Menzies House

Why we should be free to vote in Australia

Voting is central to our claim to being a free people. If we are not free to vote, it means we are not free. For example, if we are not free to carry a knife, it doesn’t mean we are not free, it just means we are not free to carry a knife. But if we are not free to vote in favour of carrying a knife, then we are not free – period.

The funny thing about freedom and democracy is that you must believe in the other person’s right to deprive your freedom, in order to support the basic mechanism which provides that freedom in the first place. We must all be free to vote, in order to be free.

In Australia, we are not free to vote. It might sound strange or outrageous, but think of it this way: We are not free to pay tax, we are forced to pay tax; we are not free to follow the road rules, we are forced to follow the road rules; we are not free to comply with the building code, and we are not free to vote. It’s that simple.

The purpose of democracy is that we are free to self-rule. As a free people, we are free to choose our own government. Each individual has equal power to have his or her say as to who should lead our nation. We can choose leaders based on their policies, or for whatever reason we like.

When you force people to vote, it influences their decision, dependant on their political or ethical beliefs. For example, some people don’t like to be forced to make a choice, so they vote informally or avoid registering to vote. In Australia, over 5% of people vote informally and over 10% remain unregistered. This drives our voter turnouts lower than some countries where voting is voluntary, including New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium.

Socialist bias in every Australian election

Jason Kent argues that compulsory voting benefits the left:

Compulsory Voting means that freedom in Australia is mandatory. It’s not true, but the fact that Compulsory Voting says it’s true, makes it so. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that means Australia is, and continues to become, less free than it might have been otherwise.

People who favour greater government regulation & control are more likely to comply with Compulsory Voting than those who are opposed to it. Those who are opposed to it are more likely to vote informally by casting a blank ballot, or refusing to register to vote altogether.

If voting were not compulsory, informal voting would almost cease to exist, and so would the illegitimate government-assisted votes. Compulsory Voting accounts for somewhere between five and ten percent of votes so without the government manufactured votes the results of elections would be very different.

When the parties who favour government regulation & control—usually parties of the ‘left’—get more votes because of the artificial consequences of Compulsory Voting, it creates a gap between the people’s will and the resulting will of government.

This is why ‘left-wing’ Australian governments often turn out to be more controlling than we had expected or wanted and ‘right-wing’ governments turn out to be less liberating than we expected or wanted. This is one of the key reasons why the percentage of government revenue to GDP has risen so dramatically over the past several decades and why there are ever more ridiculous government regulations & controls.

2011 International Students For Liberty Conference

In February 2011, Students for Liberty, the world’s foremost libertarian student organisation, is hosting their annual International Students for Liberty Conference, which will see the world’s largest crowd of pro-liberty students will gather for a weekend of learning about liberty from contemporary leaders in liberty, discussing best practices for promoting liberty on campus, and getting more involved in the larger movement for liberty. The 2010 conference drew over 300 stdents from across 13 countries, and this years promises to be even bigger and better!

At the 2011 International Students For Liberty Conference, you will experience:

• Activism training featuring workshops taught by fellow student leaders of liberty.
• Networking with the leaders of the liberty movement and your fellow pro-liberty students from around the world.
• Social Events featuring free drinks
• Great Speakers, such as Governor Gary Johnson, Economist Extrodinaire Tyler Cowen, Cato’s David Boaz, and TV host John Stossel.

Click here for more details on what will certainly be a very worthwhile event.

If you are interested in attending (and you don’t have to be a student to qualify!),  registration for international persons on the website has technically closed, BUT if you are a friend of the Australian Libertarian Society, send me an email (timintheus at gmail), and not only will you be able to register, but the registration fee will be waived, and you’ll be able to attend and enjoy the libertariany goodness for free!

Let me know if you’re interested!

The Importance of Social Conservatism

Tim Andrews writes on why libertarians ought embrace social conservatism. 

So! I think the time has come for me to once again alienate everyone who reads this blog, and raise the ire of conservatives and libertarians alike! :)

I do this for a very simple reason. Specifically, I do not think most conservatives understand just why achieving their aims through the coercive power of the state is totally counterproductive, and, more pertinently at the moment, I am rather convinced that libertarians in Australia don’t realise the importance of social conservatism to achieve their aims. Which is not only strategically to our detriment, but something that, on the random off chance of a libertarian revolution, will lead to a social catastrophe of epic proportions.

Allow me to explain.  Even if we ignore the fringe elements of the now thoroughly-discredited liberaltarian movement (those people who seem to advocate rank hedonism as a necessary lifestyle choice) almost all libertarians have taken a very similar position on social matters: “You run your life how you want to, it is no business of mine as long as the state is not involved.” Which is a nice ideology in theory, but in practice, I worry that it is one that shall degenerate into total and utter failure. Because with the moral vacuum caused by the exodus of government, unless something comes in to take its place, society shall go to hell in a handbasket. In the same way that the years immediately following the collapse of communism in the USSR led to morally repugnant economic practices, I fear the same may happen in social matters if we achieve our aims, but are not careful about how we do so. Indeed, the older I get, the more I find the traditional libertarian position unsatisfactory, and somewhat of a cop-out.  To deny the real problems of broken families, of drug abuse, of the consequences of actions – this is naivety at the extreme. Which is why the only possible way libertarianism can succeed in the political sphere is by combining it with social conservatism in the personal/societal one. For if we do not do so, we shall have a world without shame, a world where everything goes. And a world that shall rapidly become a nightmare.

Conservatism and Libertarianism: What does Libertarianism have to offer?

Cameron McLean responds to Michael Sutcliffe's article by asking what libertarianism can bring to the conservative table.

I was reading an article by Michael Sutcliffe which questioned the compatibility of conservatism and libertarianism given the vast difference in societal concerns on issues such as euthanasia, ‘The Burka’ and gay adoption. Whilst he did eventually draw the conclusion that there was a viable alliance to be made, the overall trend of the argument seemed slanted in favor of conservatism needing libertarians onside – rather than libertarians needing to work with conservatives to achieve their political goals.

The conservative/libertarian alliance: what are the conservatives willing to offer?

Michael Sutcliffe comments on the relationship between conservative and libertarians.

Here's a test for the libertarian/conservative alliance:

• Australians want voluntary euthanasia.
• We've got a senator who wants to ban the burka.
• Conservatives are worried about gay adoption.

There's no secret that libertarians, on principle, won't feel completely comfortable with the Liberal position on these issues. Banning clothing, treating people differently under law because of their sexuality, and denying someone the ownership of their own life doesn't seem all that principled or smart to our side of this 'broad church'.

TABOR for Australia

Taxpayers need more rights codified in law to prevent arbitrary taxation increases by the federal government, writes Terje Petersen.

Every year the cost of government goes up. To demonstrate this fact one need only examine the federal budget over a string of years to see that federal government tax revenues march onward and upward. To be fair on the public sector we might note that population growth and inflation play their part. To calculate an accurate cost of government (the cost we pay to the government for the privilege of being governed) we should divide government revenue by population. And for comparisons between years we should adjust for inflation. However even making these adjustments the trend is still clearly towards an ever more expensive public sector.

The chilling creed of the radical libertarians

John Ballantyne discusses three radical libertarians who pushed the idea of freedom to ridiculous extremes.

Who today remembers the novelist and philosopher of radical individualism, Ayn Rand? Quite a few people, apparently. Although she has been dead for almost four decades, her books continue to sell in large numbers, and her ideas are still highly influential in corporate board-rooms and free-market think-tanks.

Her creed of radical libertarianism has a certain superficial attractiveness, with its call for smaller government, lower taxation and greater personal freedom. Many conservatives, particularly in the United States, and increasingly in Australia, look to radical libertarians as their natural allies.

Yet this creed, as we shall see, has a dark side, which is hostile to many Judaeo-Christian values and civilised norms.