Well said, Mark. The lack of libertarian voice in this country is a source of ongoing angst for me. In the social circles I move in, you can’t make such a remark without outraged howls from the likes of Zarquon: apparently, libertarians want to abandon us all to the market; a claim about as sophisticated as saying that all lefties want us to drive Trabants and convert to Islam.

As has been noted, there’s a lot of high-level theory being bandied around economic policy by educated caucasians (quelle horreur, etc), but my take on it amounts to this: the rise of “third-way” politics has led to a massive erosion of civil liberties, as governments of both stripes employ rank popularism and big-stick nannying to win votes and the support of the News rags.

And, what Mr Denmore said.

The ALP have become the Aussie losers party and a laughing stock. They would not know a fair-go from a hole in the ground.

I’ve been using my studies to help me contemplate “what if” you link certain ideas together in new ways.

To be honest, I think we need to hear less about “economics” and more about “personal development”, as well as hear less about “social” and more about “interpersonal relationships”.

In a nutshell, the reason is that I think most political debate these days is extremely unhelpful in advancing the cause of the lowest skilled and lowest paid in our society.

I therefore take great interest in this issue of “political semantics” - I think we need more than just progressive ideas. I think we may even need a whole new vocabulary.

I am slowly developing my ideas on my personal blog.

…From Justin

Howard has successfully smuggled economically libertarian and politically unpopular ideas through his extreme conservative social policy prism. This is the paradox that Rudd has identified and to which most Australians, curiously, haven’t cottoned onto yet.

How are they supposed to be cosy 1950s social conservatives living behind white picket fences, waving the flag and distrusting foreigners (as Howard dog whistles them to) when the economy they inhabit increasingly resembles a jungle? This seems a contradiction in terms.

Equally, you could argue that economic libertarianism - particularly the extreme kind preached by the too-long-in-academe ideologues of the blogosphere - is fundamentally incompatible with social libertarianism (if you mean by that a sense of social justice and the idea that “the economy” exists for people and not the other way around).

My own view is that the old socially progressive left did itself a disfavour through the 80s and 90s by taking a head-in-the-sand view to modern economic theory and blindly dismissing it all as economic “rationalism”. They staged futile ideological battles against protectionism and state ownership of airlines and telephone companies, instead of fighting from the pragmatic middle.

Using the latter approach would have resulted in the more rational policy outcome over Telstra in the early 1990s - privatising the retail business and keeping the wholesale network in public hands.

There are plenty of other examples of this and, ironically, it was the Labor Party under Keating and Button and Walsh that advanced them. Now, we have the spectacle of a troglodyte social conservative in Howard twisting economically rational policy positions to suit a darker purpose.

Put me down, then, for the party that advances enlightened and pragmatic economic libertarianism alongside socially progressive policies.

“Kennett was probably the best example.”

Has anyone approached Jeff about heading up the Liberal Democratic Party?

I’d love to see that.

ROTFL

The 2 combined largely explains why Australians are so likely to look to “the governor� (ie. the state) to help them make decisions and live their lives. A good way to erode this maladaption would be to skew our immigration policy much more towards Asia.

Nonsense.

The colony of Victoria had virtually no convicts and South Australia had none. Yet these were the two colonies that were in the forefront of state intervention in the period between 1851 and federation in 1900. For example, they were the most protectionist colonies, while NSW was wedded to free trade.

And after 1900 Alfred Deakin, a socially liberal yet highly statist Victorian politician was the most important single figure in establishing the framework of “New Protectionism.” This framework remained the consensus in Australia until Keating began to dismantle it in the 1980s. (It is true that Fraser had a go at it, but much to Treasurer Howard’s fury, backpedalled.)

So, JG, you’ve gotta look elsewhere, beyond convictism, for an explanation of Australia’s statism.

Funkypaws:

I’m interested to know what decisions ave been passed into the hands of the citizrenry since J Howard has been PM?

This is a very interesting question. Much of Howard’s social policy has been a kind of anthropological taxidermy to create an illusion of life as Howard imagines it to have been in the blessed 1950s.

Even his IR changes are blatant interventions in the labour market on the side of employers. For example, the banning of patterned agreements is an infantilisation of both employer and employee, as if they are not to be trusted to come to their own agreements. Moreover, Howard’s IR changes ban employer and employee from arrving voluntarily at unfair dismissal agreements.

Political sociologists have long pointed to the fact that the state effectively preceded society in this country, and that a statist political culture is deeply embedded.

Meredith Burgman (ALP President of the NSW Legislative Council) said almost exactly the same thing to me at a function a few months ago. It makes some sort of sense in that inertia probably leads to the political culture remaining quite statist, but I’d like to see it far less statist.

One of the better legacies of the Howard government will be that much (though nowhere near enough yet) decision-making power has been handed back to the citizenry. The down-side will be the citizenry also expecting the state to act like Santa Clause every budget time.

Australia being born with a fully-based state and ideology is extremely important in understanding the evolution of Australianness as is convictness.

Our convict legacy explains much about the coarser and less savoury parts of the Australian character; on the other hand it largely explains the egalitarian traits.

The 2 combined largely explains why Australians are so likely to look to “the governor” (ie. the state) to help them make decisions and live their lives. A good way to erode this maladaption would be to skew our immigration policy much more towards Asia.

3. Libertarianism is, fundamentally, an ideology for thirteen year olds. It’s popular in the blogosphere because people who believe they have no need for a regulatory or redistributionist government (relatively wealthy white dudes) are heavily over-represented on the internet. It’s a philosophy largely empty of meaningful policy content, as its tenets fail to describe any system of governance that exists today or that, in fact, has ever existed. As Matt pointed out once and as Rick Perlstein depicted at length in Before the Storm, libertarian ideas are at their most fantastic when compared with the record of governance in the region where libertarianism is most popular. Life in the interior West is utterly dependent on the government, not only for financial assisstance but also for security, infrastructure, property rights maintenance, etc. This is the reason I’ve never seen an upside in “claiming the mantle of Goldwater”; Goldwater’s career and political identity was built on a fantasy.

it’s rather depressing to think that we reflexively look to the state to sort out all our problems, and that we’re so little inclined as a nation to trust our fellow citizens to make choices about their own lives.

Lose your funk mark. Things are not as bad as they seem. And what appears to be “bad” is probably doing some good.

The majority of Australians are not all that statist right now, although they have been at various times in the past.

About 10% of Australia’s go-getting working age population are overseas at any one time. They can certainly make do without the Australian state, or any state for that matter.

Most stay-at home Australians simply want the state to make sure everyone in-country is playing for the team. And those out-country are not going to upset the team. This is the functional rationale behind the recent massive resurgence in nationalistic symbolism.

The state used to have a much larger regulatory and proprietorial role in Australia’s political economy, particularly in-hand with the unions. This has declined in the post-Keating era, especially with the rise of populist capitalism and decline of the unions.

Although the unwillingness of capitalist enterprise to take on demographic risk has increased the states community service provision role.

The state used to take a much more intrusive role in Australia’s political culture, particularly in-hand with the church. This declined in the post-Whitlam era with the education and maturing of the boomers and the decline of the church.

Although problematic elements within the minorities (barren women, broken-familied indigenes, unsettled immigrants, terroristic sectarians, promiscuous gays) has caused “the firm smack of government” to be heard once more.