Is there a libertarian approach to culture?

John Humphreys has kindly asked me if I would join the ALS blog stable – I will be intermittently posting here and at www.chrisberg.org, when the mood strikes. Briefly, I’m a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs, Editor of the IPA Review, and probably the only self-described libertarian with a column in the Melbourne Age. My research area is usually regulatory policy, but I’m also interested in history, culture and technology.

A peculiarity of critiques of modern capitalism is that it is, at least in part, an aesthetic critique. McMansions do not just create environmental and socially problems, they are also ugly. Plasma screens and home theatre systems are crass. Advertising on the scale that plasters New York or Hong Kong is obnoxious – European cities are much more refined. (The Melbourne City Council, well known for its trendy environmentalism, also has a thing against billboards.)

By contrast, libertarians tend to reject aesthetics as even a valid criteria for political criticism. If someone wants to live in a McMansions or full their house up with expensive and ugly televisions, who are we to judge? And if you don’t like advertising, go have one of those ‘sea-changes’ that the weekend papers keep telling us is the new coolest thing. Spend enough time around other liberals or libertarians and this reaction becomes instinctive – it’s none of our business; some people like some things, others like other things, etc etc etc. We just don’t like passing judgment on other people’s choices, and this rightly places us in sharp contrast with our political opponents.

Guilty Of Association

The Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill 2007 has recently been introduced by the Rann government here in SA. Here’s just one of the exciting new powers they’re granting themselves:

Under the laws, scheduled to be debated next week in the House of Assembly, South Australians who have contact with bikies at least six times a year will face a minimum maximum of five years in jail.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

UPDATE: Suddenly remembering that mass media is usually about as accurate as a drunk, blindfolded darts player, I went and read the legislation for myself. The five years in jail is a maximum penalty, not minimum, and certain kinds of associations - e.g. lawful business associations - are disregarded. Here is the relevant section in full:

35—Criminal associations
(1) A person who associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with a person who is—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) the subject of a control order,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (1) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other was—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) a person the subject of a control order,
or was reckless as to that fact.
(3) A person who—
(a) has a criminal conviction (against the law of this State or another jurisdiction) of a kind prescribed by regulation; and
(b) associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with another person who has such a criminal conviction,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (3) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other had the relevant criminal conviction or was reckless as to that fact.
(5) A person may be guilty of an offence against subsection (1) or (3) in respect of associations with the same person or with different people.
(6) The following forms of associations will be disregarded for the purposes of this section unless the prosecution proves that the association was not reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) associations between close family members;
(b) associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation, business or profession;
(c) associations occurring at a course of training or education of a prescribed kind between persons enrolled in the course;
(d) associations occurring at a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy session of a prescribed kind;
(e) associations occurring in lawful custody or in the course of complying with a court order;
(f) associations of a prescribed kind.

You can parse this yourself, but here is my reading of it:

- It is a criminal offence to be friends with members of “declared organisations” (i.e. bikie gangs)
- It is a criminal offence for criminals (convicted of ANY felony, if I’m reading this correctly) to be friends with each other.

Still pretty outrageous, then.