Over the last few years, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many Muslims about the political situation and our engagement with the broader society. Although some may disagree, my experience has been that, overwhelmingly, the Muslim community just wants to practice our religion in peace. We want to be free to believe what we want, dress how we like, associate with whom we please, and say what we wish in our mosques and centers. In essence, we — like most other Australians — want to be left alone to pursue our own personal objectives in a manner we see fit.
As I have written previously, it’s my view that the political ideology that best guarantees us those freedoms is libertarianism. It is therefore of particular interest that there is a libertarian party, the Liberty and Democracy Party, running in the coming election — and they have a real chance.
So, to find out how this party views issues of concern to the Muslim community, I put a few questions to John Humphreys, the party’s vice-president and senate candidate for Queensland. We report, you decide; but I know who I’ll be voting for on election day.
What is the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) all about?
The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) is the only political party in Australia that doesn’t want to tell you how to live your life. Every other political party thinks they know how you should behave – which hobbies you should have; how you should raise your children; how you should spend your money; and what sort of community you should join. The LDP is the only party that says “it’s your choice, not the governments”.
We understand that people sometimes make the wrong decisions in life. But if we really are a free people, then we must be free to live our own lives, even if that means occasionally making our own mistakes.
The key to the success of a free pluralistic society is tolerance. The LDP does not promote any particular lifestyle choice. Further, it is not necessary for Australians to agree with the decisions of their neighbours. All that is required is tolerance. The LDP is the party for non-interference and tolerance of diversity.
In recent years, the government has taken steps to ban books and other material that it believes is ‘extremist’ or inciting hatred. Assuming the literature doesn’t call for specific acts of violence, what is the LDP’s position on this?
The LDP believes in absolute freedom of speech, even when that speech might be controversial or offensive.
So long as there are no direct and specific threats of violence, people should be free to promote any ideas, even if those ideas are ‘extreme’, absurd or unpopular. The truth has nothing to fear from an open debate.
There have been repeated calls in Australia and abroad for the government to impose limitations on what Muslim women can wear in public. Does the LDP support the freedom of women to wear whatever they please?
The LDP fundamentally believe that each person owns their own life and should be free to make their own decisions without undue government interference. So long as people interact voluntarily and peacefully, they should be free to make their own lifestyle choices and wear what they choose.
The LDP would certainly defend the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want.
What is the LDP’s position on private schools and particularly religious schools?
The LDP supports a schools policy of more parental choice and less bureaucratic control. Our policy calls for a “voucher” system of funding the parents (who then use that money on a school of their choice) instead of giving money directly to the schools.
We believe that this would lead to more competition between schools and a greater diversity of schooling options, including a range of religious schools and non-religious schools.
The LDP supports the freedom of these schools to control their own staff, rules and agenda. So long as they abide by minimum standards necessary to prepare their students for university, schools should be free to cater to the specific demands of their community.
When people talk about ‘multiculturalism’ it can mean different things. On the one hand, it means that people are free to practice whatever culture they choose (providing it does not harm others or limit heir freedoms) without interference from the state. On the other hand, there is a form of multiculturalism as government policy where the government takes an active role in funding and controlling or influencing the expression of different cultures.
Does the LDP support the freedom of people to practise their culture and religion as they wish free from government involvement? What is the LDP’s view on the state establishing and funding religious organisations, choosing leaders for the Muslim community, and generally interfering in the cultural and religious affairs of a minority?
The LDP absolutely supports the first version of multiculturalism described above – the freedom to choose your own lifestyle free from government interference.
We do not support the government’s efforts to control and manage multiculturalism. Culture is fluid and dynamic and should not be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. We do not support government programs that try to change, preserve or adjust people’s culture. Nor should the government interfere in the appointment of community leaders or the religious affairs of any group – whether they are a majority or a minority.
Culture is a very personal and private decision and the government should not be involved.
What’s the LDP’s view on the war in Iraq?
The federal LDP did not exist when the Iraq war was being debated. But personally I have always been a fierce critic of the war and in 2004 I published an award-winning essay on the need for us not to over-react to terrorism.
In that essay I wrote: “It is hard for any rational analysis of the war [in Iraq] to reveal a net benefit”. My argument was that the greatest threat to our freedom was irrational fear and political over-reaction. I also argued against the ASIO Act which reduces the civil liberties of all Australians.
What is the LDP’s immigration policy?
The LDP recognises the significant benefit gained from immigrants and we are a pro-immigration party. Indeed, we are the only minor party that supports high levels of non-discriminatory immigration. We condemn the calls by Pauline Hanson and the Christian Demoratic Party for a halt to African and/or Muslim immigration and the LDP would like to make it clear that we appreciate the contributions of all immigrants — from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The LDP would support the introduction of “free immigration agreements” with approved countries so assist in the easier flow of people. We already have such a policy with New Zealand and there is no reason why it couldn’t work with Singapore, the Netherlands or Dubai.
While it is necessary to detain unauthorised arrivals for security and health checks, once those checks are complete then refugees should be free to be released on bail, to live in the community while they are awaiting the final decision of the courts. The LDP believes that Australia should be responsive to the calls for greater refugee intake in times of crisis.
Consistent with our other policies, our immigration policy is one that celebrates diversity, calls for tolerance and reduces the role of government.
68 comments ↓
[...] has now posted our interview on his blog “Austrolabe” — including issues such as free speech, education [...]
Wow. Awesome stuff.
Interesting stuff!
The LDP are pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.
No muslim who respects their religion should vote for them.
Not actually all that good (sorry, Sara). The ALP has been against the Iraq war since day 1 – why not ask him about Afghanistan?
Also, the idea that poor ol’ Muslim women aren’t allowed to wear what they like applie, in Australia to security-related situations, such as showing the face at airports. You didn’t ask him about that, you asked him a general question about political philosphy. Of course he’s going to say that anyone can wear what they like – so would the leaders of all other political parties.
He uses the get-out of ‘direct attack’ in the free speech answer – is calling for the immediate destruction of Israel a ‘direct attack’? Only the Supreme Court knows, certainly not pollies.
(BTW, he presumably would allow people to wear nothing if they wanted. You would no doubt exercise your right to behave as you wanted by stoning them. Fun times.)
The federal LDP didn’t exist when the Afghanistan war was on and I can only talk for myself. I was skeptical of the Afghan war too… as I am of most wars.
Abstract calls for the end of Israel are not a “direct and specific threat”. While I personally don’t agree, I would certainly defend your right to argue your case.
I didn’t say that people can act as they like. I believe people should be able to act as they like so long as their actions are voluntary and peaceful.
Zaineb, the LDP are not really pro-drug, pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage no more than they are pro-hijab, pro-religious schools, or pro-polygyny or whatever. As they say, they are pro-freedom and that naturally means that people are free to do things that don’t harm others — provided they accept the consequences of their actions and don’t expect others to pay for them.
They are not going to force others to do these things so I don’t really care. What I — and most Muslims I know — care mostly deeply about is that we are free to live according to Islam and nobody is trying to harm us or limit our ability to follow our faith. Therefore, the question should be: which party best guarantees our freedom to live as Muslims?
The fundamentalist Christian’s survey of the LDP is very interesting. Most of the responses are very agreeable to me.
au,
Thanks for the link – it is good to see some unambiguous responses to these sorts of questions. Most of the parties dance around these sorts of issues.
Zainab
“The LDP are pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.”
We are not pro-drug nor pro-abortion nor pro-gay. We believe in the individual’s right to decide how to live his own life even if that has negative consequences for him (e.g. the right to smoke or drink alcohol).
Most of us view abortion as an awful procedure that should be avoided if at all possible. And people who take drugs are idiots.
In the link that AU provided above, the LDP say that they don’t support the state funding of abortions or counselling; and they would oppose any government campaign for or against abortion.
“What I — and most Muslims I know — care mostly deeply about is that we are free to live according to Islam and nobody is trying to harm us or limit our ability to follow our faith. ”
However, as many muslims believe that following their faith involves forcing other people to behave in ways that muslims prefer, libertarianism does limit muslims’ ability to follow their faith in that respect. AS Isaid elsewhere, it means that adulterers and homosexuals also have the right to do as they please.
Don’t adulterers and homosexuals already have the right to do pretty much what they please in Australia anyways?
People already commit adultery, homosexuality, drink, get abortions legally etc already so how is that relevant to who you vote for? It’s not as if Howard or Rudd are going to ban abortions or ban adultery or ban homosexuality or ban alcohol in Australia.
Right now Muslims are made to pay for all sorts of things we don’t agree with. Our tax money goes to pay for abortions and for gay festivals and all sorts of stuff. The good thing about the LDP is that they will say people can continue to do this stuff but you are going to have to pay for it yourself now.
Anyways the big difference with the LDP as far as I can see is that they support Muslim freedoms out of principle not because it’s politically advantageous to do it. The only way the LDP could stop defending women’s right to wear niqab or hijab or islamic schools is if they stopped being libertarian. Conservative parties or left wing parties can just change their mind as we know from the past.
It’s simple really. Do you intend to vote to
1) secure your rights.
Or
2) deny other people theirs
Personally, I feel the first position is infinitely superior. We certainly don’t appreciate it when other people assume the worst (e.g. Antish above) of our life choices/motives in a paternalistic manner.
Lakum deenukum wa li-ya deen.
The user pays idea that everyone lives their separate existences that they fund themselves is problematic though- As they say no man is an island…we exist in relation to each and have to figure out how to get along, not just be ‘tolerated.’
Society involves some level of communal-ness and interaction about shared space and institutions and yes that dreaded term ‘values’. It is this which neccesitates interaction and perhaps even conflict between different groups as they navigate how their visions can co-exist that is necessary.
I’m all for unfettered freedom but there are practical concerns-
Multicultural theorists have argued that communities should be able to practice cultural and religious norms freely, provided there is an ‘exit’ option for those who want to ‘opt’ out. Would there be similar mechanism to addresss those who use non-libertarian forms of coercion in their communities? i.e what if your faith promoted evagelism?
Government interference has proven many times to be ill-judged and paternalistic (i.e NT intervention) but at the same time there are many worthy govt. programs- exchanges, research, cultural programs, broadcast stations etc that provide a necessary platform for less powerful minority communities to be heard and genuinely help the disadvantaged (i.e medicare & centrelink).
Govt. is not the answer to everything and if we want to have a debate about use of govt. funds that is fine – but this economic libertarianism seems only to benefit the most wealthy and powerful to self-expression and facilities in the public sphere.
Sounds like an interesting party, this is the second time I have heard about them though.
OK, so I’m slack. I’ve only just got around to reading their homepage, and it’s pretty scary. Luckily it’s so scary that they will be laughed off it they stick their heads up any higher.
Under an LDP govt Australia’s record as a leading creator of extinct species would be enhanced – they don’t like the idea that people cannot wreak whatever destruction they like on land they own. Given that such a small pecentage of land is protected in national parks (which I gather the LDP aren’t too keen on protecting either) it’s critical that private landowners aren’t allowed to kill off ecosystems.
Their child-like simplicity of their wanting business-owners to decide if patrons can smoke is sort of touching. Do they think that (say) the owners of Crown would there behind the bar getting lung disease from the smoke?
This pretty much sums up the depth of their policies.
It works on a really simple premise, Antish.
The owner of the newly acquired property would rather turn it into a profit yeilding venture at the lowest cost, rather that engaging in this ‘destruction.
In the case of National Parks; a few eco-friendly camp sites (or even a resort), a few tour guides (former Government paid rangers will do) and viola, you have profit. The prospect of more profit would make for an incentive to keep the park as pristine as possible.
Its not like Government paid rangers have an exclusive monopoly on conservation.
I agree with Eudaemonion. There’s no reason to believe the privatisation of public resources leads automatically to their destruction and many more reasons to believe the exact opposite is true.
Like most of Africa, Zimbabwe was facing a problem of declining numbers of elephants. Other countries adopted the idea of stricter government controls and government protection. In those countries, elephants are now almost extinct.
In Zimbabwe they followed a policy of allowing land-owners ownership of the elephants, including the right to kill them.
Some people (perhaps like Antish) will assume that this freedom will result in chaos and destruction. The opposite happened. The land-owners had an incentive in protecting elephant numbers, as they provided income. The consequence has been higher elephant numbers, to the point where Zimbabwe started to export elephants.
Of course, Zimbabwe is now suffering many other problems. Caused by … drum roll … their government!
When given the choice to trust free individuals, or politicians and bureaucrats, I prefer the free individuals.
Another example of government policy & the environment. In the early 1980s New Zealand had a very high level of government protection for their farmers. Up to 40% of farmer income came from government protection.
Then they radically reformed their policy, so that NZ now has by far the lowest level of farm protection in the OECD (less than 1% of farmer income now comes from government protection). Once again, some people predicted doom and gloom and accused the economic liberals of being naive and heartless.
The outcome? Increased production, increased employment, increased productivity and increased wages. Productivity growth went from 1%/year to 6%/year and the industry grew faster than the NZ economy.
And the kicker is that farmers stopped using marginal lands and returned those lands to private forests. Area of private forest increased from around 500,000 hectares to 1.7 million hectares in less than 20 years.
It is common to hear people say the sky will fall if we let people be free, but all the evidence suggests the opposite. Freedom actually does work.
Is that you, Ayn Rand…?
G-man is that all you can say? John is telling the truth here.
Ayn Rand was an interesting author, but the LDP isn’t an objectivist political party and I don’t consider myself an objectivist.
While I have some sympathy with her epistomology (reason) and political philosophy (libertarian), I disagree with her metaphysics (she’s too certain) and moral philosophy (I prize empathy and charity as important virtues).
There you have it Antish. The Market does the job better at almost every instance.
Here’s an excellent example of what Amir is talking about
http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/2.....im-school/
If you guys like Ron Paul, then the LDP seems to be the nearest thing we have to him in Australia.
We need a Ron Paul here in Oz. Only problem is that Howard and Co aren’t fudging it up nearly enough to shock the masses out of this ‘enlightened socialism’ schtick.
*ahem* Read their policies. They are against the government having any say in what people do with the native vegetation on their land. If you have any interest in the environment you’ll know what this sort of policy has meant for the environment of this country – many ecosystems have been lost, many more are under threat and there’s a really embarrassing number of species that have become extinct.
“Government paid rangers” certainly don’t have a monopoly on conservation, and I doubt that anyone has ever claimed they do. Government (and privately)nfunded scientists, however, do produce most of the credible research about our environment.
The arguments read as though they are pitched at Hanson supporters – ‘gee the gummint has no idea how Real AustraliansTM thionk and Real AustraliansTM are the Bestest and any individual who is REALLY cranky and feeling insecure always knows better than anyone else.’
Maybe that’s just their spin to attract voters. If they go any deeper than that, give us a link.
“It works on a really simple premise, Antish.
The owner of the newly acquired property would rather turn it into a profit yeilding venture at the lowest cost, rather that engaging in this ‘destruction.”
So, if the ‘profit-yielding venture’ was, say, a cotton farm, sayonara to the ecosystem?
You’re right, it is a simple premise: money is good, everything else runs second.
Not exactly the sort of ideal that Allah would like, is it?
So cotton farmers have an interest in destroying the land they rely on for their income, Antish? That’s just silly.
Farmers have always looked after the land because if the land turns barren, they starve.
Who do you vote for anyway? Those misanthropic Greens?
Ahmad, I’m talking about the destruction of native exosystems. Obviously. The destruction of a native ecosystem can quite easily happen (and is happenning as we speak, over thousands of hectares) when people use the land for profit-making ventures.
Just as matter of interest, what would the LDP have done about the dangerous Bindeez beads (sp?)? Presumably they would be against the government having the power to force a recall of dangerous products?
Oops, that’s ECOsystems, not EXOsystems..
au, my Ayn Rand comment was addressed to the previous commenters. John’s remarks appeared in the meantime. Ahmad, in theory the idea that private landholders will look after their land looks good, but I invite you to come to Western Australia and see how the land has been raped and pillaged by by bloody minded farmers on marginal land and the laughably named Department of Conservation and Land Management. Or visit the coastal plains of Queensland and see the destruction wrought there. Greed is greed and fools are fools regardless of their motives or whether they are in the private sphere or the public service.
You’re being intentionally obtuse Antish. (Suprise, suprise!).
To begin with, do you realise the vast amount of capital required to say, fell a National Park and turn it into a cotton farm? Pay for the felling and clearing of the land, preparing the soil, putting in expensive irrigation schemes’ buying the equipment, seeds, fertiliser, pesticides and hire workers. THAT consideration alone is what will give the new landowner a very compelling reason NOT to fell it.
As I have already explained, the new land-owner will be looking to make profit with the smallest possible outlay, which would preclude the idea of any such fanciful ideas of FARMS.
You ignore the idea of cost-benefit considerations(which my example takes into account) in order to foist upon us blatantly ridiculous hypothetical situations like a cotton farm in a National park, the better you ridicule the very premise of market efficiency in these situations.
Sounds suspiciously like the classic straw-man argument, doesn’t it?
G-man, you might want to go over John Humphrey’s remarks again. I think you’ll find that your concerns are already addressed.
There is a very good lecture on Econtalk about this very issue.
Eudie, I’m not being obtuse, nor did I say anything about a cotton farm in a national park.
The LDP specifically says that it is against restrictions on tree-clearing on private land. What do you think was growing where the cotton farms now are?
I repeat what I said earlier – so little of Australia’s ecosystems are protected in National Parks that it’s vital that private landowners aren’t allowed to destroy them at will. Which they have hitherto done.
Do the slightest bit of research into threatened animal species and you’ll see that “loss of habitat” is the number one reason that they are threatened with extinction. That’s because almost all their habitat is on pribvately-owned land.
Couple of choice pieces of official LDP policy, verbatim:
“There is nothing about trees that warrants their protection by the state. Local councils must not have the power to prevent property owners from cutting down trees on their own property.”
“Restrictions on the establishment of a business in an area are an unwarranted intrusion into property rights. This includes businesses such as newsagents, hair dressers, brothels and pharmacists, which should be free to establish without restriction provided there is no coercion of others.”
Brothels, eh? Oh Muslims!
Non-ockers ought to worry about this policy, too:
“Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR) allow for laws to be struck down in a two part process. First, a petition requiring the signatures of 2% of the eligible electors would be submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission. Second, following a period long enough for people to think the issue over, the electorate has the chance to vote Yes or No to abolish the law in question. The decision would be made on a simple majority basis.”
While we might (might!) beat a ‘No more Muslim immigration’ referendum on a national level, we probably wouldn’t in several states.
And finally, a good laugh. Seems that an LDP official had problems getting their licence. Here’s an extract from their (scary) road law policy”
“11. Licence testing should emphasise the skills and knowledge required to handle a vehicle to avoid being a danger to others. Parking is not one of those.”
Antish, the LDP is a fringe party that has no more hope of getting a candidate up than the Citizens Electoral Council. There is nothing to worry about.
Antish, this is getting ridiculous.
‘What do you think was growing where the cotton farms now are?’
What a patently stupid comment. Are you now objecting to this countries pioneers and their hard work that built this country? Imagine what Australia would be if such nonsensical notions such as this were entertained back then!
‘Brothels, eh? Oh Muslims!’
You lack consistency in your fatwawawa’s, oh vaunted Mullah Antish!
I suspect that you are unaware of numerous, LEGAL, premises so ignonimously termed as ‘gay’ bars (nothing particularly happy or wholesome about them), where all sorts of ungodly acts are preformed between two consenting adults. What are a bunch of brothels compared to this travesty?
Do we then hear the fount of Sharia-based wisdom that is Mullah Antish commenting on this most appaling state of affairs?
‘While we might (might!) beat a ‘No more Muslim immigration’ referendum on a national level, we probably wouldn’t in several states.’
Il Duce Hanson is not in favour of Muslim immigration either, so I fail to see how this could be taken as other than crocodile tears from you Antish.
‘Here’s an extract from their (scary) road law policy.’
I have a little challenge for you Antish. Could you produce the bill passed into law by any Parliament in Australia that gives the Road RULES any legislative weight. Let us know, won’t you?
The LDP has a real chance of getting a Senator up in NSW due to our preference deals (see blog for details) and we’d appreciate if anyone reading this could chip in $10 by signing this pledge:
http://www.pledgebank.com/donate4freedom
Even if you don’t agree with all our policies, a libertarian voice in parliament would provide balance.
Eudie, stop prevaricating. Do you disagree that loss of habitat, overwhelmingly caused by the clearing of privately-owned land, is the major cause of species decline and extinction in Australia?
Why on earth (other than for philosophical reasons) would you want people to have the right to build brothels in residential areas? The bars you speak of are NOT in residential areas precisely because of the nefarious council zoning laws you want to get rid of.
Do you seriously think that CIR would not produce simplistic lowest-common-denominator results? Read any Herald-Sun/Daily Tellie polls lately?
And finally, ‘The Market’ will make its choice in two weeks. If The Market does in fact make the best decisions, will you accept its verdict and fold if you don’t get 51% of the vote?
Again, its simple. I do not believe that the state has a right to interfere with an individual and his property, as long as that individual does not infringe on the rights of others.
However, I question where this notion of brothels in neighbourhoods has come from. How much exposure would a brothel housed in a sleepy surburban street vs one in a prominent area, near drinking and clubbing establishments?Better yet, who in there right minds would frequent a brothel in their neighbourhood, when there is chance of being spotted by an acquaintance?
I’m sure that brothels will come to your suburban neighbourhood when clubs and drinking establishments settle is as well, Antish. See any of that happening anytime soon?
I would also question where you got the notion that CIR’s would be held in the fashion of those ludcrious, poorly thought out and phrased Herald Sun poll questions, put to the basest of society after a round of superficial and sensationalist coverage.
I sincerely doubt it would happen, as voting the LDP into power would be recognising the freedom of everyone (Muslims included) to do as they wish, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Would this not preclude the idea of run of the mill Australians voting en masse for such insane ideas?
You seem to have great difficulty with this concept of individual freedom and individual responsibility, hence the nonsense that you seem compelled to write on this page.
Wot? The reason brothel and bars aren’t established in my residential zone is that it IS a residential zone. The LDP wants to do away with zoning.
“Again, its simple. I do not believe that the state has a right to interfere with an individual and his property, as long as that individual does not infringe on the rights of others.”
I’m afraid this is going to be a bit complicated. Please try to follow. The “as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others” clause is the crux. It’s also, properly considered, the thing that makes the LDR irrelevant. If the actual consequences are taken into account, LDR philospohy doesn’t actually differ mcuh from current mainstream political philosphy.
OK, you don’t want to wear a helmet while cycling. You get a crippling brain injury. We taxpayers have to foot the bills. Would this differ with the LDP? You not wearing a helmet DOES hurt others. Ditto speeding, seatbelts, etc.
It DOES infringe on the rights of others (eg Muslims) if a brothel (perhaps called Sex Mecca) opens next door to a Mosque; it DOES infringe on the rights of parents if a strip-club or a hashish cafe opens next to a school. It DOES infringe on the rights of others (eg in WA where the rainfall patterns have been altered by land-clearing; in Adelaide where the drying Murray due to unsustainable irrigation pratices by corprate farms means lack of drinking water, etc – see any elementary textbook on ecology) if landowners are allowed to clear native vegetation without any restriction. And so on.
Practically all of LDP’s policies are actually furphies, if the “It’s OK if it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others” test is applied rigorously.
LOL – so Herald-Sun polls are “put to the basest of society”. As the Herald-Sun is the biggest-selling paper in Australia, why do you think that “the basest” and the people who manipulate them aren’t going to run things under CIR? Surely you wouldn’t want gummint reg-yoo-layshun???
And again, what will you do when The Market – the only valid decision-making tool, according to neo-Thatcherites – decides on your credibility in two weeks?
A brothel isn’t going to open in a residential area. Look at where the brothels are now, they are all in discrete and nondescript premises because they know their customers don’t want to be seen. Who in their right mind would put on next to a school, in a suburban shopping strip or in a residential area?
Brothels are where they are because of zoning laws, not because brothel owners would prefer to locate them in ‘non-descript’ areas.
Why wouldn’t you put a hash cafe next to a school? Lots of 18-year-olds for customers. (And presumab;y those pesky licensing officers would be much thinner on the ground and wouldn’t be checking ages.) Lots of 18-year-olds who could work after school in a brothel, too.
The idea that you can do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others, is not only fine, but it is also roughly the situation at the moment if you take a long view of “doesn’t hurt others” which includes society and future generations.
Antish who do you recommend Muslims vote for?
The Greens? Family First? One Nation? ALP?
Antish,
Have you reached your quota by any chance?
LDU? Wot?
Sam – I recommend that people vote for whoever they want to. I’d be surprised if people with spiritual values voted for a party which places The Market above The Community, but hey, it’s a funny old world.
Antish,
What party is there that puts the community interest above their own? About the only one I can think of is the one that says the government should get out and let the community sort things out for themselves.
You are right – it is a funny old world.
Andrew, I agree that the community should sort things out for itself. We currently do that – we elect various levels of government which creates various laws and procedures. If we don’t like them we can change the governments. Your alternative would seem to be the sort of extra-governmental ‘community action’ that happened at Cronulla and could happen in Camden. Why replace government with vigilantism?
The original post quotes John Humphreys as saying “we are the only minor party that supports high levels of non-discriminatory immigration. We condemn the calls by Pauline Hanson and the Christian Democratic Party for a halt to African and/or Muslim immigration.”
I would dispute the claim about the LDP being the only minor party that supports high levels of non-discriminatory immigration. As the Democrats spokesperson on immigration, I am repeatedly on the record supporting high levels of immigration (and non-discriminatory immigration as well of course).
And if the LDP condemns Pauline Hanson (as everyone should), why have they given their Senate preferences to Hanson ahead of every other main contender for the Senate in Queensland?
(disclosure: In case anyone reading this didn’t know, I’m contesting the same Senate seat as John Humphreys)
Well Antish, I see you been busy. Trying to knock some sense into Libertarian heads must be exhausting work. I see that all the usual suspects are on their favorite hobby-horses and riding them hard.
I really don’t understand why all the government-is-evil types haven’t scampered off to their ideological nirvana of Afghanistan yet. Once one leaves Kabul you are mercifully free of Government and all those lovely locals are totally free to set up their own ways of life. Odd that the Pashtun tribesmen are not being held up as a shining example of Liberty. Yes, very odd indeed, wonder why?
Tossing sarcasm aside, there will always be people who raise selfishness as the highest goal. There will always be hyper-individualist without a clue. Guys, there are places were the profit motive does not work. Gals, rugged individualism is a myth. One more time for the very dense out there: the name for a human individual totally separate and alone without the assistance of others is defined as “prey.” We are social creatures; we form civic bonds and depend on each other for support. We live in a complex web of life, that web depends as much if not more on cooperation than competition.
Some people wish to remain blissfully ignorant of the benefit they receive from the welfare state. Some people wish to remain ignorant of how rapacious capitalism can be. Time and time again, capitalists have killed off the goose that laid the golden egg. The US is littered with ghost towns where short-sighted men raped the land and then left.
They did this because long term stewardship of the land lost out to a quick buck. Antish can fill in the blanks about Oz where time and time again short term profit lead to long term disaster. There is only so much of the web of life you can tear asunder before the overly clever hairless apes get hosed.
Looking out my back door, I’ve seen where Capitalism has utterly failed to adjust to ecological reality. I was in San Diego three years ago when the Cider fire torched thousands upon thousands of hectares of scrub, I watched the repeat this year as more houses were devoured by flames.
Those houses were built and sold under the best of free market principals. Each owner picked his or her dream house and improved it within his or her financial abilities so as to add value to the property. Too bad that one of the selling points of living on the property, all those pretty trees and shrubs in the background, turned out to be an Achilles heal. In short those houses had no business being built in that highly flammable landscape. Do you think the real estate agent pointed that out?
This is just one example of how the ideology of individualism fails. So Cal has had many such burns, but people keep selling houses in high risk landscapes and other people keep buying them. So much for the “rationality” of the market place.
Newsflash, people are not always rational actors. Newsflash, greed is not always good. Newsflash, enlightened self interest is often an oxymoron. Newsflash, very often government is the lesser of all evils presented.
Our very survival depends on our ability to cooperate. We are social animals it’s burned into our genes. We thrive because we work together, because we help each other. As time has passed we have created more and more complex social structures. As time has passed government had taken on more responsibilities. At base though government is just another way we help and support each other. In the U.S. this was the idea of forming a “more perfect union.”
In the U.S. much of the safety net of government was formed due to the excesses of the robber barons and the depression; in both cases government stepped in due a failure in Capitalism.
In fantasy land the invisible hand of the market place will cure all ills. In the real world there are always people and corporations more than willing to game the system. In the real world pure Capitalism leads to boom and bust; it leads to income inequality, it leads to ecological disaster.
Value is an odd word. It can also be a self-defeating one. The profit motive sees a tree in board feet. If that tree can not be used to make a product then it is “useless.” But in the web of life that tree does have value, as habitat, as food, as a carbon-dioxide regulator. Same goes for other plants. It is foolish to expect a private individual to see this type of value. That individual wants to maximize his profit by planting “useful” plants or introducing “useful” animals. There is no way in gods green earth that he or she will not cut their own long-term throats for short-term gain especially when the long term harm comes several generations down the line. One more time for the intellectually dense out there: enlightened self-interest is very often an oxymoron.
It is passing strange that very intelligent people have latched on this idea of the individual over all. It is passing strange that they want to hunker down in there own little solipsistic dream world and form there hermetically sealed groups. Antish is trying to tell you that it doesn’t work that way, that like it or not we really are all connected- to each other and to god’s great green world. As we are connected we really do need to come together and hash out how we truly live with one another. Some one posted on this site that “there is no such thing as the greater good.” Really? Then pray tell what is the point of Islam? In submitting to Allah are you not surrendering to a “greater good?” Are you not submitted to the greatest of goods?
“OK, you don’t want to wear a helmet while cycling. You get a crippling brain injury. We taxpayers have to foot the bills. Would this differ with the LDP? You not wearing a helmet DOES hurt others. Ditto speeding, seatbelts, etc.”
Yes, actually, Antish – the LDP does differ in that respect. The LDP opposes government-funded healthcare. If you injured yourself by riding with no helmet on, you & you alone would be expected to pay for your medical bills – or your private health fund, of course. Thus, it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Ditto seatbelts. (Not speeding – the LDP advocates setting limits & punishing violations, which is consistent with libertarianism as getting a license/registering a car implies acceptance of road rules).
As the Democrats spokesperson on immigration, I am repeatedly on the record supporting high levels of immigration (and non-discriminatory immigration as well of course).
Here is the democrats’ immigration policy:
http://www.democrats.org.au/do.....n_2007.pdf
“The Australian Democrats immigration policy is based on non-discrimination and gives priority to refugees and family reunion.”
That’s a funny definition of “non-discriminatory” you’ve got there Andrew.
In effect you discriminate in favor of the groups who provide Australia with least net benefit, at the expense of those who provide the most (Business Migrants, Students and Skilled Migrants.
Samantha, the LDP is not calling for an end to government funding of health. However, we would want to allow health insurance providers to discriminate against people based on their behaviour and charge different prices, so your point still holds. We would keep some assistence for all Australians to help them access health care, but we would not provide any extra benefits to people who undertake riskier behaviour.
James… I didn’t get past your weird Afghanistan reference. The “love it or leave it” mentality helps nobody.
“In fantasy land the invisible hand of the market place will cure all ills. In the real world there are always people and corporations more than willing to game the system. In the real world pure Capitalism leads to boom and bust; it leads to income inequality, it leads to ecological disaster.”
Nobody says the invisible hand fixes everything… but that it works is beyond any doubt. They “system” that people are gaming is called voluntary exchange. Not so scary when you call it by it’s real name.
Yes, capitalism has business cycles. So what? Better than stagnation. Yes, capitalism involves income inequality. So it should. Diversity is a good thing. Nobody believes in living in a perfectly equal world.
No, capitalism doesn’t lead to ecological disaster. The environment of capitalist countries are consistently better than the environments of socialist countries. The reality is that people generally look after their own lands.
It is plainy obvious that James worships most profusely at the altar of Keynsian Economic Theory; you know, that Statist nonsense that produced the (now defunct, thank God!) Bretton Woods System. It also explains why he has somehow confused turn of the century British style mercantilism with the Libertarian Free Market ethos.
Cheif among the Keynsian economic arguments is (the absurdity) that government is required to run those services that the market (supposedly) cannot deliver efficiently. A particularly current example would be water.
Government control of water has exacerbated the water crisis in this country, because the price of water as its sold today does not reflect its value, its preciousness and its scarcity, thus making its waste all the more likely. On top of this, the government made it illegal for the private citizen to get his water from other than the government approved water company.
Only recently were State Goverments surrounding the Murray-Darling basin forced to lift laws banning the use of private domestic water tanks (with the possible exception of SA). I remind you that these laws stayed in place during one of the worst drought periods in Australia’s history. Action by the government was prompted only when the reservoirs were half full, making any meaningful conservation too little too late.
We now have State Governments impotently scrambling for a solution to our water problems. First, they thought they could legislate human behaviour modification by announcing water restrinction, hoping to make people conserve more. This has had mixed results. Seeing that their rain-dancing Shamans weren’t doing much, they concocted the desperate, ridiculously expensive and environmentally unwise proposal of a de-salinization plant. Another case of throwing money at a problem so easily solved by bringing in the market; were water priced at its real value instead of being so heavily subsidised, customers would have a powerful incentive to conserve water. We’re property rights respected, customers themselves would have invested in water tanks, place grey water recycling units and other such measures long before they became necessitated by drought.
If governments then feel that certian groups of society would be deprived of access to water because of price, they can re-direct whatever funds they have available in discount schemes and subsidies for them. This would save money for the government, help those in need, and conserve water all in the one go.
I wonder what Keynsian voodoo nonsense James will subject us too now, in light of this very Austrian and very Libertarian method of handling things? I know how terribly allergic they can be towards the proactive nature of individuals, instead of reactionary bureaucrats and their paper-pushing.
Did James, on this thread, actually say ‘income inequality’? My God! He is something infinitely worse than some boring, outmoded Keynesian relic! He’s a full blown Communist!
As for the ‘Boom and Bust Cycle‘, Mises has a particularly interesting article on its causes, and how those vile Central Banking institutions are involved. Forget this nonsense about ‘Boom and Bust’ having anything to do with the Austrian brand of Capitalism.
James, human progress is punctuated by “ghost towns” and so on. It’s not the fault of capitalism or the free market; but the fault of progress and what Scumpeter called “Creative Destruction.
Incidentally, this same progress, delivered as it was by the free market and competition, has led to cleaner sources of energy and better, more efficient modes of production. These improvements haven’t been made thanks to government intervention or central planning.
Anyway, James, what do you consider the optimum system for humans to organise their affairs?
[...] Amir (Austrolabe) gave his endorsement to the LDP a while [...]
Historically a lot of land clearing in Australia was due to artificial government incentives in the way of cheap land grants, subsidised loans or tax concessions. I grew up on a farm which my family bought in 1972 and it was littered with old dead ringbarked trees from the days when there was a bounty for land clearing.
Today the norm for Australian governments is more often to ban land clearing. However if you are prohibited from clearing land then you have an incentive to ensure that land that currently lays fallow is routinely slashed to avoid the growth of any forest cover. There is no incentive in growing a crop that can’t legally be harvested. This is a pity because Agroforestry has a lot of potential both economically and environmentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry
What is also often forgotten is that most of the early national parks in the world, including in Australia, started out as private ventures in the form of trusts or similar such structures. The concept of conservation was not initiated by the government sector.
Most of the really horrendous deforestation in the world occurs in places like Brazil where the government continues to offer subsides in the way of further land grants for those that clear land. Or else in places like Malaysia where the land is government owned.
Without freedom and secure land rights the ability of custodians to innovate and experiment and profit from land management is curtailed.
Leave a Comment