the LDP have made, and the personality conflicts that have developed between some LDP people and the SSAA-TSP people, are destructive.
If the LDP and most especially David L) adopted a statesmanlike silence on conflict with TSP, it would do less harm to both LDP and the shooters cause.
November 8, 2007 at 5:17 pm |
Its probably best to ignore them and get on with it. At the same time care should be taken to promote ourselves as the only broad interest party supporting firearm ownership. Promote gun rights prominently in our campaign, and do not even mention the Shooters Party at all.
November 8, 2007 at 5:29 pm |
The reason they probably preference you so low is apart from shooting, the policies between the parties differ greatly. The Shooters are extremely conservative – anti-gay, pro-censorship, anti-abortion, etc. The Shooters would have a lot more in common with the parties above you on the ballot paper. I’ll be voting below the line – I’ll be having you 1st, but the Shooters well down the list above only the CDP. James Baker, Pauline Hanson, CEC and Family First.
November 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm |
I think they are playing at putting politics before their supporter’s interests. As a pro- shooters party we offer a viable alternative to them and they don’t want that. Family first is pretty conservative yet are prepared to deal with us.
Just promote ourselves as pro gun rights and marginalize them.
November 9, 2007 at 7:41 am |
Jim, I think you may have the wrong end of the stick.
They have more likely assessed the results of the LDP campaign on their supporters’ interests, and preferenced accordingly.
“You never get a second chance to make a first impression”.
November 9, 2007 at 7:42 am |
And yes Jim, you are right – we all need to just get on with it.
November 9, 2007 at 8:07 am |
My impression of the ASP & TSP on the whole is positive – their manifesto is marginally libertarian.
Good luck to them everywhere but in NSW where we have a good chance of electing Terje Petersen to the Senate. – which if he gets far enough might help elect an ASP Senator.
November 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm |
Actually, since running the numbers we need the Shooters Party to help the Christian Democrats poll more than Pauline+One Nation. We should be glad they aren’t preferencing us, I think it works out in our favour (oddly enough). If the Christian Democrats are eliminated too early then Pauline gets their preferences and is able to knock us out. By keeping CDP in the race the Shooters are ensuring Pauline is knocked out and we score her preferences allowing us to THEN harvest from CDP and the Shooters.
Obviously Shooter preferences over Howard’s Liberals would have been nice. But them putting CDP ahead of us helps us in some situations.
November 12, 2007 at 11:04 am |
I wouldn’t worry them, and would in fact would be distancing myself from the entire shooters movement. First time LDP voters such as myself couldn’t give a toss about this bunch of backward hicks, and it’s certainly not worth sacrificing the credibility of the LDP so that we can all be tarred with the Lisa Milat brush – as I have for being openly libertarian in the wake of the ACA debacle.
We want smaller government, lower taxes and less govt handouts. Single issue hillbillies like these do nothing but retard the entire cause of libertarianism.
November 12, 2007 at 11:24 am |
Adam, I don’t think we should distance ourselves from the entire shooter movement. We should just distance ourselves from those shooters wanting to impose their morality onto us.
David L and Peter Whelan, two members of the executive, are both shooters and have both done a lot for the party. But they are “devout” libertarians, too.
You can’t pick and choose your freedoms, that’s why I joined the LDP in the first place.
I do agree that our current firearms policy is a little tactless and could do with some improvement so it is a little more palatable for potential city supporters. But really all the LDP is suggesting is that we return to pre ‘96 legislation so we’re back in line with the rest of the world (France, NZ, etc).
November 12, 2007 at 12:40 pm |
Thanks Shem. I’m for gun law liberalisation, but don’t see why its up there with the ‘big ticket items’ in LDP policy, like tax reform. Should go under the broad banner of ‘individual choice’, and the less said about it the better. Politically speaking, at least.
November 12, 2007 at 1:24 pm |
Adam,
We don’t pick what the media runs. Tax/Welfare reform is a centre piece of our campaign. However it is also one of the hardest areas to get media traction on. We do a lot of press releases on the tax topic but get less media cover.
Regards,
Terje.
November 13, 2007 at 7:32 am |
People like Adam are the reason why you don’t have the standing to represent shooters. “The less said about it the better.” This is one of your own LDP types talking.
There is no way you will get more primary votes than ASP. Why don’t you explain to Shem Bennett where Family First come in your preference list?
November 13, 2007 at 8:30 am |
TopGun,
Shem has studied our preference deal in NSW probably more than anybody in the party (except perhaps me who did most of the negotiation). I think he understands our preference deals in NSW better than most.
Regards,
Terje.
November 13, 2007 at 9:52 am |
TopGun,
We don’t need a higher primary vote than ASP.
You guys can poll 1.6%, we can poll 0.4% and we’d still harvest the micro preferences to pull ahead.
We harvest preferences from about 7 other micro parties before we need Family First and the Democrats. If we poll 1%, and those 7 micro parties poll 1% between them we’ll pull ahead of Family First’s 2%. Then we’ll pull ahead of the Democrats. That’ll put us on 6%.
Now if you think the ASP can poll higher than CDP and that the combined vote of both parties will exceed 6% good luck to you. But that didn’t even happen in the NSW state election when there were less micros standing.
Mathematically CDP might deny us a seat, or the Libs. But we have a good chance. And like it or not, we will represent the interests of all groups that are treated unequally, including shooters.
-Shem
November 14, 2007 at 7:56 pm |
[...] to the Shooters Union Some shooting groups are intentionally ignoring the LDP, but the Shooters Union has been kind enough to distribute an open letter from the LDP to [...]
November 21, 2007 at 10:38 am |
Problem is Shem, after you’ve got your 6%, which is doubtful, where are you going to get the remaining odd 8% from?
It will be interesting to see what your primary vote is, that will give you something to keep in mind, if you ever try running in the NSW State election in 2011.
Its Ok to be confident, but I wouldn’t describe your chances as good. That doesn’t mean that I am calling anyone else’s chances good either except maybe the Libs.
November 21, 2007 at 11:09 am |
TopGun, the remaining 8% comes from the CDP and One Nation firstly. We then harvest from either the ALP/ Greens (based on who is eliminated/ elected). We also harvest from the Libs when/ if they are elected.
Run the numbers, if we top 6% near the final 5 it’s quite easy for Terje to get in.
November 21, 2007 at 11:30 am |
Oh, and I’m using a relative term in “good”. Only Lib and Labor have a “good” chance at winning government. We have a good chance, as a micro party, of winning a Senate seat.
The primary vote will be interesting, for sure. Our name bungle on the ballot paper will cost us. In the ACT elections we got 1% and 1.3% in 2001 and 2004 respectively. I doubt we’ll be that high, despite our campaigning.
Even if Terje is not elected (which would be the best result) we’ve built a campaign, learnt a lot about public perception of our policies and been able to work together as a team. This will put us in good stead for future state and federal elections.
Do you think, TopGun that could admit that outside of the Coalition, Labor and Greens the LDP has the best chance? Because numerically that seems to be the case. Check http://www.upperhouse.info/ArchiveView.aspx?EntryHeadId=162 We’re mentioned as having a chance, but no other party is for NSW.
December 7, 2007 at 10:01 pm |
Perhaps the fact that your gun “policies” are simply ridiculous and inflammatory to average Australians sensibilities.. Concealed carry will NEVER be accepted by mainstream Australia.
Then you go and get Lisa Milat to get on the soapbox about firearms, on ACA of all places, if you honestly thought that was a good move for firearms voters, you are stupider than we thought.
We in the ASP/TSP see you as idiotic radicals as best, provocateurs at worst.
Anyway it is all a waste of time worrying about this, no one voted for you and no one ever will.
December 7, 2007 at 11:33 pm |
It’s reactions like Frank’s above that prove the LDP is gaining traction; at least in so far as people are getting to know what it is. Most worthwhile social movements have a lull before they break through. The lull is usually accompanied by a minority hostility, which turns into minority support (not from the same people, of course!).
I still maintain my position that generally available concealed carry is making too much of a target of the LDP (at least for people like Frank). Simply having ’self defence’ as a valid reason for acquiring a firearms license is perfectly reasonable and a good step forward.
December 8, 2007 at 10:58 am |
It’s like you’ve already given up Frank.
Maybe you should think of it in a more positive light, we’ll convince some people that a more broad firearm liberalisation is needed, and the TSP will look like Mr Bloody Reasonable.
December 8, 2007 at 3:02 pm |
I haven’t given up on anything, and have always said that SOME LDP policies are a great idea.
Its just that you have a lot of stuff thats totally unworkable.
I understand you want to cause a storm to get noticed, maybe soak up a few radical/misguided voters, and try to get some cushy jobs out of it.
But its the same as One Nation, some good ideas, but political novices who are better at pointing out the problems that giving solutions.
For example, you gun laws. Say you managed to through some miracle, get CCW laws passed here.
As soon as some kid stole his dads gun out of his jacket and killed himself/somebody,
or an innocent bystander gets killed in a shootout between “good guys and bad guys”
-all hell would break loose, maybe even more bans.
I hate the gun laws here and would love an self loading rifle, but to say people should be walking around the streets armed, in todays Australia, is not responsible.
The same could be said for your drugs, privatization and free trade policies, we would see the country ruined.
Drugs already ruin enough lives, privatization and full free trade would see our assets get bought up and downsized and our primary producers and manufacturers wiped out.
You only focus on the supposed benefits of your avant garde ideas, without looking at the national and global effects of your manifesto.
The LDP as a minor party may be cute oddballs, but if by some shift of the globes’ axis you do ever get into power, the county would descend into anarchy.
Not the cute, responsible version of anarchy that people like to envision, but the type that we sometimes see on the news from some far flung and desolate place.
December 8, 2007 at 4:47 pm |
Frank, you’re just a conservative that doesn’t believe people can be trusted or are capable of being responsible for themselves i.e. they need a gentle but forceful hand of government to make the right decisions. You fear economic competition (probably because you don’t understand it) but fail to see that isolationist, regulatory or government subsidies actually reduce wealth creation. You have a personal fear of drugs but still cling to the illusion that you can control them if only your side of the fence has enough power, without acknowledging the fact that pretty much everyone who wants to use drugs is already using them.
Your side of politics is based on fear and lack of understanding (which are, of course, closely related). Conservatism is tired and not even being seriously considered in this country, the sick-and-tired attitude Aussies had to Howard proves that. The battle now is between socialism and the few true market based philosophies out there, of which the classical liberalism is one. It’s between collectivism and individualism. It’s between big brother and empowered citizens. It’s between the nanny state and personal freedom. It’s between lazy parasites and the right of hard working people to enjoy the product of their sweat. It’s between political correctness and moral decency. It’s between environmental extremism as a religion or rational behaviour for the good of all.
You aren’t really supporting the right side of any of these arguments. You think you are, but you’re not. You think you’re producing jobs for Aussies, but you’re actually creating unemployment. You think people can’t be trusted with guns, but if they can’t be trusted it makes no difference if they have guns or not. You think you are protecting children from drugs, but your kids actually have more street smarts than you and have already decided they don’t want to use them and it wasn’t because they weren’t available. You probably still feel the family farm is the cornerstone of Australian economic prosperity. Needless to say, it isn’t.
Your uninformed views will actually result a nation with a heap of potential end up declining into a socialist shithole. Now I wouldn’t ask someone like you to immediately jump ship to our political paradigm, but I am telling you that you have more to lose by working against us than attempting to cooperate with us where you have no violent objections to what we’re saying. That goes for anyone with your views, of which I would loosely include myself.
December 8, 2007 at 6:26 pm |
As soon as some kid stole his dad’s gun out of his jacket and killed himself/somebody, or an innocent bystander gets killed in a shootout between “good guys and bad guys” -all hell would break loose, maybe even more bans.
Well shit Frank, I hate to disillusion you but this is happening now under the current laws, so the ‘gun privileges’ you have now are not even safe.
One of the problems you have is that the people, who are not ‘stupider than you thought’, tend to believe that rights are something that come from the state and not something we possess as part of our individual sovereignty. While you work from this base you will always be on the back foot.
You only seem to want people to have only the ‘rights’ that you like, and seem to regard the right to do anything that you don’t want to do as an irrelevance. Would you really feel safe if other people were allowed to have a self-loading rifle? Hell Frank, some of them might be irresponsible, better to reserve that right just for yourself.
December 8, 2007 at 6:55 pm |
Newsflash: Frank Cameron isn’t a libertarian.
He opposes civil liberties and capitalism, so of course he is going to be against the LDP. Like Fred Nile & Bob Brown, we should be happy to have him as a detractor.
December 8, 2007 at 7:06 pm |
Frank, which One Nation policies do you think are good? I can’t find much merit in any of them.
December 8, 2007 at 7:41 pm |
Not many One Nation policies were good, but some were. they were looking out for the country, not the corporations, as most govts do.
I’m not a conservative, I’m a realist. I’m actually quite left wing, even though the ALP isn’t anymore.
I would love to be a libertarian, and hate the govt sticking its nose in my business, but I’m afraid that my job (which puts me in contact with lots of young people) made me realize that a lot of people cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
I have known drug addicts, and even though I don’t support criminalizing drug users especially soft drug users, I know that opening the floodgates will hurt a lot of folks. I know people who wouldn’t be alive if they hadn’t been busted. Speed and heroin is never a positive thing.
We already have a severe mental illness epidemic, lets not add to it.
Jim: There is a difference between using a SLR for hunting and CCW, a BIG difference,
I would love the extra security of having my pistol on me all the time, but I just feel that Australia hasn’t come to that yet.
And I stand by my call on free trade and privatization. Look at other countries that have followed that path.
My main gripe with you is the misguided gun policies, It does shooters only harm.
I’m sorry that I come across as a conservative, and I honestly don’t care what gay people, drug users etc.. do in their own homes.
If you guys can find a way for the majority of people to act responsibly< then you will have my vote.
I support your basic concept, I just think the execution is flawed, hopefully not deliberately.
December 9, 2007 at 10:59 am |
If you guys can find a way for the majority of people to act responsibly< then you will have my vote.
I guess that means your standards of responsibility, Frank.
How would you feel if I was the one judging whether you were acting responsibly? And I didn’t think you were?
December 9, 2007 at 7:51 pm |
Jim: There is a difference between using a SLR for hunting and CCW, a BIG difference,
I would love the extra security of having my pistol on me all the time, but I just feel that Australia hasn’t come to that yet.
I assume by SLR you mean the NATO type 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle with the 20 round magazine formerly used by the Australian Army. What the hell are you hunting Frank?
I loved it and was a marksman with it, and had I gone to war I would have loved its power and accuracy in a firefight but I don’t think any of the local game really requires it. But if you want one VOTE LDP we are the only party with broad spectrum policies that will support your RIGHT to own one.
“my pistol” indicates that you have one already, so you are obviously privileged in this respect. most people in concealed carry states in the US don’t actually carry, Pistols are weighty, and not all that comfortable to have on you.
The main benefit of concealed carry is the threat to wrong doers of an armed citizen, the mass murder idiots don’t want to shoot it out, they tend to go for gun free areas so they can do their thing without interference.
The best answer is to not have ‘gun free’ areas, although that is a matter for the property owner.
December 10, 2007 at 10:27 am |
David _I know what you are saying, the problem i unfortunately a lot of people don’t have an interest in being the least bit responsible, I know I deal with them everyday.
Jim- we were talking self loading rifles, I used SLR as an abbreviation.
You would probably prefer the term “semi-automatic” better, but I don’t use that term.
But on the 7.62 Nato SLR, believe it or not, LOTS of pro hunters use them for culling work, pigs, donkeys, horses and camels all get humanely dispatched every day by professional shooters and rangers in this country using that firearm.
As you would know, it is reliable and accurate.
As far as saying local game is too small for a 308, can I suggest you go have a shot at a bush bull or buffalo with a 223?
If you were referring to game not requiring a self loader, its a case of being able to take a whole mob of pigs instead of losing/wounding some. Faster follow up shots also make for more humane kills, especially on large animals.
Pistols are quite compact these days, and there are a number of CCW options available, a LOT of people I know in the states DO carry, and its because getting carjacked or shot at work is a real threat in some areas.
Believe me Jim, I KNOW all about the ins and outs of gun bans, crime, etc etc, you don’t need to preach to the choir…
I just don’t see the violence here (yet) that could sell CCW to mainstream Aussies.
I would like to see some gun laws changed but if John Tingle couldn’t do it, the LDP and Lisa Milat have no chance in hell.
Okay, for arguements sake, you guys say we should let people go hard on any drugs they want, then strap a gun to themselves and go shopping…
Does anyone here see a problem with this?
December 10, 2007 at 10:41 am |
Okay, for arguments sake, you guys say we should let people go hard on any drugs they want, then strap a gun to themselves and go shopping…….
Does anyone here see a problem with this?
Can I just make a recommendation?
This is a hypothetical situation being discussed in detail to investigate a concept. The ALS blog is the correct place to do this. The LDP believes in firearms ownership for self-defence and in drug liberalisation. It doesn’t advocate (or want to legalise) hard drug usage combined with firearms handling in public places. I’m happy to argue this point to the nth degree on the ALS blog. However, in terms of promoting a moderate classical liberalist political party I don’t believe it is in the interests of having a hypothetical discussion on this blog that makes it look like the LDP supports this particular combination of activities. (I know this blog tends only to be read by libertarian types who probably understand the context, but at various times the readership does extend to the wider community.)
December 10, 2007 at 10:46 am |
Excuse the terrible wording of the above. Maybe I should learn to re-read before hitting submit.
December 10, 2007 at 11:51 am |
Re: using drugs & shopping with a gun — no.
First, our policy was for the legalisation of marijuana, not all drugs. Marijuana tends to make people overly passive, not overly aggressive (as does alcohol).
Second, we believe strongly in private property rights and the right of a shop-owner to ban guns on their property. I expect that the majority of Australians (especially in the city) would ban guns in their homes & businesses.
Third, CC was not a policy that we took to the election. Our firearms policy is not radical by international standards.
December 10, 2007 at 4:49 pm |
Frank, you are seriously strange. I wonder if you know what you believe or what you are arguing for.
Why don’t you get it clear in your mind before writing it here? The only thing that’s certain is you disagree with something. Trouble is, I don’t know what.
December 11, 2007 at 9:20 am |
Why am I srange David? because I don’t think your idea of liberty is workable? I have news for you, 99.9% of Australians don’t think it is.
I am clear in my mind David, the LDP should step away from the gun law issue.
December 11, 2007 at 9:23 am |
Oh and John, you say you don’t think legalizing hard drugs is a good idea..
Thats not very liberal of you!
December 11, 2007 at 10:23 am |
I don’t know what the point of your last comment is Frank. The LDP is a moderate libertarian party with moderate libertarian policies. If you want to join a more radical libertarian party, then you’ll have to build it yourself.
The LDP policy was never to legalise all drugs. It doesn’t make much sense for you to complain about our policies if you don’t know what they are.
December 12, 2007 at 1:30 pm |
John, I think it is a big misstake to support legalization of the one particular type of drug. It is relatively easy to explain why making drugs illegal is wrong, but when you support legalisation of the one type only….see last Frank’s comment.
December 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm |
Vlad — you’re wrong. It is infinitely easier to explain marijuana legalisation to most people as over 40% have used it. It is pretty much impossible to explain heroin or ice legaliation to most people. They won’t even listen to your second sentence so everything you say after “legalise heroin” is jut you talking to yourself. That’s not helpful.
Frank’s last comment was stupid. The LDP has always been a moderate libertarian party. If you want a radical libertarian party then get together the 500 politically active radical libertarians (lol) and form a party. But the LDP was always set up to be moderate and push for achievable reform.
December 12, 2007 at 3:05 pm |
You’re right in one thing, it is almost impossible to explain legalisation of hard drugs to most of the people. But legalisation of drugs in general is easy -it is not our business what individual wants to do with his/her own life, right? However trying to talk about drugs in general, it is almost certain that next question people will ask you is : “So, you support legalisation of heroin?”, and you are back to the beginning.
To change that stupid situtation, you’ve chosen to support marijuanna legalization only. But in that case, you are making the statement “it is not our business what individual wants to do with his/her own life” false. I think there is another way. It is quite obvious that political party must always remember how majority responds to one idea or another. So, if you don’t want to “scare” people with potential heroin legalisation- get drugs issues out of the LDP policies for the time being.
December 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm |
Hiding the issue isn’t the right answer. We want people to start questining the drug laws. That requires (1) raising the issue; and (2) doing so in a way that gets them to listen. The legalisation of marijuana is perfect.
The best arguments, and the arguments used by the LDP, are utilitarian. We are not arguing that prohibition is inherently wrong. We are arguing that it doesn’t work. Prohibition hasn’t changed usage rates, but it gives profits to drug dealers, puts non-violent people in jail, wastes police & court resources and turns most Australians into criminals or criminal associates.
Arguing from absolute libertarian deontelogical morality is pointless. Firstly, it convinces very few people. Secondly, the logical conclusion from that thinking is that we’d have to be anarchist or radical minarchist. We are not. We are a moderate party. Therefore (funnily enough) we have moderate libertarian policies.
December 12, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
I am with you now John. But I think, if you want to be consistent , you should be able to explain why marijuana? There are lots of other drugs, organic and synthetic, strong and light.
December 13, 2007 at 10:15 am |
Because Marijuana is the least dangerous, hardest to police (it grows like a weed) and most commonly used.
There’s 3 pretty good reasons.
Hell, even my Dad has smoked Marijuana and he was driving a tractor during the summer of love. He didn’t try it until he was 58 though, after a glorious victory at the local bowls club.
December 13, 2007 at 2:01 pm |
Throw that evil man in gaol!
December 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm |
Vlad, I’m a political conservative. Even if I support libertarian philosophy I don’t think I have the ability to know with any true degree of certainty the effects LDP policy will have.
I believe logically, philosophically and empirically LDP policy is a step in the right direction. But I don’t want a revolution. I don’t want massive social upheaval. Australia is pretty good right now. It’s not perfect- but it’s pretty good. I think it could be better, so there’s certain areas where I would like to see further liberalisation. I think it’d help and from that point perhaps even more radical liberalisation could be trialled. But I think it’s important to look at everything in the context of how it will effect Australian society.
Marijuana maybe isn’t the only drug that should be legalised. But I think trying marijuana is the best place to start (uhh, as in trying the legalisation of it). It is easy to predict the impact and easy to monitor any unfavourable change to Australian society. Legalisation of harder drugs has riskier negative outcomes associated with it.
Not all libertarians will agree with me. But I am first and foremost a utilitarian. I value positive outcomes for society over freedom. I just believe that freedom usually results in the best outcomes.
December 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm |
Shem,
All I was talking about is consistency. I doubt most of the public will ask you why marijuana? But for those who will, explanation like “least dangerous” is not enough at all, although “one of the least dangerous” makes some sence. For others supporting specifically marijuana legalisation most likely means, the one who supports it – smokes it. I don’t think it will have positive impact on LDP’s struggle for recognition.
I don’t know why you’ve decided that I want some kind of libertarian or any other revolution. Or have you? I am against any revoulution in Australia. It is great country but it could be better, without radical change.
One thing I strongly disagree with you is “positive outcomes for society over freedom”. Although sometimes it is true, most of the time personal freedom is more important. World ’s worst dictatorships were created under “positive outcomes for society” flag.
Sam,
As I told Shem, “least dangerous” is doubtful, it is not sole quality of marijuana. Hardest to police also isn’t related to marijuana only (musrooms,nuts etc.). Remaining argument “most popular” is true, but do you really think that would be enough?
Daniel,
I think your joke was a little bit over the line.
December 13, 2007 at 10:14 pm |
‘Positive outcomes for society over freedom’ is not a valid statement because it suggests that positive outcomes and freedom are contradictory (for at least some of the time at a minimum). This has got to be one of the greatest false beliefs ailing the civilised world at this point in human history. If the outcome is positive then, by definition, people are going to want it. A positive outcome for me isn’t what you think is good for me, it’s what I think is good for me, and is therefore what I want. So, if people are going to choose that outcome then the only thing that denying freedom can achieve is stopping them choosing an outcome they want i.e. a positive one. It is impossible to deny a rational person’s freedom to choose in order to give them a positive outcome they otherwise wouldn’t have had.
Of course, Shem is speaking of postive outcomes for ’society’ which is another great half-truth of our time. A society is a collection of individuals, so a positive outcome for the ’society’ by definition has to mean a positive outcome for the individuals who compose that society. The alternative is that the positive outcome is actually bad for some members of that society, but good for others, which is what usually happens when ’society’ is invoked. Needless to say, if a subset of that society actually thinks the outcome is bad, I don’t think it’s correct to call that outcome positive.
December 13, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
BTW, LDP has great policies I really like – CIR and Legislative sunset clauses. Those are good tools to discard some regulations which are hurting minorities.
December 14, 2007 at 1:28 am |
Michael — I believe positive outcomes and freedom are generally linked (that’s why I’m a libertarian) but it’s foolish to insist that it must always be the case. There are thousands of lifeboat examples that have been given to show this, and plenty of believable market failure stories.
Markets fail. Of course they do. But the important point is that government generally fails more than the market and it’s dangerous to rely on the government (made of imperfect people) to fix “market failures”.
December 14, 2007 at 8:21 am |
I don’t think something that has done exactly what it was designed to do has failed. (Ironically, engineers tend to argue this everyday.). People want an instrument that allows them to voluntarily cooperate to generate wealth, then get upset if they’re not rich by next week even though they chose not to participate. It’s not the markets fault the world doesn’t adhere to their definition of perfect. I know I’m preaching to the choir and this belongs on the ALS blog.