Leyonhjelm calls Fraser condolence day a waste of time.

“I often say after eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.” – Fred Thompson. 

The Fraser years (1975 – 83) began with a feeling of euphoria at getting rid of Whitlam, followed by eight years of inertia, then a sense of relief when he was tossed out. 

Now on his death, parliament has been suspended for the day in order to allow those who despised him, or were despised by him, to wax lyrical on what a great bloke he was.  Irony is lost on these people. 

Liberal Democrat senator, David Leyonhjelm seems to be the only stand out on this: 

A crossbench senator says halting Parliament for a day to pay tribute to former prime minister Malcolm Fraser is a waste of time. 

 Question time and other parliamentary business has been cancelled in the House of Representatives and the Senate on Monday to give MPs an opportunity to make a speech about Mr Fraser, who died on Friday after a short illness. The former Liberal Party leader was 84.  

"We have an awful lot of work to do and we lose a whole day for condolence motions? It might be OK to stop for a few hours but losing a whole day I think is over the top," Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm told Fairfax Media.  "I hope Hawkey doesn't die, otherwise we'll never get any work done."  

The NSW libertarian senator said most Australians would agree with his view that the tributes were a waste of time. He said voters expected parliamentarians to be working, "not slacking".  

Senator Leyonhjelm also doubted many MPs would even want to give a speech about Mr Fraser and said he would not be adding his voice to the tributes. "He was a right-wing extremist when I first knew him and he was a left-wing extremist when he died," Senator Leyonhjelm said.  

"And my mum said, 'If you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all.' " …

It is easy to understand David’s frustration given the hours of monotonous long-winded diatribes, most delivered with all of the sincerity of mafia dons at a funeral for one of their colleagues that they ordered the hit on. 

The Gettysburg Address, which is still regarded as one of the finest ever delivered in American history, contained 272 words and about two minutes to deliver. Most of our current crop would need several thousand words (repeating each talking point three times) and an hour to address an allowance motion to scratch their bums. 

Qld Cops target law-abiding drivers under ‘hoon’ laws

Image (R): A cop’s eye view of motoring enthusiasts.

 The late and unlamented LNP government in Queensland were masters at running scare campaigns in order to push through draconian laws attacking basic liberties.

 As an example, a fistfight among a few bikers outside a Gold Coast restaurant was turned into a national emergency necessitating immediate action to rectify the situation. The result was the brutal anti-association laws under the VLAD act under which having been a member of a declared club in the distant past could result in prosecution.

 In a similar vein, we were propagandized extensively on hoons doing burnouts and street racing on every road and street in the state, requiring anti hoon laws to bring us under control.

 The result was an act in which hoon was not mentioned nor defined, but gave the police more powers to harass motorists. 

These are being abused:

Although the LNP sold the laws as their tough “anti-hooning” policy, the term “hoon” is not referenced anywhere in the legislation. …  

 … Insp Krang said hardcore hoons were still active throughout the state but they were less prone to routine illegal meets in public because of increased enforcement of the laws. He said law-abiding motoring buffs who liked to “show and shine” their vehicles at sanctioned events should not be mistaken for hoons.  

 But law-abiding revheads have slammed hoons who tarnish their image, saying they are being unfairly targeted by police as a result. Downshift Australia has the largest gatherings of revheads in Australia, with two meets a month in Queensland. Director Matyas Fulop said police target people at his events for “trivial” offences.  

 “We’ve got people trying to come to a car meet that is properly organised, insured, on private property and away from residential housing,” he said. “They (police) come to our events looking for things wrong on the cars, they’ll say it’s their job, but really, is it?” … 

 Here is (now) Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm on similar issues at Summernats:

Leyonhjelm doing the right thing for no good reason (or something)

Statists struggle to understand libertarians on those odd occasions where they actually bother to try to get a handle on the thinking behind non-interventionism and personal liberty.

Patrick Stokes, a lecturer in philosophy at Deakin University is an example of this phenomenon.  Patrick seems to think that it is not enough to accept that it is OK to let people do stuff that you might not care to do or might even not like on the grounds that it is non-coercive and doesn’t affect you.  You have to have a good reason to leave people alone in his jaded point of view.

Stokes starts off with the antics of Philip Nitschke in the euthanasia field, then attempts to link this with the LDP’s stance on same sex marriage.  He demonstrates his confusion on the subject matter by trying to link libertarian thinking to the old left/right paradigm: 

This problem isn’t unique to the euthanasia debate. Last week, newly-minted Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm announced plans to introduce a bill to legalize same sex Marriage. 

As a libertarian, Leyonhjelm has called for lower taxes and a massively reduced role for government. Yet his position on marriage equality aligns him with a policy more closely associated with the political left. … 

… Philosophers such as Richard Mohr have argued that committed same-sex relationships already are marriages in a substantive sense, and the law should simply recognise that.For libertarians (for the most part), the only real substantive good is individual autonomy. 

Leyonhjelm doesn’t argue, as far as I can see, that certain types of relationship have a special, substantive value; he simply thinks, “It is not the role of government to define relationships.” (In which case, we might ask, why should governments get involved in certifying marriage at all?) 

Those of us who support same-sex marriage can probably live with that tension, if it delivers the outcome we want. But the philosophical tension between approaches is still there. 

And the very moral thinness of libertarianism, its refusal to trade in any ethical currency other than liberty, sits uneasily with issues of life and death, where all sorts of other moral considerations are in play. …

There is no explanation offered as to why we should think, “that certain types of relationship have a special, substantive value.”  In an argument for marriage equality, it simply makes no sense to claim that one form of relationship is special, something that those opposing SSM claim as a key point.  Such a claim is counter-productive.

It is nice to know though, that statists arguing the issue as a special case for SSM as some kind of state granted privilege are prepared to hold their noses and accept Leyonhjelm’s support, even if they don’t really like it. 

He then goes on with the following doozy:

One reason death is viewed as normally being a harm to the person who dies is that it deprives us of goods we would have enjoyed had we lived. In a situation where there is nothing left in the patient’s future but pain and loss of dignity, there are no more goods to lose.

For those of us who deal more with the real world rather than academic navel gazing, the biggest reason for death to be considered a harm, is that we don’t get to live longer. 

At this point, he exposes the weakness of his argument under the rather dramatic heading of:

Libertarianism’s moral moonscape 

If you think, as Nitschke apparently does, that the question here is simply about exercising a right to suicide, why should it matter whether someone is terminally ill or not? If someone wants to die, and they’re clear-headed enough to make competent decisions, who are we to interfere with their personal liberty in order to stop them? … 

… When teaching classes on the ethical debate over euthanasia, I’ve found that students often seem to struggle with explaining why it should matter whether the patient is dying (or at least permanently debilitated) or not. Yet from a mercy perspective, it matters very much that there are, in fact, no truly good options left open. …

It sounds like those students have a more consistent view than their teacher.  To assume the right to deny a person the right to die, we are adopting the assumption that we have a right to insist that they live, even against their own wishes.  No explanation of this position is offered.

Assuming the right to refuse the right to die implies a form of ownership over the person involved which is an anathema to all decent civilized people.  The problem most of us have with Nitschke’s position on the recent suicide of a depressed 45 year old is that he didn’t advise him to seek psychiatric advice.

Nitschke is not a libertarian, never was, and never will be.  He is a statist leftist who proved in the Western Australian senate election rerun, that he prefers to support leftist parties, even those who oppose his cause to a libertarian party that in the main, supports his single issue.

In attempting to secure some sort of dispensation from the state in relation to his plea for special interest, he has fluked a position where the LDP has a similar morality based position.  This does not make him a libertarian in any way, shape, or form.

The LDP policy on voluntary euthanasia can be found here. 

Leyonhjelm inspires another cartoonist

Giving inspiration to cartoonists can be a mixed blessing, frequently a negative one, even a brutal experience.  Still, if it is a good likeness, your name is spelt right, and whatever it is highlighting is not a really bad, it can be as good as a big advertising budget for getting your name out there.

LDP Senator, David Leyonhjelm has come off very well, getting the cover of The Spectator Australia on his election.

It is understood that the original is proudly displayed in his office.

Recently he was seen commenting on how we have a government he likened to Godzilla, a reasonable assessment of the enormous burden of the state on the population with its attendant pernicious imposition of itself into every aspect of our daily lives as well as our wallets in order to fund its depredations.

This appears to have inspired well known cartoonist Stephen Zeg Gunnell (Zeg) to come up with his offering on the subject, which rather than Godzilla uses the theme of David and Goliath to illustrate this situation and David's role in opposing it.

 

First Australian senator elected on libertarian platform gives his maiden speech

All of Australia’s libertarians are feeling the joy today with the maiden speech of David Leyonhjelm in the senate this afternoon.  We have had to wait for nine months since his election last September, for this moment.

This is the first time in Australia’s history that a libertarian party has elected anyone into federal politics. Here is what he had to say:

This has been the culmination of a long haul for many of us.  From a personal standpoint I have pursued libertarian politics since the mid 70s with the formation of the Progress Party, and later with the Liberal Democratic Party.  A few others have been at it longer, as the Workers Party preceded the Progress Party.

Nonetheless, 40 years is a long wait.  Those years have flown by like a stack of papers caught in the breeze since I first walked into a meeting called by a group that inspired me with their message; that we should control the government, rather than have it control us.

Today might seem like a culmination, but as David says, “There is much to be done.”  And as Churchill said, “This is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.”

Lets all work to take control and hand that control back to where it belongs; in the hands of the individual.