Libertarian of the month: March

The most libertarian Member of Parliament is former NSW Premier and Current Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Bob Carr. His record is smeared with the fact that he was the Head of the Labour Government in NSW for 10 years. As he is new to federal Parliament he should recieve a clean slate and be allowed to start his record again. His comments on the drug war (see below) have made him the only current federal Minister calling for a liberalization of drug laws.

12 thoughts on “Libertarian of the month: March

  1. Some group is being reported in the media as calling for an end to The War On Drugs. Maybe this will start some sensible policies being discussed. Whilst I won’t hold my breath until they do, it could happen.

  2. They only recently realised that? LOL

    Despite this report, the government won’t be reforming the laws. Carr says he supports drug law reform but “as senator” will support drug laws anyway. How are you going to abolish drug laws while supporting them, Bob?

    Part of the drug problem is all of the other government intervention which has economically ruined and morally corrupted society to the point where, if drug laws were repealed, the drug problem would probably continue on anyway. Drug laws aren’t the only form of government intervention which encourages drug use.

  3. I can say that you did much better this month. The recipient did deserve the award on the strength of the one gesture alone. After last month I thought you were about to nominate Tim Flim-Flammery.

  4. Thank you Graeme, It’s a month to month thing, I wipe the slate clean every time, any Parliamentarian could win for just one gesture. As was the case with Turnbull last time, though what Rudd’s resignation as foreign minister and Arbib’s resignation as a senator ultimately led to was Carr getting in, So I guess if I knew these were going to happen, last month’s choice would have been Rudd (Arbib’s resignation didn’t go through until March)

  5. loki3 if all drug laws were repealed, the drug problem would be less of a problem for the actual addicts. The problem would be on the same level as alcohol and tobacco and caffeine. Do you consider society’s use of the legal drugs as a sign of moral corruption or economic ruin? While of course they kill more people than illicit drugs do, there is much more help available to quit them and manage the negative health effects that come with regular use. While heroin is a much safer drug than alcohol (less damaging to the body, overdose is more easily treated, only slightly more addictive) I would much rather be an alcoholic than a heroin addict.

  6. Dom –

    I agree that drug laws should be repealed, for the reasons you listed and many more. I was merely pointing out that if they were repealed under present circumstances, i.e. with the present level of other kinds of government intervention, actual abuse of those drugs may not decrease. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, and they are widely abused. I still support repeal of those laws, since they would remove other evils directly associated with the laws: The price of the drugs would go down, eliminating drug-associated crimes. It would greatly reduce the state’s police powers. Abolition of drug policing agencies would reduce public expense. Police would be free to catch criminals again, or the size of the police force could be reduced. Funding of organised crime would dry up. Organised crime would get out of the drug business, thus decreasing the number of customers. Addicts could seek treatment and care. Lawful citizens would cease to be treated as criminals.

    But until all other kinds of intervention are repealed also, drug use may not decrease to acceptable levels. My concern about this is merely that those supporting the “war on drugs” would use this as evidence that repeal of the laws was a mistake. It also means that Carr can support legalisation of drugs and at the same time not move to do so – not have any real intention of doing so – and use these same ground. My contention is that the opposition of Carrr and others on the left to drug laws and drug abuse is a fraud. They love the drug laws – the enormous state powers it gives them – as much as conservatives do. Their own support of all other kinds of government intervention is what gives them a pretext for never actually repealing the laws.

  7. Be interesting to know how many genuine libertarians are among the LNPs 78? parliamentarians in Queensland. Seems inevitable the party will split with numbers like that, no upper house, and no real left-wing Opposition whatsoever, and libertarians that have already been elected would be the most legimiate political force of their kind in Australian history.

  8. ^ Oswald Spengler said that parties are a left wing concept. He should know. Libertarian is based on individualism, free and independent action by individuals. Political parties are necessarily conformist. They are also inherently prone to factionalism, since man is by nature an individual and therefore collectivism fails whenever it is imposed upon him. Man does not naturally conform to a party line, so there is no point in trying. With or without the party, you will get independent individual action.

  9. I see you have also come up with another or your great rebuttals for my idea, dotty. A reknowned authority such as yourself has only to pronounce an idea to be absurd, and it is implicitly so

  10. You can’t even spell renowned, imbecile. Your idea is that libertarians win Government by convincing 51% of the electorate to vote for libertarian leaning independents who will band together. Your ideas are so loopy they do not dignify a response.

    Bryan Capaln’s latest book demolishes your silly, utopian idea.

  11. “Your idea is that libertarians win Government by convincing 51% of the electorate to vote for libertarian leaning independents who will band together. Your ideas are so loopy they do not dignify a response.”

    We don’t get libertarians in government, party members or independents, until people at least know what libertarianism is. “My” idea is that people start using our electoral system the way it was designed to be used: vote for people who will represent them and if they don’t do as they promise, vote them out the next time and try somebody else. Eventually politicians will get the message to either toe the line or stay out of politics.

    “Bryan Capaln’s latest book demolishes your silly, utopian idea.”

    If you have read it, why can’t you demolish my idea?

Comments are closed.