I’m a liberal in the 18th and 19th Century British sense of the word.
I believe in free enterprise, laissez-faire economics, democracy, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free movement, the individual, human rights and freedom to live life as the individual sees fits as long as another individual isn’t harmed in the process.
As with people like Ron Paul, my mind cannot fathom a universe without God. I’m hard-wired that way. And I believe God gave Man free will to act and be judged when God so chooses. See, freedom at every turn, as God intended.
I believe there is a role for government insofar as it protects – as Locke put it – the right to life, liberty and property. That it should be strictly confined to the bare essentials of parliament, a small executive, the judiciary, the police and a strong military to protect it all. Beyond that, you’d have to make a compelling case for more government as far as I’m concerned.
This is what a liberal believes.
In the 1980s, that’s what we called someone with this outlook in life. In the 1960s too. And the 1940s, 1920s, turn of the 20th Century and … back through the Enlightenment … and, because historians can see a clear movement in the West of unleashing human flourishing as we emerged from the Middle Ages, we’ve come to identify the birth of liberalism as 1689 with John Locke.
As a Western philosophy, its inextricably linked to our Christian roots. Liberalism thrives best when Christianity is in its full flourish, when citizens are practicing Christians AND liberals, side by side, the first informing the second.
Not conservatism. I’ve never described myself as a conservative.
Why?
Conservatives seek to conserve. At the same time, if you listen carefully to conservatives, there’s a tendency towards pessimism, a kind of bemoaning at things lost. Well, to this I say, if we have lost the schools, lost the universities, lost the boardrooms, lost the public service, lost the media, lost the churches, lost the very institutions of society and even the culture, what’s left to conserve? You can’t conserve something that’s lost!
So, as far as politics goes, I’m an unabashed ‘liberal’ and I claim the word because it describes my politics. Freedom. For me, it’s personal. It’s mine. I’m not giving it up.
I’m not budging even though American social democrats at the time of the New Deal skewed its meaning, twisting it into the opposite, something more like big government, centralised control and social welfare. In my weak moments, I’ll helpfully say ‘classical liberal’ for an American but I see the word classical as redundant.
Liberal. That’s it.
I’m not shifting from this policy even though Australia’s very own Liberal Party of Australia has long ago ceased to embody the philosophy. Despite it’s name, the Liberal Party of Australia is now illiberal in their actions and policies. I concede, at the present time, they’ve tainted the word.
I ran a Twitter poll recently, asking people what words they use for the beliefs of a liberal. The results were:
Liberal – 10% Classical Liberal – 17% Libertarian – 73%
Liberal Party of Australia, a pox be on you!
Still I persist. Liberal, with a small l.
I’m not relinquishing the word because young Australians watch too much US television and YouTube clips, thinking that ‘liberal’ means what Americans say it means.
No.
And I’m definitely not giving-up the word in favour of an alternative. Sure, I relent sometimes – like here in Liberty Itch – and call myself a ‘libertarian’ to avert misunderstandings by Americans, young Australians and those quick to judge me a member of the Liberal Party.
So, yes, I sometimes allow myself to be described ‘classical liberal’ and ‘libertarian’ unchallenged.
Before either of those two terms came about, a person with my beliefs was called a ‘liberal.’
So that’s what I am and perhaps you are too.
A liberal.
Own it. Say it aloud unashamedly. Reclaim our language. Use the word without qualification.
These five quotes are from a speech delivered on 13 October 2022 in Australia by The Right Honourable Lord Jonathan Sumption, former senior judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
They go to explaining how our citizens invite authoritarianism, the cost of this, and what has held back despotism to date …
“In modern conditions, risk-aversion and the fear that goes with it are a standing invitation to authoritarian government”
“If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.”
“If we demand from the state protection from risks which are inherent in life itself, then the state’s measures will necessarily involve the suppression of some part of life itself.”
“The quest for security at the price of coercion and state intervention is a feature of democratic politics”
“It has only ever been culture and convention which prevented governments from adopting a totalitarian model. But culture and convention are fragile. They take years to form but can be destroyed very quickly. Once you discard them, there is no barrier left, the spell is broken. If something is unthinkable until somebody in authority thinks of it, then the psycological barriers which have always been our main protection against despotism have vanished.”
Our culture is becoming more risk-averse. Fear of risk grows. We’re apparently losing our grit, tenacity and adventurous spirit to manage our own risk. This manifests as a culture going soft with high-expectations that government will molly-coddle.
What then for us? How do we push back?
One fresh idea will be revealed on Liberty Itch this Thursday.
I’ve said it before a hundred times. I’ll say it again.
Political philosophy matters.
There’s no point telling me that philosophy is for intellectuals only.
No!
Philosophy is the bedrock on which policies are created.
Everyday, regular Australians instinctively know this even if they’re not philosophy wonks.
Here’s the proof.
When the Liberal Party of Australia publishes Our Beliefs, it just doesn’t sound right. It feels like a part time-capsule of classical liberal aspiration, part welfare state socialism, part nod to the Greens, and actually quite a lot of word salad.
It’s certainly not consistent philosophy.
And this probably explains their disastrous election results of late.
Politicians, made timid from the comforts of entrenchment, have wobbled on philosophy and been weak-kneed on policy. The Party of entrepreneurship is now devoid of a policy innovation of its own.
Without the firm foundation of philosophy, the Liberal Party edifice is collapsing.
There are many fine members within the Liberal Party working towards an undiluted classical liberal reset. If the Party is to survive, it’s these people who’ll do it.
Others are turning to conservatism but simultaneously bemoan the loss of culture, institutions and once-safe seats. These people aren’t thinking clearly. Conservatism is nothing more than maintaining the status quo. Today, the status quo is with the social democrats, the welfare state advocates and the Marxists.
Conservatives are really classical liberals who don’t know they’re not in control anymore. You end this foggy thinking by sharply critiquing your belief system, your philosophy.
So, let’s do that together now.
I’ve reproduced Our Beliefs of the Liberal Party and added footnotes to show just how far they have strayed from their classical liberal foundation.
***
We Believe:
In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples (1); and we work towards a lean government (2) that minimises interference in our daily lives (3); and maximises individual (4) and private sector (5) initiative (6)
In government that nurtures (7) and encourages its citizens through incentive (8), rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes (9) and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state (10) and bureaucratic red tape (11).
In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy (12) – the freedom of thought (13), worship (14), speech (15) and association (16).
In a just and humane society (17) in which the importance of the family (18) and the role of law and justice is maintained (19).
In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth (20) so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education (21) and social justice (22).
That, wherever possible (23), government should not compete with an efficient private sector (5); and that businesses and individuals – not government (24).- are the true creators of wealth and employment.
In preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations (25).
That our nation (26) has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy (27) through alliance with other free nations.
In short, we simply believe in individual freedom (28) and free enterprise (29); and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you (30).
***
FOOTNOTES
(1) “freedoms of all people”, unless you were covid unvaccinated;
In short, when Alfred Deakin was PM, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 5%. When PM Scott Morrison left office, it was 45%. Not lean!
(3) “minimises interference in our daily lives”, except that it steals your wage earned on Monday and Tuesday each week, 10% of everything you buy to survive, plus 24 other taxes,
plus stops you leaving your house during covid, crossing state borders, leaving Australia, returning to Australia, forces you to apply for permission to protest, spies on you during those protests, collects your mobile phone texts, records your conversations, arrests you for social media posts et al;
(4) “maximises individual initiative”, how? Many OECD countries are more entrepreneurial;
(5) “private sector”, a term used primarily by people from the public sector to contrast themselves with the other side, a dead giveaway that this screed has been written by a career bureaucrat. The millions who work in small business don’t talk like this;
(6) “initiative”, the Liberal Party of Australia is responsible for more laws than any other party. Each time legislation is passed, either widespread initiative is crushed or monopolies are created or both;
(7) “government that nurtures”, no classical liberal government would ever think it could nurture free people. The government is not your mother. Nurturing happens within the sanctity of the family unit not a bureaucratic department;
(8) “encourage its citizens through incentive”, no. Any philosophical liberal knows you don’t manipulate the market. Citizens are most encouraged when the market is free;
(9) “burdensome taxes”, good grief. See The Long, Long, Long, Long List of Taxes here
(10) “Labor’s corporate state”, you want to see the corporate state grow over 120 years? See footnote (2);
(11) “Bureaucratic red tape”, it was the Liberal Party that forced every business owner in the country to double its role as a tax collector when the GST was introduced;
(12) “Basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy”, except when it joined Victorian Labor in blocking three MPs from taking their rightful place in parliament because they demanded to know the MPs’ private health details. Shame Liberal, shame;
(13) “Freedom of thought”, except that its government departments regularly force job applicants into group-think over Acknowledgement of Country and the efficacy of vaccines;
(14) “freedom of worship”, except that it shut churches during covid and regulates their charitable status;
(15) “freedom of speech”, except if you are a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in which case you are prohibited from talking to the public;
(16) “freedom of association”, but not with your dying grandmother during covid;
(17) “just and humane society”, well, well, well. This is a new inclusion since I was a member in the 1990s. This doesn’t sound like freedom-loving liberalism to me! This sounds like the Labor Party, the Australian Greens or the Animal Justice Party;
(18) “importance of the family”, except of course that under successive Liberal Party government policies family break-up and depression have increased, schools can undermine parental authority and courts stack custody against fathers;
(19) “law and justice maintained”, well yes. Police powers have increased dramatically;
(20) “facilitation of wealth”, what? There is no classically liberal government which would ever think it is in the business of facilitating citizens’ wealth. No. Not a government role. Off track;
(21) “highest possible standard of education”, the Liberal Party endorsed Labor’s National Curriculum. Far from being the Party of the individual, the Liberal Party has adopted a collective, one-size-fits-all approach. Stifling;
(22) “highest possible standards of social justice”, well, well, well! The Liberal Party aren’t liberals but social democrats now! This was not a belief of the Liberal Party in the 1990s. No. Off track. Menzies would turn in his grave. Centre-right parties should have individualism and freedom as their philosophy;
(23) “wherever possible”, but Liberals often endorse government agencies doing what privately-owned companies could do. NBN is a good example. Many other examples;
(24) “businesses and individuals, not government”, if they believed this, they wouldn’t allow the trend described in Footnote (2). Why is the Government’s ABC competing with Fairfax and News et al?;
(25) “environment”, well, well, well, a new inclusion. Straight from the Australian Greens playbook. This was never a core Liberal tenant in the 1990s;
(26) “nation”, capitalise it to Nation! Have some pride;
(27) “world peace and democracy”, perhaps. Alliances are important for a country the size of Australia. But the Liberal Party has neither been stellar building our deterrent defence forces nor limiting our economic concentration on China, a glaring geopolitical risk. These failures damage our capability to remain free;
(28) “individual freedom”, a joke. They slowly crush individual freedom from tax file numbers to police security cameras. The Liberal Party are actively installing police state surveillance cameras and tracking software in the City of Adelaide, as one of many examples;
(29) “free enterprise”, a joke. Very few Liberal politicians have owned an employing business. Name ten in the Federal Parliament;
(30) “Party is for you”, well no. Rather, the Liberal Party is a net minus for civil liberties and economic freedom.
When consuming the day’s news, I bet you first respond by gut feel.
Everyone does. Human are instinctive beings. Shoot first, ask questions later.
The problem with that was illustrated by the Great Pandemic Overreach of 2020-2022. Fear was weaponised and the world community fell for it.
Some people try to think. As a subscriber of Liberty Itch, you are most likely a disciplined, libertarian thinker. We fight against our natural urges to ‘let rip’ in our political response. We are principled. This sets us apart.
For libertarians to believe in a life free from coercion; to live and let live, and to respond with our minds rather than a gut-based thought-bubble, we need a tool that:
identifies all the sources of power operating in our society;
clarifies the methods they use to erode our liberties;
shows how our freedoms can be protected when a power centre is neutralised by another centre; and
exposes how our liberties are lost when the power centres collude or are weakened.
I have that tool. It’s an infographic. I call it The Coercion Wheels.
Wheel 1 identifies the culprits: the power centres which will coerce you if given half a chance. There are ten culprits operating under two categories.
The first category is government, under which there are five sub-categories:
International;
Legislature;
Executive;
Judiciary; and
Forces.
The second category is non-government, also with five sub-categories:
Business;
Media;
Community;
Crime; and
Individuals.
You will see that the ten sub-categories are further divided into forty coercion culprits. These are the people or groups of people who seek to impose their will on our life and limit our freedoms. They range from the United Nations to our siblings.
To examine the detail, I recommend you print the infographic. It is written from an Australian perspective but subscribers from other countries can substitute their local equivalent for what is represented.
Forty power centres in a liberal democracy like Australia! Forty coercion culprits, each pressuring you with differing amounts of control over your life. Any one or combination of them can curtail your freedoms.
Wheel 2 shows the same sub-categories but with the coercion method used against you and your family. There are a surprising number of them, from Appropriation Increases to Denial of Child Custody, from Wire Taps to Asset Seizure, from Ostracism to Trolling. I’ve listed 103 methods used to impinge upon our rights and freedoms.
Liberal democracies like Australia work best when each power centre is subject to checks and balances by others. This neutralising effect leaves you and me less likely to be subject to coercion.
Here are examples of the checks and balances working:
Various churches were plagued by reports of child sexual abuse but could not reform themselves. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the investigations and final report resulted in criminal proceedings and conviction of priests, and led to structural changes in the Church. On Wheel 1, this is shown as Old Media (24), Federal Ministers (6) and State Judges (14) checking the abuse of power by the Church & Religious Organisations (26).
When former CEO of James Hardie Limited was banned from acting as a director for 15 years for failing to provide a duty of care with respect to asbestos diseases, this is State Judges (14) holding Large Corporations (22) accountable on Wheel 1. Another check and balance success.
When Political Parties (28) vie for election to the legislature as Federal MHRs and Senators (3) or State MLAs and MLCs (4), each party acts as a check on the others and helps ensure there is a balance of opinion. There are no one party states in a liberal democracy.
Sometimes though, a segment of society may be weak or unwilling to act as a check and balance. At times, a number of power centres collude. This was evident during the Great Pandemic Overreach of 2020-2022:
When State Agency Officers (11) and State Police (18) forced the Church and Religious Organisation (26) to shut. Australian churches simply rolled over, such was the force against them. No check or balance, with freedom to worship crushed;
When Old Media (24) acted as propagandist for Federal MHRs and Senators (3), State MLAs and MLCs (4), Federal Bureaucrats (8), Federal Agency Officers (9), State Bureaucrats (10), State Agency Officers (11) and State Police (18), and with no power centres in support of our rights, we lost the right to assemble, protest and earn a living. Checks and balances failed.
These are just some examples.
If liberal democracy feels like it’s on the slide, it is because there is a blurring of interests and collusion between these traditionally separate power centres.
But there is hope.
What is Liberty Itch if not New Media (25) holding the other 39 power centres to account in a freedom-oriented, intelligent way?
Next time you consume the news, rather than rely on gut feel, use The Coercion Wheels to think and analyse. Which power centre is doing the coercing? On whom? How are they doing this? Which power centre needs to balance the coercion so you and your family are not vulnerable?
If libertarians are about freedom from coercion, The Coercion Wheels are a great tool for identifying the power centres which can act against us, the tactics they use, and why we must have them focus on each other and not us.
In my last two articles, I showed how George Orwell’s 1984 seems to be coming true, how the size of government grows ever larger and how rent-seekers are not only doing what they’ve always done but are getting much better at it. How this happens without sparking a popular uprising, I invoke the fable of ‘the shrinking forest’. I also explained why our fellow citizens are so disengaged from politics and what they can do to start the fightback.
I’d now like to discuss how we’ve reached this position – specifically how our opponents have attacked classical liberalism and libertarianism by first undermining Christianity. You may be sceptical of this. You make not even see a link. But history reveals all and lessons from the past illuminate what our opponents are doing today.
Modern Western democracy was founded in Christianity and in the family. It’s why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the co-authors of The Communist Manifesto, were determined to undermine both. Marx and Engels knew faith and family were the enemy. They did not like what families and people of faith talked about around the dinner table.
In his brilliant book, The Subversive Family, British writer Ferdinand Mount argued that marriage and the family, far from being oppressed by the ruling class, were in fact the chief bulwarks against authoritarianism. Family, faith and freedom are without doubt the best bulwarks against division and authoritarianism.
As for faith, removing Christians from the public square seems to be the unstated aim. ‘Net zero Christians by 2050’, quipped by Rebecca Weisser.
“Every citizen is equal before the law.”
I would argue that the Christian is the model libertarian.
Knowing that one day they will stand before their Creator and give an account of themselves, Christians aim to be the personification of personal responsibility. Endowed with a free will to choose right or wrong, Christians cannot blame anyone else for their actions. It follows therefore, that if God is going to hold people responsible for their actions, then God would give them the right to decide how they conduct their lives.
For example, taking away from someone the right to decide for themselves how much they are willing to work for, is to deny them a God-given right to work. People do things for their reasons, not yours, and people constantly make trade-offs depending on a range of factors known best only to themselves and their families.
It is also why the Bible tells us not once, but twice, “Do not favour the poor in court”. This is real justice, not ‘social justice’.
Favouring one group of citizens over another based on socio-economic or racial grounds is not only immoral, it also foolish. It always ends badly – especially for the favoured group.
Note, this is not to be confused with obligations we have towards each other in a personal capacity. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus was asked, in the famous ‘good Samaritan’ parable.
In this, the Christian has no difficulty with public policy, that is ‘what is sinful vs what should be unlawful’. Sin is personal, the law for everyone.
And then there’s family. There has been a relentless push to replace father and mother, male and female, with something else. A village perhaps? There was that leftist trope – ‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ As one wag responded, ‘Yes, and it takes a village idiot to believe that.’
More troubling is the breadth of the battleground.
Just look at the global coordination achieved by the Left with respect to Black Lives Matter, Roe v Wade, transgenderism, climate and Covid. Notice the activists all seem to read from the same script. It’s formulaic for sure and almost robotically applied globally regardless of where the original issue occurred.
The Covid response was near uniform globally and we are only now seeing the effects with little to no accountability. There were protests in Adelaide with pictures of George Floyd – a police excessive-use-of-force issue in faraway Minneapolis USA. The US Supreme Court then ruled that abortion should be a state matter and, out of nowhere, the rapid response pro-abortion rallies were rolled-out city by city in Australia, each jurisdiction of which had abortion laws already in place. Go figure.
Whatever you think of these issues, my point is that the global coordination is chilling.
There is no doubt Australia has economic and social problems that it is going to have to solve – inflation, rising interest rates, high mortgages (forcing both parents out to work), high cost of living (educating and raising children, power prices, water prices) – and social ills caused by the rupturing of family relationships due to mental health and addictions of various kinds.
Our nation also has economic and social goals it wants to achieve – increased productivity, affordable housing, lower crime rates. However, looking to politicians, bureaucrats and regulators to solve these problems and achieve these goals seems to be a lost cause.
As for free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law, and smaller government, these have all but been abandoned.
Major party MPs seem more interested in making friends across the aisle than looking for ways ‘to improve the life of the ordinary citizen’ as described by Charles Taylor in his book, The Affirmation of the Ordinary Life.
Once elected, MPs are easily captured. They like being Members of Parliament and they like being liked – including by members of other parties. They also love socialising; they don’t want to be ostracised or booed on the ABC for making a stand or championing a cause. On issue after issue, they seem weak. They have lost both their philosophical bearings and religious convictions.
Take away religious conviction and classical liberalism becomes less grounded.
One flows from the other.
I would argue it is not possible to ‘break through’ all this. We have to ‘break with’. We have to force the major parties’ hands through the brutal reality of balance-of-power politics.
Next week I would like to flag a ground-breaking idea for change. Something practical. An innovation which I trust will bring hope and optimism.
“Perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanise them”.
Hannah Arendt.
The Royal Commission report into the Robodebt scandal has shone a spotlight on the leviathan that is now the Australian government. Not surprisingly, the Albanese government has distanced itself from the findings, portraying the ill-conceived scheme as a failure of their political opponents. Most of the media frame it as a failure of the Coalition government.
In neither case is the integrity and generosity of government as an institution ever questioned, nor its proper role in society. Bill Shorten made this clear when he said: “There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant.”[1] From his perspective the Coalition betrayed this ethos.
It is a belief in which the Australian government represents the pinnacle of virtue. Not mere mortals pursuing their own self-interests, but a congregation of the anointed ones.
This ethos of government as inherently good is pervasive and has allowed it to become impervious to failure.
Yet we don’t have to look back too far to find a pattern of systemic government blunders, with substantial human and financial costs. Let us remember just a few within recent memory:
Green Loans Program (2009-2010). Thousands of assessors who invested their time and money were left with unfulfilled work promises.
Home Insulation Program (2009-2019). The death of 4 young installers sparked a Royal Commission which concluded it was a “serious failure of public administration”.
Building the Education Revolution (2009-2011). A $16.2 billion ‘stimulus package’ resulting in hugely inflated construction costs and waste.
Vocational Education and Training FEE-HELP Loans (2012-2016). Hundreds of vulnerable Australians were left with large debts for courses they never completed or started.
Jobactive Employment Services (2015-2022). Delivered high profits for job agencies and a bureaucratic nightmare for job seekers.
Much can also be said about the NBN rollout, the NDIS, Snowy 2.0 and the ongoing PwC tax leaks scandal. Time after time a series of scathing, damning, blistering reports, inquiries, audits, and Royal Commissions have analysed the reasons for each successive failure, the lessons learned, and the specific details that need to be corrected to ensure the good intentions of central planners are not botched by implementation mistakes.
In the wake of the Robodebt report there are calls for a change in the culture of the Australian Public Service: a renewed Code of Conduct and Values with an emphasis on stewardship and a primary focus on the people the APS is meant to serve.
Kathryn Campbell. The senior bureaucrat who implemented Robodebt, an algorithmic system which issued illegal social security debt notices.
Missing from the report and the discussion is the one recommendation that would ensure that Services Australia cannot continue to harm vulnerable Australians (especially in the age of AI): dismantle it.
Human tragedies, large and small, have been enabled by bloated centralised bureaucracies throughout history. The more concentrated the power structure, the bigger the tragedy. Hannah Arendt, reporting in 1961 on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major Holocaust perpetrator, observed: “the court naturally conceded that such a crime could be committed only by a giant bureaucracy using the resources of government.”
In the context of a more dispersed power structure, a giant Australian bureaucracy is still capable of causing severe harm as we have seen with Robodebt and numerous other cases. The response should be to reduce the source of this harm to its minimum expression, not to defend it or reform it.
The fundamental mistake is to endow government with high moral values, higher than those of private citizens. A fair and just society is not built by abdicating social responsibilities and delegating them to an external agent, one with coercive powers and a perverse incentive structure.
Governments are not benign. In reality, “the individual bureaucrat is not attempting to maximize the public interest very vigorously but is attempting to maximize his or her own utility just as vigorously as you and I.”[2]
Acknowledging the primacy of self-interest is not incompatible with a natural tendency to help others and engage in charitable activities or mutual aid.
Australia has a proud history of friendly societies that provided vital financial and social support to many communities before they were crowded out by government welfare[3].
At the beginning of the twentieth century nearly half Australia’s population was connected to a friendly society[4]. How much good could civil society do today with a fraction of the resources removed by a confused bureaucracy mostly concerned with finding its own soul?
Despite being pushed aside and distorted by the expansion of government, Australia’s strong volunteer tradition never disappeared. We see it all around us, in the selfless actions of millions of people, each with their own unique talents, experiences, and circumstances.
Word on the street is that the Liberal Democrats are searching for a new name.
Malcolm Turnbull and the Greens forced it upon them. It was his parting gift.
It is now the Eleventh Commandment.
“Thou shalt not use any English word of an older party’s name in your own.”
So, despite being named the Liberal Democrats for 21 years, the Liberal Party government took the Liberal Democrats to court and won. The Liberal Democrats challenged the decision in the High Court and lost.
And just like that, the Liberal Party owns a monopoly right to the word ‘liberal’ despite being one of the most illiberal governments in existence today.
The amazing development is that Friedrich Hayek himself has come back from the grave and offered a suggestion for a new name!
Hard to believe, right?
And yet, here he is in black and white pondering the very same question about an appropriate party name for classical liberals.
In his famous 1960 essay Why I Am Not A Conservative in which he affirms the clear differences between socialists, conservatives and liberals, he wrote:
“In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use ‘liberal’ in the sense in which I have used it, the term ‘libertarian’ has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavour of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favours free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.”
Having eschewed the word ‘libertarian’, he then strikes upon an idea.
“We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name.
It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.
Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.
The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals.
But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the over-rationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe.
The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig – with the stress on the ‘old.’ ”
The long history of the Whigs is rich and worth exploring. The ‘Old Whig’ phrase was coined by Edmund Burke who best reflected its views. Famous Whigs have included or been influenced by John Locke, Adam Smith, former British Prime Minister William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, after whom the grand city of Melbourne is named, and most of the pre-revolutionary American patriots.
You adhere to the principles of Whiggism. You are Whiggish in your philosophical leanings.
In Australia, conservatives and libertarians tend to get along. Neither has sympathy for the woke, neither declares their pronouns, chooses their gender, or seeks to cancel those with whom they disagree. They both believe in things such as equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, parental responsibility, religious freedom and democracy. Indeed, some conservatives tend to think that libertarianism is merely conservatism under another name.
That is not the case though; libertarianism and conservatism originate from quite different places. It is worth understanding those places so that when they do diverge, it is not unexpected. It also helps those who are unsure of their own position.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on individual freedom. Before the Americans corrupted the word it was once synonymous with liberalism, but now it’s also known as classical liberalism. Some people prefer to call themselves classical liberals to avoid being mistaken for members of the US Libertarian Party, but there is no difference.
John Locke. Early Enlightenment philosopher who advocated for the right to “Life, Liberty and Estate”
The origins of libertarianism can be traced to the Enlightenment philosophers, particularly John Locke, and to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, which says that people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.
Conservatism is not a political philosophy but a preference for the status quo. Edmund Burke described it as an “approach to human affairs which mistrusts both a priori reasoning and revolution, preferring to put its trust in experience and in the gradual improvement of tried and tested arrangements.”
That it is not a philosophy can be seen from the fact that in the former Soviet Union, those who lamented the fall of communism (the status quo at the time) were also conservatives. Obviously, in that case they had nothing in common with libertarians.
John Stuart Mill. Philosopher who conceived The Harm Principle
Libertarians tend to have a view of what an ideal society should be: one in which the government is kept small and limited to a narrow range of functions, such as national defence, criminal justice and the protection of private property, with everything else subject to free markets. Conservatives might acknowledge some change is justified at the margins, but they generally regard current institutions as worth preserving. Libertarians advocate low taxes; conservatives oppose increased taxes. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, is a conservative sentiment.
“Taxation Is Theft”, a libertarian idea. “No Tax Increases”, a conservative idea.
Where coercion is involved, the two can part company. This was illustrated by the debate over same sex marriage. Libertarians supported the change because it removed state intrusion from the choice of a spouse. Conservatives resisted the change on the grounds that marriage is a longstanding and revered institution.
It is similar with illicit drugs. Conservatives tend to disapprove of them and are happy they are prohibited. Libertarians argue that, although they might disapprove of them, it is a matter of personal choice unless others are being harmed (and concede that can occur in some circumstances).
Libertarianism and conservatism originate from quite different places.
Conservatives and libertarians generally agree that personal choice can be important. Libertarians support it in principle (the nanny state is anathema to them) while conservatives support it because it is the status quo. But this disguises a significant difference: libertarians believe personal choice is never the government’s business unless others are harmed, except for those unable to take responsibility for their choices (eg children). Conservatives believe some people make poor choices and may need saving from themselves, or that certain choices lead to additional cost to our socialised medical system (which is the status quo). This can lead to different positions on issues like drinking, smoking, gambling, sugar and bicycle helmets.
Things get interesting with firearms. Obviously, these have the potential to harm others if misused, but that is true of other things. For libertarians, the problem is that gun control invariably only applies to civilians, not the police or military. Laws are ultimately enforced by people with guns. As the saying goes, when government fears the people there is liberty, but when the people fear the government there is tyranny.
Conservatives tend to have a more benign view of government and are reluctant to concede that it might ever be necessary to fight against or overthrow it by means other than elections.
Of course, there are libertarians who take a conservative approach on some issues as well as conservatives who have libertarian tendencies. Upholding principles can be challenging. It is easy to rationalise spending other people’s money on something close to your heart.
Conservatives tend to have a more benign view of government.
It is nonetheless a good idea for both libertarians and conservatives to periodically consider the reason for their views. Are they based on principles, or do they reflect a preference for the status quo? Are they consistent or hypocritical?
Libertarianism and conservatism are different, though they have much in common. But libertarians and conservatives also need each other, so understanding each other is important.
Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?
This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.
Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:
“Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
“Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
“The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”
Vivid language for the impressionable mind!
The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.
Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.
What is not to love?
Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.
We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”
We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’
The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.
It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!
One must weigh the harms.
The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.
Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!
In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.
I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?
As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.
As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.
And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.
Further …
As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.
As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.
As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.
And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.
I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.
Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.
