On the immoral (or perhaps amoral) culture of student/youth politics

Warning: Bitter self indulgence

I’ve decided to reread ‘The Education of a Young Liberal’. I think it will provide a nice bookend to my time as a ‘hack’ (well my abject failure version of a hack). I read the book when it came out in 2006, which roughly corresponded with my involvement and understanding of the national scene in YL’s and ALSF.

By that I don’t mean I was in any way some sort of heavyweight or player, I most assuredly was not. By national scene I merely mean that I was involved in the organisations, attended the national conferences, and started to meet and become acquainted with the people who WERE the heavyweights and players. My first ALSF conference was in 2005, and by 2006 I became more privy to the goings on.

So the book came out in 2006 and I like most little hacks and wannabe hacks quickly consumed it. Whether the events in the book are ‘true’ or not doesn’t particularly concern me.

Putting aside matters of fact, the book is immensely useful however for the narrative it paints. It represents a journey from the very beginning to the very end and the journey of ‘Hyde Page’ resonates with me and I think with others.

Hyde Page goes from an extremely naïve newbie, to loyal foot soldier, to aspirant, to player, to burn out. There is a corresponding ethical journey which I also find very interesting. Part of the debate over the book was whether Hyde Page painted himself in too nice a light and I’ll leave that judgment to people who were involved in the NSW YL’s at the time. However, one can say that the book doesn’t really paint anyone in a nice light.

The group, the right, Hyde Page, all come out of the book looking pretty grubby. I guess we can say that the real Hyde Page was probably a fair deal worse than the Hyde Page of the book. In that, the ethical journey stands out in that Hyde Page’s ethical journey is a downward spiral into very unethical behaviour.

In essence that is THE natural journey for the student/youth political hack. Youth politics is a fringe activity of society, and an enclosed society with its own subculture and morality (or perhaps amorality). A downward spiral of ethics is the natural journey because unethical behaviour is the norm. Lying is not only acceptable, it is expected. Bullying behaviour is not only acceptable, it is expected. Oscar Wilde’s saying that “true friends stab you in the front” is very true for politics. Gossiping, exclusion, conspiracy, and hierarchy are all tools commonly used and abused.

The thing of it is that eventually you come to forget that this kind of behaviour isn’t on. You get so caught up in it all that not only do you embrace unethical behaviour, your entire perspective on morality shifts.

This is probably why I find Tim Andrews’ introspective writing so interesting because (in relation to his life as a hack) it paints the picture of a guilty conscience. Tim (who seems to have lost his taste for hackery), was one of the more honourable people involved.

It’s not that I was particularly the victim of any of this (or if I was I remained blissfully unaware). I only felt the sting of betrayal from one group of people and by the end I saw it coming. It only ever affect ACT politics and I never really cared that much about the ACT anyway.

I was never really the subject of any particularly bad behaviour, although perhaps that was simply because I never had any power to warrant attention.

However I did see myself change. Gradually I started to do things that were wrong, and I’d forget that they even were wrong. It took a very negative reaction from my fiancée to my behaviour at a branch meeting to wake me up, and even then it was a slow reversal. Politics had become such a central part of my life that all my major friends were involved. It became my social life and that is a very dangerous thing because you lose touch with normal people and normal behaviour. Yes political hacks out there, you are not normal people.

Unscathed as I was, I’ve seen appalling things done to other people. At the 2006 ALSF Federal Convention a woman was sexually assaulted and it was covered up. Eventually it was denied and the woman was called anything from a liar to a slut. Why did this happen? She was from the wrong faction. Say what you want about the Fin laden’s (and I have plenty to say) but the simple fact is that event happened. The victim was smeared, the perpetrator went unpunished.

That would not happen in the real world. The people involved probably would never even cover something like that up if it didn’t happen in the realm of politics. However the culture is such that what is essentially appalling and unforgivable behaviour, becomes acceptable.

In 2008, Toby Latcham (of UQLC and Beauty and the Geek fame) set up a ‘smear website’ on Tim Andrews. Apparently back in the day Tim was foolish enough to have a personal journal on the internet where he said such ‘shocking’ things as he wanted a lefty girlfriend and liked Simon and Garfunkle. The smear was really notable simply for its pathetic ineptness but Tim being the big sook he is of course somewhat overreacted. The point remains that this kind of behaviour would get you fired from your job or a punch in the head. In youth politics, it is pretty innocuous really. Now that UQLC have split, Toby has been smeared in National News, though he finds it amusing. The point remains that the people who have engaged in such actions are pretty fucking low. However, it is politics so this is ‘normal’.

The NSW Right are having a big fight at the moment. Cops have been called, false accusations of assault, all manner of insults on Vexnews. None of that behaviour would be acceptable in the real world. These are just some recent examples I can quickly think of.

I often say to people that the Young Liberals are like High School, except only the nerds go there. It is almost like the poor downtrodden of the High School playground finally found a realm where they can be the bully. You can see the desperation and lust in the newbies’ eyes as they seek to avenge their subjugation back at St Barnabas. Although the end of Hyde Page’s book calls to me now, when I first read the book the power and fun and games called to me. Newbie that I was, the promise of prestige (student politicians tend to lack perspective), paid hack jobs, power. They were the interesting parts of the story to me and the poor naïve fools like me. Such is the culture; the all pervasive immorality, that you eventually lose yourself to it.

In many respects I guess that is why I love so many of the people I have met through ALSF/YL’s even though this whole post has been a big collective condemnation. I should say that not everyone is like the above and there are varying levels of personal corruption. If you can manage to take the person out of the game of politics for a second, you’ll find out that they are actually a pretty cool cat. It only lasts a second though and the corrupted soon put their game face back on. Still, many people involved are people of great integrity and as I said above most people were either honest about not liking me or were quite cool and did nothing to me that I could say was wrong.

Although I put the ‘bitter self indulgence’ disclosure up the top of this rant, I’d hate for people to think I was actually bitter about other people’s treatment of me. The only bitterness I have about anything regarding my time in Student/Youth politics is bitterness about my own behaviour and my own choices.

This isn’t about me feeling personally slighted; I just simply went out one night with basically a bunch of strangers who were welcoming and friendly. It reminded me of what real people are like. I went home and got really, really scared about the person I was becoming, the things I had been involved in, and the people I had left behind.

As Neitzsche said:
“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you”.

Vale Patrick Swayze

18/08/1952-14/09/2009

Patrick Swayze showed us that dancing was cool and nobody puts baby in the corner (Dirty Dancing); that it is possible to rip a mans throat out with your bare hands (Road House); and that if you die and possess Whoopie Goldberg, having her kiss Demi Moore is just disturbing to watch (Ghost).

I am sad, and I admit it freely. He was awesome.

ps, some of you may think that it is stupid to have a post about Patrick Swayze and not one about Norman Borlaug, who died yesterday. Well…good point. I shall post about Norman Borlaug tonight.

Update: Yeah, so I probably shouldn’t have used the Youtube clip that was just a photo clip of Patrick Swayze. SUPER GAY! What can I say, I googled and copy and pasted without actually playing it…I was at work.

Proposed Tattoos

Much to my mothers chagrin, I have quite a list of tattoos that I want to get. Of course I don’t have any of them yet which is more circumstance rather than fear. My fiancee now has two so I think it is probably time for me to catch up. Well this weekend will mark the getting of tattoo number 1. I’ll post photo’s.

Anyway, till then, here is a list of that tattoos I want to get.

“Invictus” in bold lettering on my inside forearm
Invictus is latin for unconquered. It works both as that word and as my favourite poem which is named Invictus. You can read it (and about it) here. A bit of trivia: Timothy McVeigh used the poem as his epitaph. Those crazy bombers, always with the jokes.

“Libertas” in bold lettering on my other inside forearm
Libertas was the name of the Latin goddess of liberty and is also the latin word for freedom/liberty. Pretty self explanatory.

A big ‘Liberty Enlightening the World (Statue of Liberty)’ on my back, coloured

Some people have been confused about this one, thinking it to be a very American symbol. Well firstly I am in love with America, secondly as Statue’s proper full name ‘Liberty Englightening the World’ illustrates, the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of freedom meant for the whole world. The USA may not always live up to it but it is always there as a reminder of the principles the country was founded upon; principles that apply to us all.

Ahava (Hebrew for love) in Hebrew lettering
I am when it all comes down to it, a passionate and loving person. A hopeless romantic, I believe that love is the most powerful force in the universe. Flower power man!

I also like this idea because judaism frowns on tattooing. The eternal rebel am I.

The Flag of the Sons of Liberty on the nape of my neck
The Sons of Liberty were the revolutionary organisation that started the American Revolution.

The Sons of Liberty was also the name of my super secret national faction within the Liberal Party. In its heyday I think it had about four members. Right now it has two. I assure you we are very influential…

The Eureka Flag (or a reinterpretation of it) wrapped around my wrist
The Eureka Flag was the battle flag used at the Eureka Stockade, a Gold Miner’s revolt against the repressive Government of the day and its unfair taxes and licenses. Today the Eureka Flag is used by unionists and racists and numerous groups inbetween. Those poor deluded fellows. Can’t reappropriate it without fighting for it though.

Logo of the Geelong Football Club
I truly love three things in this life: My fiancee Lisa, freedom, and the Geelong Football Club. I literally bleed blue and white (if you do a google search of my name you’ll come across all the stories about it from when I was a baby.)

A list that should keep me going for quite a while.

Update: I just thought of another one. The quote “He’s not a machine, he’s a man”. I choose to leave this one unexplained.

On social cynicism, writer’s block, and Rihanna with a Mohawk

Jake Zanoni
has come to the conclusion that the adult world is a world of pretence and fraud. Desolate creatures roam the social sphere with only platitudes and acceptables as guides for communication; communication that could only be described as random acts …of collision rather than any meaningful exchange. I hark for a time when I was not caught in this trap. Alas I have no Spiderman costume to wear to the local shops…

I just posted that as my Facebook status. Apparently broody, cynical Jacob has returned. The thing is I know it is preachy and self serving, but that doesn’t seem to matter. I never even had a Spiderman costume as a kid, I just couldn’t remember what my equivalent metaphorical symbol of childlike freedom from societal norms would be. What an asshole.

Anyway, I have writer’s block. Perhaps it is the long work hours (get up at 4am, start work at 5am, finish at 5pm, get up at 4am), but a general sense of malaise has descended upon me that serves to sap my zest for ideas. I’m sure it will leave in a day or two.

While we are waiting for Jacob to get out of his funk, here is the current song that I am listening to ad infinitum (occasionally broken up with Shakira – She Wolf).

Clip | Shakira : She Wolf

Clip | Shakira : She Wolf
Uploaded by Henrietta-Aime-Fumer_Tv. – Explore more music videos.

Just thought we could all take a moments break from serious matters like politics and my ego, and marvel at the current object of my rampant lust. Shakira.

I didn’t know you could buy clothes with only one pant leg but I LOVE IT!

Sorry feminazis but appearance counts as well, and Shakira is the bomb b!

Australian Consumer Fraud Task Force

I stumbled on a fun little Government program today; Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce

This is a serious issue actually, I had a friend who had his identity stolen, and he didn’t even do anything stupid, it just happened. But as you know, I can’t help but be a jerk. Sometimes, you are just a fool and deserve to be swindled.

Tina lost her house in a dating scam

Some time after a painful divorce, I decided it was time to get out there again. A friend of mine was using an internet dating website and was having fun so I joined up as a member.

Soon after creating my profile page on a dating website, I received a few emails. One of the responses caught my eye; his name was Collin Anderson*.

I emailed Collin and we started chatting online. We got along really well and he was easy to chat to. He had been through a similar life experience, so we really connected. He was an interesting man and very funny, and I could tell by the way he talked about his daughter that he was very caring. Unfortunately, he was living overseas at the time we met but was returning to Australia in a few months.

Collin quickly became part of my life. We talked or emailed everyday. We’d spend hours talking about everything. We seemed to share a lot of common interests and experiences. I even told him that I missed my daughter, who was studying overseas.

The next day, Collin organised for his daughter to call me for a chat. I was really touched by this and felt that we had become very important in each other’s lives. I was really looking forward to meeting Collin when he came home. We made plans for holidays and fun things to do when he was back.

Then, I stopped receiving emails and telephone calls from Collin. I was very worried that something had happened to him.

After a few days, I received a call from a doctor from overseas. He informed me that Collin had been involved in a terrible accident and needed urgent medical attention. The doctor asked me to pay for Collin’s hospital fee of $2,500. I didn’t hesitate to pay this amount through wire transfer.

I received more phone calls from the Collin’s doctor. He told me that Collin’s health was deteriorating and that he would need to have further surgery and be rehabilitated. The doctor asked me whether I would be able to cover some of Collin’s surgery costs and treatment.

I paid for some of the fees from my savings, but once they ran out I had to take out a second mortgage my house. Collin’s health was improving and we started communicating again. I was so happy that his treatment was working. Over about six months I sent $95,000 to Collin. I remember my friends were really worried about me sending that much money, but I trusted Collin.

All of a sudden I stopped hearing from Collin. Again, I was really worried that something had happened to him and tried to get in touch with him. But the number I had been using to contact him had been disconnected. I never heard from Collin again.

I still find it hard to believe I got scammed. I really wanted it to work out and just believed everything was going to be fine, but I ended up losing my house.

* Names have been changed

LULZ! Sucks to be lonely I guess.

Ohio Judge Duct Tapes Defendant in Court

Ohio judge orders official to duct tape talkative defendant

A US judge ordered a court official to “duct tape the defendant” after repeated outbursts.

The bizarre scenario played out in a court in Canton, Ohio, when Judge Stephen F. Belden clashed with robbery suspect Harry Brown.

Mr Brown fired up about the lawyer who’d been allocated to him, but the judge refused to appoint another.

The pair argued for several minutes, before Judge Belden decided on shock tactics to silence the defendant.

“I’m gonna get some duct tape. If you keep interrupting me, I’m gonna have Mr Smith (the bailiff) put it over your mouth, OK?”

When Mr Brown refused to stay quiet, he carried out his threat: “All right, duct tape. Duct tape the defendant,” he said.

The local newspaper The Repository reports the preliminary hearing then went ahead before the duct tape was removed and Mr Brown was asked if he had any questions.

“We’ll put some more (tape) back on if you decide to, uh, go back to your former, uh, disrespectful ways,” the judge said.

“I’m not being disrespectful, Your Honour,” Mr Brown said. “I think you’re being more disrespectful to me, as, you know …”

Mr Brown eventually left the court, reportedly uttering obscenities, for which he was told he would get “30 more days on top of whatever you get, for contempt”.

After the hearing he said his treatment was unethical and he wanted to file a complaint, The Repository reported.

Judge Belden told the paper he got no enjoyment out of using the duct tape.

Umm, no dude. That’s not what you do in that situation.

Update: The local article contains audio and some funny details.

Choice quotes:

With Brown muzzled, Belden told the public defender to sit in the audience, then ran the hearing.

After the police officer answered the prosecutor’s questions, Belden told his bailiff to remove the tape and asked Brown if he had any questions for the witness.

“We’ll put some more (tape) back on if you decide to, uh, go back to your former, uh, disrespectful ways,” the judge said.

“I’m not being disrespectful, Your Honor,” Brown said. “I think you’re being more disrespectful to me, as, you know …”

He never got to ask a question, as the argument restarted.

“OK, that’s it, that’s it. Prelim is over. You’re bound over. I find probable cause. You can go back, down in the basement …,” Belden said.

“I want to ask him some questions…”

“Yoooooouuuuuuu … go ahead, take him away,” Belden said.

On the way out the door, Brown uttered obscenities.

“OK, you can get 30 more days on top of whatever you get, for contempt,” Belden told him.

So they duct taped the defendant because he didn’t like the job his appointed attorney was doing. Kept him duct taped as the prosecutor questioned the witness. And then put the duct tape back on thedefendant when he wanted to question the witness. JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE!

This is an important case though because apparently ‘annoying the judge’ is probable cause.

It was the first time in 12 years on the bench that Belden has ordered a defendant’s mouth to be taped. He said he learned of the technique from an out-of-state judge while they were attending a training seminar.

I wonder how much the ‘Duct Taping for fun and profit’ seminar cost. Was it paid for by the taxpayer?

Aside from taping defendants’ mouths, judges in Municipal Court can try to reason with them, postpone the hearing, place them behind a glass window next to the courtroom or put them in a holding area where they can listen to the hearing but can’t participate, Belden said.

Yeah but all of those options don’t damage the integrity of the court nearly as much as duct tape.

‘Nanny State’ – We are treated like vegetables – Daily Telegraph

We are treated like vegetables – Daily Telegraph

AUSTRALIAN governments have long been accused of running “nanny states”. This is in part because of a constant stream of regulations determining how people can and should live their lives and in part because they are often filled with goats.

One recent example of this is the Rudd Government’s Preventative Health Taskforce, which is proposing “vouchers” to get poor people to eat more fruit and vegetables.

It is an intriguing concept.

Apparently poor people are too stupid to buy vegetables with cash but could easily do so using a redeemable voucher system designed by a bureaucrat.*

While this might be well-intentioned, the idea of food vouchers still has a touch of Stalinism about it – except for the fact that under Stalin you didn’t actually get any food.

But however bossy Canberra might be, it pales in comparison to NSW when it comes to regulating human behaviour. More than 200 years after the convicts landed, the State Government is still convinced that every NSW resident is basically a criminal.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
It was only a couple of decades ago that if you were dining on a footpath in Sydney you weren’t allowed to have a glass of wine with your meal.

In recent years there have been bans on everything from water sprinklers to smoking a cigarette on the beach.

Last year the Government finally overhauled liquor laws to allow smaller bars to open and improve Sydney’s nightlife, yet just two months ago it baulked and proposed a ban on new licences in the city’s alleged entertainment district.

And last month the cheerfully-titled Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority refused to allow a Darlinghurst bar to call itself “Swillhouse” because the name “has inappropriate connotations with excessive drinking”. Presumably “Siphouse” would have been approved.

And, of course, punters across Sydney are now often forced to drink out of plastic, an experience most of us have not experienced since being toilet-trained.

The endless imposition of such rules appears excessive by international standards.

In Australia, grown adults grumble meekly about the right to drink from a glass, while in Britain people demand the right to shoot foxes and in America they demand the right to shoot people.

The great irony is that Australians are generally the most relaxed and laid back of these three populations – possibly because people here are not allowed to shoot each other – which prompts the question: Is all this crap really necessary?

Certainly some regulations, such as the ban on indoor smoking, are sensible and necessary for the common good.

Likewise, the ACT Government has finally banned fireworks after realising that many people’s preferred method of detonating them was to throw them out of a car window.

But wherever possible people must be given the freedom to enjoy themselves. While it’s nice of the Government to try to keep us alive as long as possible, there’s not much point if we have nothing to live for.

*Another possibility is that poor people are perfectly aware of the benefits of vegetables but just don’t particularly like them. This I suspect may be closer to the mark.

Via @GideonRozner

I have some problems with this article (the guns part, the indoor smoking part, and the fireworks part), but it just goes to show how tyrannical our Government’s are becoming that someone who would readily support such above bans and regulations, finally stand up and start to question things.

Minors can strip in Rhode Island, USA

Minors in R.I. can be strippers – The Providence Journal

PROVIDENCE –– Rhode Island teens under 18 can’t work with power saws or bang nails up on roofs.

But dance at strip clubs? Sure. Just as long as the teens submit work permits, and are off the stripper’s pole by 11:30 on school nights.

It’s enough to surprise even those in America’s mecca of striptease and sin –– Las Vegas.

You can read the rest here.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know what the current price for a flight to Rhode Island is?

Should libertarians join the Liberal Party? My thoughts…again

Tim Andrews has posted a discussion on whether or not libertarians should join the Liberal Party at Thoughts on Freedom, which I contributed to.

Click the link above to go to the full post. I’m going to reply here to some of the contributions and post my own contribution, so this is an edited extract. My comments are in bold.

The Great Debate: Should libertarians join the Liberal Party – Tim Andrews

As most of you would know, I remain a member of the Liberal Party, despite the fact that, from a small government perspective, their record leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed there are many members of the Liberal Party who self-identify as libertarians – primarily in the student wing, but also in Parliament as well. Yet it is hardly a small-government party. On the other hand, many people think the Liberal Party is a lost cause, and that we should either focus on the LDP or abandon party politics entirely.

So I thought I’d pose the question to a number of libertarians who would sit on all sides of this issue, and see how they respond. Should a believer of small government, individual freedom, and free markets join the Liberal Party?

Here is what they said:

Jake Zanoni, President, Australian Taxpayers’ Union and Former Vice Chair Policy Committee, Australian Liberal Students’ Federation:

For me it isn’t black and white. I can’t say for certain whether every libertarian should join the Libs. It very much depends on the skills, personality, and goals of the individual. There are many paths available.
I suppose I should admit that my 5 years in the Libs have been an utter failure. I spent 3 years semi wedded to a faction that ended up stabbing me in the back. I never won any positions of influence, never increased the ‘libertarian’ membership of the ACT division. The only time I ever successfully pulled off a Machiavellian type strategy and tipped the Presidency of the ANU Liberal Club to my favoured candidate, it only served to set off a chain of events that culminated in robbing me of the one position I ever truly desired. I’ve never really recovered since then.

My point is not to cry ‘woe is me’ or paint a picture of hopelessness. My point is that my failure is ENTIRELY my fault. I don’t have what it takes to be effective in the Liberal Party. So my advice is to ask yourself whether you have what it takes.

You aren’t Australia’s Ron Paul. You won’t be preselected and you won’t win if you are. If you do win you will be one MP in a sea of statists and pigs at the trough. Purge from your minds any dreams of being an MP or a Krogeresque power broker. There are hundreds of boys and girls with the same dream and they probably have a much better shot.

You will have to take your marching orders for a very long time. The Liberal Party is very factional. If you are lucky you live in Vic where Libertarians actually do have some sway. You get to be a fellow libertarians bitch in VIC. In NSW you can at least find some fellow believers. If you live in the ACT, RUN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
If you think you have the charisma to sign up stacks, you may do quite well. If you can sign up keen people and pursuade them to libertarianism, even better. If you can compromise and bite your tongue without hating yourself, you could very well have the constitution to be a member.

I guess ultimately I would say give it a shot, try it on for a year or two and see what you think. You will be fighting a very steep uphill battle so prepare yourself. I don’t really regret joining, it has taught me a lot and I have met some very inspiring people and some close friends. But I would have done that through ALSF anyway. If it doesn’t work out you can always join the LDP later.

Ultimately, if you do join, don’t let it be your only avenue of activism. Join IPA, or CIS. Help me out at the Australian Taxpayers’ Union. Go smoke a joint at a protest. Start a blog. There is so much you can do at the same time as being a mber of a political party, so never limit yourself to just folding pamphlets for the local Lib member. As for me, well I’m printing off an LDP membership form tomorrow. I don’t know if I’ll fill it out just yet though.

In retrospect, it was slightly more negative than I meant it to be. I don’t want people to be blinded by the negative things and miss the positive things. I do think you should join IF you feel it is a good idea. Just know what you are getting into and don’t limit yourself to just Party activities.

Tim Wilson, Director IP and Free Trade Unit, Institute of Public Affairs:

Yes. Libertarians should be frustrated with the current state and direction of Australia. But change doesn’t occur from where we are to where you want to be without steps in between. The Liberal Party is one of the best avenues to progress those steps.The modern Liberal Party is the custodian of the mainstream centre-right tradition in Australia, and broadly includes libertarian ideals. And it is the centre-right institution with the most capacity to communicate the principles of a more libertarian society to Australians and have that voice heard.

But without libertarians what is the incentive for the Liberal Party to do so? Political parties only represent their membership. If the Liberal Party is not libertarian enough, it is because not enough libertarians are members, are debating in party fora and putting themselves forward for election.

The temptation for libertarians is to remain philosophically pure by either joining the LDP or not being a member of a Party at all. But we all know that purity isn’t going to win over the millions of Australians who do not identify as libertarian. One person can make a difference, but major political parties offer another avenue to achieve long-standing, sustainable change if you don’t have the resources and time to do it all yourself.

Tim Wilson at least works for IPA, following my advice to diversify. He actually is a model of a successful libertarian Liberal. He seems to be a somebody in the Victorian Division (apparently he is a Ballieu man which puts him at odds with most of the young libertarians who are Krogerites…….like I said in my own post, factional craziness is a reality of the Liberal Party), he is widely published (mainly through his IPA work) and seems to be talked about as a future MP. Of course he is going to be favour joining the Liberal Party, it’s working very well for him so far.

However I have some problems with his post. Tim suggests that the Liberal Party is one of the best avenues to progress libertarian changes, but doesn’t really back that up. What actual progress can Tim point to?

Tim suggests that the Liberal Party is the natural home of libertarianism and if the Party isn’t libertarian enough, well that’s just because not enough libertarians have joined. WOW! That insightful advice is quite a brain buster. It’s all well and good to ponder what you could do if all the libertarians joined the Liberals. I’ve done it in the past with the ACT Division, day dreaming about the nice little voting bloc we’d have if only the libertarians I knew joined. It isn’t like libertarians are a dime a dozen though. You can’t just herd them into the Party meeting. With the exception of the Victorian YL’s, libertarians are a small minority and that makes getting anything done very difficult. Politics is a numbers game and libertarians are at a disadvantage. That is true with anything though so it isn’t itself an argument against joining. I think overall Tim is quite convincing.

Alex Butterworth, President, Australian Liberal Students’ Federation:

The Liberal Party is full of both Libertarians and Conservatives. Libertarians believe in the principles of free-markets and individualism. Conservatism can be consistent with this idea [can being the operative word].
Conservatives can be split into two categories; the social conservatives that live out conservative social values in their own personal lives, but adhere to the Libertarian philosophy and do not force that way of living onto others when in government[eg, the 5% like Alex Hawke, who toe the line anyway]. Alternatively, there are Conservatives who believe that government should intervene to maintain and preserve a certain sense of morality in society. The former type of Conservative exists more in the Liberal Party than the latter [This is simply false. Either Alex is stretching the definition of ‘do not force’ to an absurd level or he is deluded.]

Think of all of the economically Libertarian actions of the Liberal Party in government: the deregulation of the labour market in 1996 and through industrial relations reform, the privatisation of government owned enterprises like Telstra, the lowering of taxes and the balancing of the budget.

Alex notably fails to mention the less than libertarian things the Howard Government did.
Yes, the Liberals did do some ‘libertariany’ type things. They also did some horrific things. As for lowering taxes and balancing the budget, the Liberals cut Government spending in their first budget and after that revenues and spending INCREASED. After 2000, both increased astronomically. The Liberals allowed bracket creep and growth in prosperity expand the tax take, and then handed back very small tax cuts. They spent like drunken sailors, and doubled welfare spending. In the last half of the Howard Government’s term, they blatantly ran the budget in order to buy electoral victory. They did very little to actually reform our tax system.

These were all far more Libertarian than the policies of the Labor Party in government. Hawke and Keating may have undertaken some deregulation and other economic reform, but this was not because of their own initiative, it was because of the direction of the global economy under Thatcher and Reagan. Importantly, Hawke and Keating were outliers when compared to all other Labor governments. Consider Gough Whitlam, Ben Chifley, John Curtin and Kevin Rudd? These governments hardly exemplified deregulation, privatisation and lower taxes. Hawke and Keating aside, all other Labor Governments have embarked on massive nationalisation projects (Chifley), rampant expenditure (Rudd and Whitlam) and on many occasions, an interference in our social lives (Rudd’s internet filter, alco-pops taxes and compulsory student unionism to name a few).

All fair enough although any honest libertarian should give Hawke and Keating their due. They wrenched an unwilling Party through necessary economic reforms. They showed guts. They did the right thing. Even Howard gives them their due.

The Liberal Party is easily the place for Libertarians in the Australian political context on economics. Where most Libertarians stray from the Party is on social policy.

This is simply untrue. The Liberal Party’s record on economic matters is not good. Again, we as libertarian members of the Party latch desperately onto the rhetoric and the few good things. Our cognitive dissonance kicks into full gear as we ignore how Liberal Governments increase spending and tax revenues. We ignored how Howard’s deregulation was actually increased regulation (Higher Education, IR etc). ‘Better than the other guys’ may very well be true but it doesn’t make you good, it just makes you evil with a flower in your breast pocket.

The modern examples of Rudd’s internet filter, alco-pops taxes and compulsory student unionism should be enough to convince most people that the ALP is an interventionist political party on social issues as well as economic issues, at least in a modern context. Compare this with the Liberal Party’s opposition to those very proposals, in line with the Libertarian view. Even on alco-pops, where the Liberals originally opposed the tax but now seem to be letting it get through, the parliamentary Liberal Party didn’t change their view because of ideology, but because of concern about a double dissolution. The Libertarian thought processes were still dominant, it was just a question of political pressure forcing the party to put ideology to one side.

‘The Liberal Party was still libertarian, but they were too much a bunch of bitches to actually stand up for anything.’ The ALP is fundamentally tyrannical on social issues, however this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Liberal Party. Even in the all too rare instances where the FPLP adopts a liberty oriented position, they are too ineffectual to actually follow through. This is an argument against the Liberal Party. This is a fundamental point AGAINST the Liberal Party.

One older issue that has caused Libertarians to stray from the Liberal Party is gay marriage. The Labor Party is no better than the Libs on this one, and the Greens, despite their Libertarian social positions are so committed to interfering in the economy that they are not a legitimate option. Even then, a Libertarian can recognise that the issue is not about same-sex couples having a right to choose to get married, but about a tension between that choice, and the right of religious institutions and believers to practice their religion in the way that they want to, and choose what types of relationships they will and will not recognise. A true Libertarian sees the issue as a tension between two rights, not just about one right over another. Similarly, a true Libertarian would not change the law, but remove it altogether; in a sense, ‘deregulate’ marriage.

I’m not sure this actually is a huge issue for libertarians in the Party. Most libertarians adopt the abolish marriage position and know that it is unpopular. I think this is a position that will gain traction outside the Party before it gains traction in the Party. Too many old people and young fascists. I have no particular issue with this paragraph though.

Similarly, on abortion, there is a Libertarian argument based around the harm principle that the abortion of a foetus is doing harm to another and that the government has a role in enforcing the harm principle and stepping in to stop the harm from occurring. A Conservative view on abortion is as consistent with Libertarian views as a pro-choice view, because, like gay-marriage, it is about a tension between the rights of two or even three individuals. In the Liberal Party there are varied views on abortion, reflecting the fact that a Libertarian can truly go to either side on that issue, and that the Liberal Party IS the party of Libertarianism.

That someone can side either way doesn’t prove that the Liberal Party IS the party of libertarianism, it simply proves that you have a brain. Again, no fundamental issue with this paragraph though.

Aside form the baby bonus, which most Liberals will admit is a silly idea, there are very few social issues where the Liberal Party’s position is inconsitent with a Libertarian view.

…drugs, guns, art, fillum, welfare, public health, civil liberties, discrimination laws (THAT’S RIGHT I SAID IT). I could add a few more but they are legitimately controversial within libertarianism so I won’t. Personally, drug laws, gun laws, and censorship laws are my three big issues so forgive me if I don’t share Alex’s optimistic sense of ideological correlation.

The difficulty is that the ALP and the Greens are very good at SELLING THEMSELVES AS LIBERTARIANS WHEN THEY ARE NOT. Any Libertarian that takes the time to scratch below the surface will see beyond the way that the ALP and the Greens present themselves, and look at what they actually do.

I suppose there is something of a community perception that they are socially liberal. That is absolutely a mistake. The Greens are disgustingly socially authoritarian.

At the end of the day, the Liberal Party isn’t the perfect Libertarian party, but it’s a whole lot better than any other party for a Libertarian, and while it might not be as hard-core as the Liberty and Democracy Party, it goes as close as it can get while still being electable.

True.
My problem with Alex is that I know that he knows better than what he has written. He’s almost as libertarian as I am and he is almost as critical as I am when not making a public statement. I think Alex has fallen into the trap that many libertarian Liberals fall into; feeling like it isn’t okay to criticise the failures of the Liberal Party. If we don’t shout our anger and make our voices heard then there is absolutely no point to joining the Liberal Party.

David Leyonhjelm, Treasurer & Registered Officer, Liberal Democratic Party:

Believing the Liberals could ever become libertarian is like getting married for the second time – a triumph of hope over experience.
Although the Liberal Party is sometimes said to have libertarian tendencies, there is no chance they will ever burst out and transform the party.
The Liberal Party is fundamentally conservative, meaning it prefers the status quo. It also identifies with the business community in the same way that Labor identifies with the union movement. It is pro-business, not pro-freedom.
Adam Smith famously said, “”People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The libertarian solution to this is to remove barriers to competition. The Liberal Party response is to defend the status quo.
The history of economic reform in Australia proves the point. Tariff walls were erected mainly under Liberal governments but brought down under Labor. Financial markets were similarly liberalised by Labor. Under the Howard/Costello government, taxes and spending rose in real terms by more than 30%.
That is not to imply Labor is any more libertarian. It has no fondness for business at all. Once in a while it merely takes genuinely rational steps to improve the circumstances of workers, without the socialist claptrap. (Regrettably now is not one of those times).
Which means neither Liberal nor Labor offer any hope for those who dream of small government and lower taxes. They differ in their rhetoric and priorities, but both parties support big taxing and big spending.
The solution is a principled alternative party committed to small government ie the Liberal Democrats (LDP). I don’t pretend it will win government in the foreseeable future, but with sufficient support it could hold the balance of power in the Senate and state parliaments. That would compel the governing party to adopt some of its policies to survive. A strong survival instinct is something else the Liberals share with Labor.

I agree with all of this except for the marriage crack. I know of numerous second marriages that are quite successful. I am a romantic though.

The only thing I would say is that we need libertarians in the Liberal Party for the LDP to work. There needs to be a kinship and if there is a kinship then libertarianism has a chance.
Ultimately and as I said originally, there are many paths. The Vic YLs attitude to the LDP shits me. They need to get over the fact that the LDP didn’t preference Scott Ryan. The LDP is a micro Party, they didn’t know who Scott Ryan was. I DIDN’T KNOW WHO SCOTT RYAN WAS! My concern is that people pick their flavour and then think that is the only acceptable choice. It shouldn’t work like that.

It also would have been good to hear from the UoW ‘Frat Labor’ lads (Clinton Mead, Nick Rouen et al). These guys are libertarians and in the ALP. Their perspective would be interesting.