Is it possible to have a democratic system that allows people to escape this “tyranny”?

In principle, yes. Can such a system be made stable? perhaps.

So the pressure group idea is a far more practical way for them to exert influence. Highly unpopular views can only flourish in private and secret. This strategy came pretty close to winning the last election, where an internal pressure group within the Nats almost got into power, one that would have been 100 times more palatable to Libz than a Labour led government.

Unpopular ideas are not always wrong – they could just be ahead of their time. But I don’t think Libertarianism is in this boat. It’s a very old idea, and has been tried many times. It’s probably as old as government itself, since it is just a reaction against government. However you want to sex it up, small government tends towards anarchy, then towards small concentrations of power growing into the vacuum.

The collapse of the West Roman Empire was a time of perfect Libertarianism for most of Europe, and of course it meant oppression for the majority of people. Not the organised systematic repression of the Romans, which was mostly peaceful, but rather the sort of world in which King Arthur is set, except without the lovely noble christian knights saving distressed damsels from knaves. It would have just been knaves, distressed damsels and untold serfs. The biggest, meanest knave with the most serfs would get all the damsels he wanted. That’s pretty much the Libertarian model for society, and it’s not ahead of it’s time, it’s well past it’s time. The serfs just don’t want it any more.

Owen repeated the same statement a few days later and he received a response which said: “There are strong liberals who are Christians or theists in one sense of the word or another. In 25 years in the libertarian movement I’ve met many Christians who are libertarians… My observation is that Christians from mainstream churches are just as likely to be libertarians as anyone else.” But he said that “people from ‘conservative churches’ tend less likely to be libertarian. The best one gets from them is selective liberty….”

I went through dozens of FNS exchanges on the topic and can’t find the diatribe Owen describes nor can I find emails trying to exclude Christians but repeatedly saying that liberalism/libertarianism must include them. And that hardly corresponds with Owen’s claim regarding “Jim’s strong distaste for any form of religious belief meant that any libertarian who happen to be a Christian was attacked…” for failing “to meet the test of atheism.” The old emails from the FSN discussion on that topic consistently show Jim arguing that Christians can be libertarians and that if liberalism is to succeed they must be made liberals and that atheism is not a prerequisite or necessary as Objectivists were claiming. That is opposite of what Owen is claiming. The discussions I have are long so I don’t want to post them but that is what they say.

James, I wasn’t refering to people on the dole, I was refering to the majority of people who vote National or Labour, they have their jobs, and contribute to society, but they also want that egalitarian safety net that the state provides, for them it’s as basic as fire insurance.

David suggests that a Libertarian state would have to be formed independently of existing states, I guess along the lines of new colonies with people of a like mind. This view is basically one of nurture over nature, I don’t dismiss it but, as peoples life stage changes, so do their atitudes, at certain stages people want more security, when having kids, when they get old. They instinctively expect the authorities of whatever society they live in to provide that security if that authority has the resources to do so.
So the authorities in turn seek wealth from the societies wealth producers.

The aim of Libertarianism would be to cut out the middleman (government), but for those people who are dependent, that means less security.

Historically in the west, as technology has allowed societies to become richer, societies have tended to increase the portion of their wealth that has flowed through the state with the aim of increasing egalitarianism. Another effect of this greater wealth is less strict moral codes, moral codes work to increase conformity in society and reduce the waste that results, when nonconformity occurs ie. Babies out of wedlock, crime, broken families, these things all result in a decrease in peoples ability to function and work efficiently and productively together; to rear the kids, get to work etc.

One solution to the above dilema would be to cut those who are dependent from the electoral role, this would result in more political power in the hands of those in society who produce, result: an immediate swing to the right.
But that’s probably not an option in a wealthy western society.

I don’t argue that, I argue it is people more than money.

““If you can say how this has been since Bernard Darnton has been leader….” Is that an admission that it was run the way Newguy describes before Darnton became leader? A previous party guru might take exception to the implication that under his control, which seems to still exist, that the party was run “as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone”. All libertyscott seems to be saying is that such attacks aren’t done now where Newguy says “Libertarianz have been run” not “are run”. It sounds as if both Newguy and libertyscott are saying the same thing.”

Well it was never a personality cult since I’ve been a member and I have been a member for over 7 years. There were significant personality clashes between Libz members and non-members a few years ago. I remember actively trying to figure out how to move on from that, and I believe the party has. Given that members of the party on both sides of the debate have been candidates at the past two elections, I think any claim of it being a personality cult is nonsense.

“Libertyscott says ACT was very quiet on individual freedom at the personal level “until quite recently”. By quite recently I assume he means over the last couple of years which is not quite as recent as he implies.”

Yes I agree, though ACT has moved from tough on all crime to being silent on drugs. Things have moved on, and I have been supportive of that – I think the best thing that could’ve happened to ACT is for conservative MPs to have been booted out – the two in there now are the best caucus the party has had.

“The Libz not only managed to chase away what few activists they had but most their voters”

Um well given ACT went from over 7% to 1.2% of the vote, I think Libz suffered from the same loss of minor party support that all minor parties lost exc the Maori Party. As Libz did not stand a list in 2002, the comparison can only be made with 1999 when circumstances were far more in the party’s favour, with Perigo as Leader, with a nationwide radio programme.

In summary, I think that unless ACT does a Libz-lite it has no future, because it cannot survive as a party of economic reform and social conservatism. It is moving in the right direction, but more needs to be done – it is essentially terrified of supporting capitalism. As Libz has stood in local body elections, it has partly done so to raise questions nobody else raises – when does ACT stand in council elections advocating shrinking local government?

There has been an unfortunate history regarding Libz for two reasons- 1. the Jim Peron/Libz split (which largely happened in Auckland but affected the whole party) which was acrimonious and sad, and which could have a book written about it, except there is no value in doing so.
2. Administrative/leadership collapse in 2002. The 2002 election was a farce.

Libz now has a great leader who undeniably has made an significant impact on the political landscape (Bernard Darnton), a competent President running the show and other intelligent, competent spokespeople. It is an open party with members who are also members of ACT and National, and has always been – I could list a few I know. I think that the approach has changed somewhat, and I would rather look forward than backward. National and ACT seem to be doing exactly the same.

While I can appreciate your point on the mouth foaming intolerance of certain libz leading lights,I would point out that Libertarianism is the ABSENCE of force from human relations…meaning that Libertarianism is what you have by default if human beings are left alone.Force has to be initiated and put upon people….you don’t have to “do” anything to bring about a Libertarian society except preform a negative non action which is simply…leave people alone.

A Libertarian society is already here…we just need to chip off the authoritarian crud that’s been allowed to build up over it.

…” people who see it more in philosophical terms, I might want and treasure more individual freedom and responsibility for me, but I recognise that such freedom and responsibility is actually a burden for many, they would rather live by rules layed down by a clearly defined authority, they are actually more free(secure, comfortable) without the freedom.”

But why do these people get to have their Nanny state at the expense of the rest of us? If they don’t want to exercise their personal responsibility then why should we give them handouts to live a lifestyle not too different from us? It is precisely the bleak and unpleasant consequences of their choices that these people need to experience to wake them up and kick start them into action.If these people want to “opt out” and drift along then lets leave them to it but not raise a finger to aid them in doing so…..that will change their attitude rather sharply I feel…

I find comparisions between NZ Christians and Bin Laden a little unrealistic.

In terms of NZ libertarians, I’ve concluded that they fall into one of three categories
a. Members of the conservative right who want to be a little bit radical eg. Coddington
b. Fanatics who feel that Libertarianism should be forced onto everyone, whether they want it or not,eg. the leadership of Libertarianz
c. people who see it more in philosophical terms, I might want and treasure more individual freedom and responsibility for me, but I recognise that such freedom and responsibility is actually a burden for many, they would rather live by rules layed down by a clearly defined authority, they are actually more free(secure, comfortable) without the freedom.

Any governing/social system Man devises will only work if it fits together with the instincts that evolution has given us. There has never been a Libertarian state, and I doubt that there ever can be for Humans.

Something to consider; how would one describe the form of government that existed in primative human tribes of a hundred or so people? Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, libertarianism, Democracy/dictatorship?

There have been a handful of books published by scholars who are Objectivist but this influence is hardly growing at the university level in any meaningful way and JARS is a movement publication not published by a university or academic publishing house.

“So hardly any of the major libertarian thinkers were Objectivists and Rand’s influence in libertarian circles is shrinking”

Many, such as Rothbard and Greenspan, were in her circle early on. Her influence – measured in books sold, is huge and far outweights any economist from the Austrian school (Hayek included). Objectivism is growing in influence, as academics are now publishing books (e.g. Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith) and journals (The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies) on issues other than her political philosophy. BTW, the liberarian maxim that the the initiation of
force is always wrong came from her too.

“And the priests of NZ Objectivism have attacked anyone opposing the war in Iraq”

This is true at times and is sad. I see no way how a libertarian could support the war in Iraq (how would they fund it? people would voluntarily support such a war???). http://www.ariwatch.com should help avoid misunderstandings of Objectivism.

I suspect that most Libertarian leaning people are pragmatic enough to vote for ACT, accepting that it is better than the alternatives.

ILV was making great strides in reaching “homeless” Libs frightened off by the nastiness of some members of Libz, articles were being printed in the papers,Jim was interviewed on radio about issues , Libertarian books were sold at National party functions for the first time…but for reasons we all know and don’t need to rake over it ain’t happening no more.

I take it that if David Irving was expressing his views on the holocaust or Osama Bin Laden was preaching the destruction of the West you would have nothing to say in response then Andrew…?

“Those who believe absurdities commit atrocities”

.I have no problem with religious people who keep to themselves,maybe try to share their faith but take “no thanks” as an answer and leave it there etc.The trouble is that a lot don’t and are trying to have the word of their “God” put into legislation which will impact on me and many others who don’t want a bar of it.The moment the “word of God” (who’s God?)is given the backing of the force of the State we are in big trouble and bloodshed is invertible.

And what’s wrong with a good debate and challenging ideas? That’s how we progress and develop.May I’m wrong…maybe they are…how are we to discover truth if we never question and allow ourself’s to be questioned in return?

Libertyscott asks “If you can say how this has been since Bernard Darnton has been leader….” Is that an admission that it was run the way Newguy describes before Darnton became leader? A previous party guru might take exception to the implication that under his control, which seems to still exist, that the party was run “as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone”. All libertyscott seems to be saying is that such attacks aren’t done now where Newguy says “Libertarianz have been run” not “are run”. It sounds as if both Newguy and libertyscott are saying the same thing.

Libertyscott says ACT was very quiet on individual freedom at the personal level “until quite recently”. By quite recently I assume he means over the last couple of years which is not quite as recent as he implies. Two points on that. One is that there was always strong support for personal freedom in ACT prior to the leadership change. Two is that the really big votes on social freedom are relatively recent and ACT’s caucus was strongly in support of those measures though not unanimously so.

He also inadvertently shows the problem with Libertarianz when he says an Objectivist Party “would be no different from a libertarian one.”. Yes it would. Objectivists take positions on everything, libertarians don’t. Libertarianism is a political philosophy while Objectivists pontificate on the morality of art and the “cultural issues” he talks about. Libertarianism does not. Most libertarians in the world are not Objectivists. In NZ most Libertarianz are because those who aren’t got pushed out by attacks by the local Objectivist priest. One clear indication of this difference is that Objectivists tend to love wars — almost any war it seems. And the priests of NZ Objectivism have attacked anyone opposing the war in Iraq. Yet that includes most all the major libertarian groups in the world while the various sects of Objectivism have all supported the war. Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism and that is widely known. But the Libz only link it to Objectivism and particularly to the particular version of Objectivism espoused by the real leader of the party. Certainly Rand influenced libertarianism but the major leaders of libertarian theory, except Rand, were not Objectivists — ever. And in modern times alone that would include Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, LeFevre, Lane, Patterson, Mencken, Nozick, Buchanan, etc. So hardly any of the major libertarian thinkers were Objectivists and Rand’s influence in libertarian circles is shrinking partly because she is dead but to a large extent due to the unpleasant way Objectivists treat libertarians especially those who are not Objectivists.