help legalise drugs - support this LDP this election

[mull]

Tf for that... Al you had me goin for a bit there yesterday...

 

thought we were in for Al's Fish n 'chips'..

Viva la dissenters

 

The LDP policies sounded interesting in parts. Really lost me on the victimless crime part, where hyperthetically a cop can shoot a person begging to die, as they burn to death in a fuel tanker crash.

Cops have been known to abuse their powers, imagine that liberty or similar!

 

Like others I disagree with nuclear power and begrudgingly will have to face it as a coming aussie reality. Would love to see the PM live next door to a NPP tho

 

Good luck in your endevours LDP.

[freddie]

While Al presents us an Orwellian future of micro chips and no personal freedom I am still left a little confused as to what this new party is offering. Is it a true representation of Libertarian ideals? If so then they present a future where there is no public safety net for those less fortunate unless charities provide, no public medical system, individuals with guns who can do what they like on their own property (even if it means cutting down valuable rainforrest), nuclear power, no SBS or ABC, and a market economy that is supposed to stop global warming.

 

This is not a future I want to see. I don’t understand why you can’t have most of your personal freedoms with some form of government responsibility for social and environmental issues.

 

The issue is: would the Australian people choose freedom (which is inherently an unsafe condition) or a technologically re-enforced, legislated security?

Is this the only choice? Isn't security simply a smoke screen for social control?

[larfin1]

To effect a change in community thinking, so the community would even consider legalizing weed, one would have to change the entire structure of Australian politics.

As long as Liberal and Labor are the only real powers within Australian politics this will never happen.

 

Each side petitions various groups for their votes and determine policy based on what those groups want. Been that liberal and labor are in effect " political christian " extensions of their own religions, and buy votes accordingly, the idea of legaliszing weed which is sound, is always beaten by inane logic of religious zealouts, whom claim to speak for gods and the better community, while isolating an entire portion of the community into a life of criminality.

 

The only way to get weed changed is to change the entire "democratic process" here in Australia which by the way certainly isnt democratic in the true sense of the word.

[dukker]

hello,

 

sorry I wasn't able to reply. I think if I started answering all the posts it would just take too long. To let you know where I'm coming from, I guess I've been a libertarian for a long time. I'm not a drug enthusiast like most of you here which is why I'm a noob, but I do like the occasional joint. What I'm more concerned about is defending your right to do things that I might disagree with, as long as it doesn't harm me.

 

A lot of you have made some great points. The LDP is a new party and its not perfect, but their principles are more aligned with mine than any other in Australia. The libertarian party in the US is a lot bigger, actually the third largest after the democrats and the republicans. In either case, I think its useful to generate discussion of libertarian ideals in this country because its such an alien term and concept for Australians who have historically always looked to a relatively large government to solve our problems for us.

 

I will make one comment re the welfare state. Many people reject libertarianism because they think its a harsh, survival of the fittest regime that depends on the market to provide for the most vulnerable. However, the free market does not mean profit is the number one driving factor for all individual decisions. A free market means you are free to do what you want with your money and no one, including the government, should be able to coerce you to spend your money in a certain way.

If I did a poll on this forum, or anywhere in this country, asking 'would you like to live in a society where the destitute, disabled, vulnerable, sick, etc are provided for and taken care of?' I guarrentee you that at least 99% of Australians would reply 'yes, of course'. Currently, on average, Australian's pay $10,500 in tax per year. If you answered yes to the poll, then wouldn't you do something with that money to make sure we live in that society?

Because there is a market for welfare, instead of a government monopoly, welfare will become more efficient and everyone, including the poor, will benefit.

How will welfare become more efficient under a free market?

Currently, the government has a virtual monopoly on welfare. If you don't like the way free public hospitals are run, then too bad - there is no competition that you can choose to give your money to instead, and if you don't pay your taxes, the government will imprison you.

But if charities competed for your money, you decide which ones are being run better and use your donations better, or are more aligned with your own principles.

 

I won't go on because I don't think I'm very good at explaining this stuff. milton Friedman, however, does a much better job; watch this interview where he explains the benefits of libertarianism over other forms of governance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

[dukker]

While Al presents us an Orwellian future of micro chips and no personal freedom I am still left a little confused as to what this new party is offering. Is it a true representation of Libertarian ideals? If so then they present a future where there is no public safety net for those less fortunate unless charities provide, no public medical system, individuals with guns who can do what they like on their own property (even if it means cutting down valuable rainforrest), nuclear power, no SBS or ABC, and a market economy that is supposed to stop global warming.

 

This is not a future I want to see. I don’t understand why you can’t have most of your personal freedoms with some form of government responsibility for social and environmental issues.

Is this the only choice? Isn't security simply a smoke screen for social control?

 

I guess I don't want most of my personal freedoms, I want all of them.

What is a 'valuable rainforest'? You may not like a property developer to clear a forest but if he has bought the land through mutual transaction, then you have no more right to interfere with his property than he does with your property. But citizens do to a degree care about the environment. There is nothing stopping an environmental organisation raising money to buy a tract of rainforest and no one, including the government or big corporations, can touch the land.

But instead of letting the market and the people control what is environmentally valuable, we let governments do it for us. THere is nothing special about government decision making. They are just people with their own agendas. Your idea of environmental responsibility might differ from mine. A hardcore greenie might have an altogether different idea. Would you like a vegetarian, ultra pacifist greenie forcibly preventing you from removing a weed in your garden? Or maybe forcibly preventing you from eating meat?

Edited September 28, 2007 by dukker

[Nooby]

Thanks for the replies Dukker,

 

I'll be sure to check out the link you posted as I'm a bit befuddled as to how some of the LDP's ideas could work in the real world. They seem to be relying on the big assumption of altruism, that given the choice, I would FREELY give of my money and resources if given the option. Granted that 'might' be the case if most of wage wasn't stolen by the govt. in one form or another, but then with an abundance of money around, what's to stop providers from simply rasing the prices of everything so that in the end, nothing changes. In a capitalist society, greed is king. As greed is one on the most basic human motivations, increasing that kind of freedom will only increase the greed and other problems caused by selfishness.

 

Cheers

[Luke Skywalker]

I'm a little curious how you "compete" to provide free healthcare.....

[dukker]

I'm a little curious how you "compete" to provide free healthcare.....

 

well say the government did not provide it,so we had a situation where poor people did not have medical access. No doubt this would enrage the vast majority of Australians who like to believe we are an egalitarian society. Private organisations like the salvo's and church groups and community centres would step in to set up free clinics to meet the demand and provide healthcare for these people. But because there is no mandatory government system, and we aren't forced into paying for a government system, we have a choice as to which organisation or free clinic we want to donate to. If a clinic A is wasting money and only treating half the number of people but at the same cost as clinic B, who would you choose to fund? The only way for clinic A to stay afloat and avoid losing all donations to clinic B is to innovate and provide better services than clinic B. Competition, like in any market, forces both clinics to make their health care better and convince us why we should give it to them.

 

In a government monopoly, there is no competition. A free market monopoly can only exist because a company has done such an excellent job of providing services and giving its customers value - but this is really hard to do and that's why there aren't many free market monopolies that exist. Even Microsoft, which at one point had almost 100% market share is slowly slipping away as their customers are getting fed up with crappy products. Microsoft can't force us to choose Windows, but if it makes their product better than Apple, people will voluntarily buy their product.

But a government monopoly exists because there is a use of force and coercion against an individual's will.

 

Finally, free market welfare has the force of volunteerism and morality behind it. Government welfare and handouts are (usually) about what is popular to appease an electorate and get enough votes for the next election.

[Luke Skywalker]

So you're saying a charity should run healthcare by being paid by the government or simply by those who donate?

 

The benefits of socialised medicine are long and easy to point out. The only reason there are any "problems" (and there are entirely too many people winging about our health system, it's second to none amongst first world nations) with the health system, particularly in funding, is that the government pays substantial benefits to those who use private cover, and those who chose it aren't obligated to use said health cover.

 

American health care is not something to model a health system on. It fails miserably at the job it's supposed to do, and that's look after the health of its citizens.

 

There should always be minimal interference in the market, but if it's demanded or in the interests of society (particularly those on the bottom economic rungs) then regulation is the only way to ensure that services are given. If you think the free market can supply cheap, affordable and effective health care to the poor you are very, very sorely mistaken. If it did, you wouldn't have millions of uninsured people in the US.

 

Health, water, electricity (to a lesser degree) and public housing aren't just benefits of a welfare state, they're fundamental to inclusive and effective care of those both well and worse off in society.

 

Free markets are all well and good, but fundamentally we live in a society, not an economy.

[dukker]

I'm a bit befuddled as to how some of the LDP's ideas could work in the real world. They seem to be relying on the big assumption of altruism, that given the choice, I would FREELY give of my money and resources if given the option.

 

Cheers

 

I don't think its a big assumption. We have had a welfare state forever, and we live in a democracy. This means that the majority of the population has continually elected representatives that promise to tax us, and spend that money on things like universal health care and a social security. I would also argue that the vast majority of Australians do place a high value on these things - I would say the bigger assumption would be that most Australians are selfish and wouldn't part with a dime even if the poor were starving to death.