Its great to be given additional choices with the Federal election coming up.
Stephen Lloyd points out in a Catallaxy comment stream concerned with the case for voting for the (libertarian) Liberal Democratic Party that one of the LDP’s candidates is Lisa Milat, sister-in-law of convicted multiple killer Ivan Milat.
Lisa is an active target shooter and member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.
The LDP supports the right to own firearms for self-defence, sport and hunting and also stands for lower taxes, small government and individual responsibility. It opposes restrictions on cigarette smoking and supports the decriminalisation of illicit drugs. This is Lisa's website.
Yes the freedom to own guns and kill wildlife. The message is so beautifully persuasive but there is, as yet, something missing. It will eventually come to me.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Why even mention that she has crazy relatives unless you think Stalinesc style guilt by association is fine, as seems to have been the case for Haneef.
You are right - she bears no guilt for the crimes of her brother-in-law at all. Unqualified agreement.
But her major - it seems only - political point is that restrictions on gun ownership should be removed. Sections of the LDP seem to see this as the major part of their platform.
I find this truely incredible. Ivan Milat murdered 7 people - seven totally innocent hitchhikers - and could be implicated in the murders of up to 20. He was a gun freak who loved his guns.
How could you not be sensitive to the horrors of guns in this situation?
Oh yes, and I know all the academic arguments about the right to bear arms amnd so on.
Every election has its quota of nutjobs about to learn what democracy means.
You should look at her being a gun-toting redneck as a postive HC, especially given your less than liberal opinions.
Basically, the more the LDP looks like a gun-toting environment hating redneck party, the less far they will get (not that I think they'll get far anyway), and that includes policies which would have much more appeal to people. I'm not sure why the smarter guys they have don't try and infiltrate the bigger parties to push a more liberal agenda.
Conrad, I don't agree that I am less than liberal in my views. My views are mainstream liberal - conservative with a mix of social democracy.
I do not favour appointing dills on the other side of politics so my side will win. Competition between capable pollies is good and I might be wrong.
I know Lisa, and have known her for a number of years. Although she is a member of the SSAA (target shooting), it is not the reason for her standing. Her main concern, the reason for why she has made the personal effort, is based on the over-regulation of government on the general public. This is a wide-spread 'malaise' that has affected all institutions, current policies, the rights of the individual and so on. The LDP is libertarian, and although seen by some quarters as extreme, does shine some light on an over-regulated government and the loss of individual rights.
Let's not demean the concept of libertarianism as a political philosophy.
If you think of what true individual liberty is, then you've got some sense of what the LDP is about.
Peter,
I think that the freedom to own a gun is a freedom that should be denied. The LDP do emphasise this 'right'.
But generally I agree maximising individual freedoms subject to not imposing external costs is a desirable pursuit.
Well i always thought the one qualification on the individual freedom clause in Libertarianism was that you are free to do what you like 'as long as it affects noone elses right to the same'.
Supporting smoking seems daft on this ground, given the mountains of evidence of the effects of passive smoking, the very reason smoking is being regulated now (so that bartenders do not sue if they end up with lung cancer, basically).
It seems to me true Libertaranism is unacheivable given that almost everything we do affects other people, and much of it is unwanted.
Libertarians would not support making companies accountable for various externalities (Friedman was famous for his stance against this), but it seems to me all these externalities affect others as individuals and their right to be free of external effects from others.
The whole philosophy is unsustainable. Don't get me started on the LDP's stands on speeding laws...
Inside every Tory beats the borrowed heart of a socialist...
The heartless socialist needs a welfare state to keep the blood circulating...
Eventually the Tory's body rejects the heart with conscience and the Socialist is left with the whole game to themselves.
Never in Australian history has the big 'L' driberal party been so close to a truely socialist party, like the Labor of old, just before Santamaria detonated from within creating the breakaway catholic DLP.
The Liberal Democrat Party, is just that... a democratic movement with liberal / libertarian principles, not of the left nor of the right, it (like a well known breakfast cereal) sits just right in the middle of the paunch.
Banned by the Howard government from using the 'democrat' and 'liberal' political descriptors, which is the most honest description of them because it 'might' confuse some muddle heads out there, it is now the Liberty & Democracy Party (formally known as...).
Last time L and D were a political catchcry it meant 'Liberty or Death', which we hope is not the way they go considering how many shooters form part of their support base.
You only get the politicans you vote for - think, then vote informal, it's ok to do it but is illegal.... oooh my.
Post a Comment