help legalise drugs - support this LDP this election

[dukker]

www.ldp.org.au

 

The liberty and democracy party is the only libertarian party for the federal election. They believe in small government and individual liberty. Their entire philosophy can be summed up like so: Give people freedom and let them live their own lives and they'll be happy. The role of government should be to stop others from interfering with your life, liberty and property, and make sure you don't interfere with their rights.

[freddie]

Interesting. What a strange mix of philosophies. I find myself agreeing with about 80% of whats here but the parts I oppose I fell pretty strongly about.

 

I can't agree with more gun ownership or even the right of an individual to use weapons for self defense. A lot of gray areas there. America is not a safer place because of its right to bear arms.

 

Supporting the rights of property owners to do what they want may result in environmental problems. Not everyone acts responsibly. This seems at odds with the environment policy (or lack of).

 

If you think that individuals will act responsibly as far as the global warming problem goes you have to be kidding. How can market forces solve this problem? Market forces ARE the problem.

 

There are still potential problems supporting nuclear power despite what is said here. What is wrong with renewable energy?

 

Some of the policies are great especially regarding personal freedoms and choice, however I don't think you'll get my vote yet.

[jojothepotfiend]

To be honest, even if i was completely convinced about your party I probably wouldn't vote for you. There is really only 2 parties at the moments(which does need to change).

 

Other than that; I don't think people should have firearms, I think deregulation of the railways in melbourne has made public transport a farce, and while you have the argument that private owned firms operate more efficiently, I think that some sectors(most importantly health) need to not be totally profit orientated. I'd Also hate for the ABC and SBS to go commercial, apart from a few good shows on commercial networks, they're the last bastion of good tv. And lord knows we don't need another commercial "current affairs" program, we've got enough dumbing down the population already.

 

When you talk about things that are victimless crimes, i agree with drugs(obviously ), but seatbelts and helmets?? why should that be changed? It just means people are more likely to be hurt in road accidents.

 

Also i think free trade agreements only work to a certain extent. Until we have a more globally conscience economy, i'm not sure total free trade is the way. By a more globally conscience economy i mean where goods are produced by the most efficient and effective producers, eg Australia, a very dry country, stops producing rice which needs a lot of water. Also industries especially emerging ones need tariffs to help them out until they can compete on the world stage.

 

That said its not all bad, Nuclear power is good and I'd like more personal freedom.

 

Edited September 26, 2007 by jojothepotfiend

[Guest niall]

Where do their preferences go? The large parties are known to create scam parties simply to capture disaffected voters back in the form of preferences. I'm not sure when (of if) preferences are published before the election, but be warned voting for "unknowns" like this might actually be a vote for Liberal.

 

Vote Green - they are public opponents of prohibition, and they have sensible policies across the board. Hit Liberal and Labor where it truly hurts - vote Green!

[jojothepotfiend]

Where do their preferences go? The large parties are known to create scam parties simply to capture disaffected voters back in the form of preferences. I'm not sure when (of if) preferences are published before the election, but be warned voting for "unknowns" like this might actually be a vote for Liberal.

 

This was what i was trying to say at the start of my post, just more eloquent

 

[dukker]

Hey, thanks for the questions, I'll try to address these as best I can. Just so you know, I'm not from the party, but I do identify myself as a libertarian and want to make more people aware of the libertarian philosophy since its virtually unknown in Australia.

 

Gun ownership:

On principle this should be legal because the mere fact of ownership of a gun does not harm other people's rights. Giving a person a gun does not make them a murderer. If I wanted to kill another person I could throw a brick to their head or run them over with my car. Giving me a gun doesn't make me want to use it anymore than I want to stab someone.

 

Secondly, guns do make society safer. A ban on guns has the effect of making sure only criminals have access to them. There will always be a black market. Drug users surely know this better than anyone If you make it unlawful to use guns, then a criminal will have a gun because he's already a criminal, what does he care? But law abiding citizens that only want to protect themselves would not have access to guns.

Plus, think about a neighbourhood with gun restrictions and one without. Which one do you think a rapist or a theif is going to try to break into?

 

Environment:

Free markets can solve environmental problems when a market actually exists for them. THe problem with global warming is lack of any pricing structure for the market to work with. The best way would be to implement carbon pricing. The situation we have now is the government throwing tons of money at all sorts of things in the hope it will do something, but it can never be as efficient as the market is working out how to reduce emmissions, i.e. which industries should be phased out first, which renewables to use, etc.

Environmental problems usually originate from a lack of recognition from other people's property rights.

 

Public services - health, TV:

Universal health care is actually a terrible system. Just like any service that is turned into a public utility, two things happen - prices go up and quality goes down. Think about any other good provided for by the market - let's say mobile phones. If the government had a policy of making and distributing a mobile phone to everyone in the country, it would be disastorous - and yet pretty much everyone in the country can afford one and they are continually getting better. Under the Soviet Union, the citizens received free bread. In the end, the government was so inefficient that the bread was terrible and always in short supply. On the other hand, in a free country like a Australia which let the market distribute bread no one ever starved.

 

Even though the government spends billions on healthcare, it sucks and the costs have never gone down. Any private hospital gives better service than a public one. The reason why public health sucks is because there is no choice and no competition. The government has a monopoly on free healthcare.

The justification I suppose is that we need free healthcare as a safety net for people who can't afford private medical care. But private charities could do this a lot better than the government. When the government monopolises welfare, you don't have a choice - it takes your taxes regardless and gives it to who is wants in the manner it wants. A libertarian government would give those taxes back to you and let you decide how and which groups should be supported. Charities would be forced to be more efficient because they have to compete against each other for your funds that you control willingly. A government knows it has the power of coercion and force and can take your money even if you are unhappy with the way they spend it.

 

SBS/ABC - this is just a waste of tax money. If there was demand for independent/non-commercial TV in Australia (which I'm sure there is because everyone loves the ABC), then private donors could support such channels - like the PBS in America. We don't need the government to forcibly taken money from people that have never watched the ABC in their life and give it to those that only watch the ABC.

 

Seatbelts/helmets:

Whether you use these or not is your own responsibility. If I choose to forgo a seatbelt, I don't harm anyone. If I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home then I don't harm anyone else.

 

Prefernces -

I have no idea where they go. The LDP seem to hate all the other parties equally. Libertarianism doesn't fall within the classical left/right distinction. I guess that's why Freddie commented it has an interesting mix of policies. Really, it's quite simple. TO put it simply, the left offer you social freedoms but not economic freedoms, while the right offer you economic freedoms but not social freedoms. Libertarianism just offers you freedom. I don't think they make much of a distinction as to which they would prefer.

[SukonmiSkunk]

of course i am interested in a new political party thats for the people... these guys ARE NOT.. sure they support free trade.. and gun ownership for self protection... they also support uranium mining and nuclear energy.. also with the.. " now nuclear waste is safe to store" line.. i think they might even support the storage of other countries nuclear waste too..

 

reading on their site.. it doesnt say who gets THEIR vote... all minor parties will palm off their vote to either labour.. or liberal.. so who gets the votes these guys accumulate??? Labour or liberal??

 

the only sure way to get johnny out... is to vote labour.. its the only way... shame.. but thats just the way our fucked up system works..

 

no matter what happens this election.. these guys just wont get enough votes to topple the 2 top parties..

 

and quite frankly.. when both parties are run by FreeMasons.. who the fuck are you REALLY voting for???

 

oh and on the legalizing drugs... on the site they say they dont support criminalization for victemless crimes... which is fine.. they say we will be "looking in to it"... that doesnt get my vote im sorry... i want Howard OUT.. so we can "maybe" get back some workers rights.. like paid smoko breaks.. overtime.. and maternity leave.. rights which the PEOPLE... through UNIONS.. have fought for over 100 years to get... remember.. there still wouldnt be any mandatory dust extraction systems in factories if it wasnt for the unions standing up for workers rights to good health... also all those poor fuckers that are dying as we speak from blue asbestos wouldnt be getting fuck all... i say we the workers need unions to stand up and fight for OUR rights... otherwise your job.. like it is today.. will never be secure.. .

 

full times jobs these days are practically non existant.. every one hires on a casual level.. its so you're easier to get rid of..

[Nooby]

"SBS/ABC - this is just a waste of tax money. If there was demand for independent/non-commercial TV in Australia (which I'm sure there is because everyone loves the ABC), then private donors could support such channels - like the PBS in America. We don't need the government to forcibly taken money from people that have never watched the ABC in their life and give it to those that only watch the ABC."

 

Translated means that anyone with enough money can foist their propaganda on anyone else. I've seen it happen on PBS, and granted that while the ABC does have certain 'ideological' issues from time to time at least it has the mandate to remain 'independent. I for one am happy for my 8c a day to keep it going and would hate to see it replaced with another commercial TV station with it's standard fair of mindless drivel.

 

"Even though the government spends billions on healthcare, it sucks and the costs have never gone down. Any private hospital gives better service than a public one. The reason why public health sucks is because there is no choice and no competition. The government has a monopoly on free healthcare."

 

NO dude, the reason why public health care suck is because there are around 4-5 administration staff for every nurse or doctor. We NEED all of those extra hangers-on (I guess) to keep up with the ludicrous amount of paperwork required to protect the medical staff from frivolous lawsuits being filed by the general public, who when given the kinds of freedom you espouse, choose to abuse them. Eliminating state governments would put MORE money into health care and other necessary services but I dont know if would 'fix' the system.. And lets face it, the health system is overloaded by people who have preventable diseases, if the general population took responsibility for their health instead of abusing their bodies and then expecting the govt. to 'fix' it when it breaks then all of those issues would disappear. Do your policies include increased public education and tax breaks for people to engage in more healthy lifestyles?

 

"The justification I suppose is that we need free healthcare as a safety net for people who can't afford private medical care. But private charities could do this a lot better than the government."

 

And where would the private charities get their money from? Have you seen the movie 'sicko' by Michael Moore? Health cover should be free and provided my the govt. If it isn't then, as you say those who can't afford private cover just stay sick and get worse. And what's with private cver anyway? If i make a claim on my car insurance, I pay the nominal excess fee and the insurance company pays for the repairs, that's what insurance is for. If I make a claim on my health care , not only am I paying exorbitant fees for years but the company wont even pay the cost of the health care leaving me with a huge 'gap' to pay for. This is not insurance, this is simply a scam.

 

"Seatbelts/helmets:

Whether you use these or not is your own responsibility. If I choose to forgo a seatbelt, I don't harm anyone. If I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home then I don't harm anyone else."

 

While I'm undecided on the seatbelt issue (although I would be dead several times over if I didn't wear one)I kind of agree with you point that the govt. shouldn't raising revenues from people who choose not to wear them. The trouble is that people who choose not to wear them would probably not force their passengers to wear them either and in the case of an accident they WOULD be responsible for damaging someone else's life, leading to further litigation suits being filed.

 

As the son of a smoker I fee that your statement on smoking in the home is complete and utter bullshit. I agree that making laws to stop people from damaging their kids in such a way would be fairly futile and oppressive, rights carry with then responsibilities and my responsibility to my kids health is more important than my 'right' to smoke in the house. If I choose to smoke then I go outside where it affects nobody. There are plenty of other people who are too selfish to care.

 

Coincidently enough I was looking for Aussie libertarian sites this week, The ones I did find that were still active turned me off due to the attitude and mannerisms of the owner. If one seeks to seriously do politics then a certain decorum and maturity needs to be displayed IMO, otherwise it just comes a cross as another loony having a public rant. So I haven't had much luck so far but I'll check yours out.

 

Cheers

 

(update: OK, I've a look through your site and read all of your policies. While I agree with some of them there are many others that would require too much of a compromise for me to support the LDP. I wish you the best of luck as we all know, Australia does need some political changes but IMHO a lot of the LDP's policies would move us much closer to the wrong kind of anarchy. The basic problem is always the same, for the government to get smaller and less intrusive means the people have to become more personally responsible for their own conduct. While the ideal you espouse (and I agree with) is for each person to go about their lives unhindered and unhindering, history has shown time and time again that unless the underlying ideology of a nation is based on universal principles of respect for each other and other people's property then chaos, violence and abuse will reign. Given this point in our societies evolution where the failed philosophy of post-modernism is the defacto belief system, any reduction in government control (as much as I HATE it) would simply see the lunatics taking over the asylum (IMO).)

Edited September 26, 2007 by Nooby

[freddie]

Thanks dukker for coming back on here and explaining a bit more. Unfortunately the more I read the less I agree.

 

guns do make society safer

 

That would be a hilarious statement if it wasn't so serious.

 

I like my SBS and ABC. Totally agree with Nooby on this and on the points made about health care. The more I look at this the more it seems based on the American systems. Their health care is a disaster. Why should charities be forced to do what the Howard government has failed to do?

 

Sukonmi Skunk is right when he says that Howard has to go and right again about full time jobs. I've been casual or contract for about a decade now and am thoroughly sick of it. The new IR laws only make this worse.

 

Bring on the election.

[Al Fish]

“Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

1984

George Orwell

 

Bottom line: Freedom isn’t worth it!

 

I mean, are you an expert? We live now by fooling ourselves that we know what is best for us, but what are our qualifications? Are we dieticians, medical specialists, investment advisors, lawyers and crime experts? No, so why have we taken it upon ourselves to do these things when the government has access to the best minds (and systems) in the country, if not the world!

 

As for health care, everyone knows how brilliant Australia’s government health care is. Moreover, it should be, because the costs of operating it just rise every year! In fact, the system is so good Australia just can’t get enough doctors and more and more people are going overseas for their medical procedures!

 

Australia’s two main political parties offer all Australians the opportunity to vote once every little while and then the elected politicians are not bound by the promises that got them elected. Garrett against American Basses in Australia suddenly changes his mind and then decides to prop up the fossil fuel industry with a taxpayer-funded series of expensive schemes. I guess the problem lies with the fact that the renewable energy people just do not have the necessary money to have the necessary influence.

 

Also, Libertarianism has a tried and true history and economics (principally ‘the Austrian School’) to call upon and there’s no sense in wasting your time familiarising yourself with it because only dickheads would be interested in that sort of stuff. Australia has the very best politicians money can buy! Leave Murray Newtown Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and Thomas Jefferson out of it!

 

The World has changed since Libertarian doctrines were first enshrined in such putrid documents as the American Declaration of Independence and their Bill of Rights, etc. The freedoms to speak, publish, assemble (and hence, travel) and engage in so called ‘victimless crimes’ has caused us all untold damage.

 

In the new globalized World, where the Australian government’s domestic policies have to be in agreement with the foreign policy of the government of the United States of America and at a time when the Australian nation has mirrored for itself a strong Executive (with the necessary ascendancy of the military mind-set) and where the people have an abiding and justifiable fear of ‘evil-doers’ and queue-jumping foreigners I would be pleased to defenestrate what limited freedoms I still possess for the promise of security.

 

The issue is: would the Australian people choose freedom (which is inherently an unsafe condition) or a technologically re-enforced, legislated security? I have no doubt what the Australian people want. It is in our very blood, for we started as an open-air gaol with the ever-present fear of the hordes of Asia on our doorstep!

 

It is about time that our political masters were honest enough to advise that the much-vaunted concept of freedom is in fact a two-edged sword: freedom to and freedom from. Even a casual observer of Australian history can clearly see that the bedrock aspiration of Australians has always been to have freedom from, never freedom to.

 

We need a D.N.A. Database, but I go further. Everyone (starting with new-borns and working our way back) needs to be micro-chipped. If this is good enough for our pets why not for our kids and us? Do you love your dog more than your family? Micro chipping would allow us to be tracked worldwide. It would be our own internal and international passport! Just think, no more kidnapping or getting lost. With proper monitoring, crime (including terrorism) would diminish, as if any crime occurred anywhere the government could ascertain the computer records for the crime scene and those within the area could be investigated and the guilty party (or parties) found and punished.

 

I believe that in a very short time, microchips could replace money so that theft would become a thing of the past. Instead of wages in your bank account, these could be credited to your microchip. It is only one small step from EFPOST to microchip credits. It could be marketed as ‘money in your hand all the time’ as the chip could be placed in the hand. This would destroy the black-market and the evasions of the tax cheats. Wherever you went you would have purchasing power and a built in ‘Australia Card’ allowing the government to keep track of your movements (and your associates).

 

These are not difficult or even bold initiatives, but the culmination of historical ideals that the ANZACS fought and dead for. To lay down freedom – all freedom – so that security is obtained would allow all Australians to be at the cutting edge of the inevitable. For only when all dissent and dissenters have been done away with will Australians be able to forget the pain of freedoms that began with the best of intentions but which became a burden.

 

Why should the government be beholden to us? Why should our leaders continually have to explain themselves to us when the vast majority of people are only too willing to seize the opportunity to explain themselves to those who have every concern and the ultimate right to know?

 

Libertarians will use anything and everything at their disposal to seek to prevent the government from taking from us the freedom that we no longer appreciate or want. Why the manic concern for freedom if you do not believe that you will come under the special notice of the government? Surely, if the government does not believe that you have done anything wrong or if you can explain yourself, why be concerned? Has not history proved to us that although not all of our politicians are noble, all of them could, indeed should, be entrusted by us with everything we hold to be near and dear to our way of life. Already they control our economy, decide on whether we go to war or live in peace and set the curriculum for the education of the next generation. When the media is finally openly controlled and a regime of dietary enforcement is in place most of the expensive problems that bedevil this – The Lucky Country – will have been solved.

 

Is it not far better to put in place the mechanisms that could be used to prevent problems before these problems occur? Micro chipping is a way to ensure that we do not get ourselves into trouble. For example, the government could ensure that we all got the minimum amount of exercise to keep us fit and health. This could be done by computerised monitoring of our movements. Our food purchases could be electronically monitored to ensure that we had a nutritious dietary intake. Licit drug misuse could be prevented before it became abuse. Initially the system would not be perfect but in time it could become so. And we urgently need to make a start.

 

The Australian people are more than capable of obtaining victory over themselves. It is time that the (‘snivel’) libertarians realized that their philosophy and concerns are passed and that if we want the type of country and society we have striven this hard and sacrificed this much to get, we must push ever onward into what can only be a brave, new world.