[Sukrit]

I have long argued that Australian libertarians should become more radical, and discard utilitarianism. This would help forge an identity distinct from conservativism.

At the last election, the LDP took the 30/30 negative income tax policy to the electorate. Yet, a radical libertarian would not support a negative income tax. Rather, he would favor the wholesale abolition of the income tax. The idea is to move beyond tinkering with the status quo, and expose the slavery and coercion underlying the system of redistributing income.

Radicals help stretch the boundaries of what's possible. As Milton Friedman was fond of pointing out, the Socialist Party of America managed to get much of its platform adopted during the Great Depression of the 1930s through the New Deal policies of Roosevelt. In the same way that socialists have inserted “social justice” into debates, the radical libertarian must inspire people to think in terms of “freedom”.

[Eric31]

IMO the non-agression axiom is not an absolute truth and is itself a utilitarian construction. So ultimately utilitarianism is underlying everything anyway.

[drwasho]

Totally agree Sukrit... both Rothbard and Ron Paul make excellent arguments against utilitarianism in libertarianism, particularly in Rothbard's 'For a new liberty' and Paul article on his impressions of 'Human Action'.

[johnhumphreys]

There is a confusion of concepts here. Utilitarian does not mean "moderate". Your complaint is that the LDP platform is moderate, whereas you would like it to be more radical. Unfortunately, if the LDP was more radical, it is unlikely it would ever have existed. I suggest it is better to have a moderate libertarian party rather than no libertarian party.

I certainly hope that someday Australia has both a moderate and a radical libertarian political party... and I look forward to somebody putting in the hard work. But until then, we shouldn't be dismissive of the LDP. Before 2001, the most libertarian party in Australia was the Liberal Party.

As for "utilitarian", that is a totally separate issue. First, it is possible to be a utilitarian anarchist (such as David Friedman). Second, I suggest that everybody does care about consequences. Ultimately, if freedom lead to death & destruction, few people would find it a nice idea. One of the reasons we like freedom is that we know it works (ie a consequentialist judgement).

In my opinion, the "deontological v consequentialist" dichotomy isn't a dichotomy at all. It is normal to care about both. The truth is that most people do (and should) care both about means and ends. With regards to means, freedom is better than coercion. With regards to ends, freedom generally leads to the best outcomes. So either way, freedom wins.

Arguing against utilitarian considerations is only going to alienate people who do care about outcomes, without convincing anybody. We should argue both "means" and "ends" depending on who is the audience.

[Rob Landis]

Originally Posted by johnhumphreys

Arguing against utilitarian considerations is only going to alienate people who do care about outcomes.

I'd say Australians are overwhelmingly utilitarian in their thinking. Not many probably know what the word means, but they are generally focused on standards of living. We only have to convince these people of the superiority of the market in achieving high living standards.

There is however, a significant and growing group who seem to want to vote themselves into poverty. Greens Voters.

Originally Posted by johnhumphreys

We should argue both "means" and "ends" depending on who is the audience.

Any means neccesary if you ask me.

[Eric31]

Originally Posted by johnhumphreys

Your complaint is that the LDP platform is moderate, whereas you would like it to be more radical. Unfortunately, if the LDP was more radical, it is unlikely it would ever have existed. I suggest it is better to have a moderate libertarian party rather than no libertarian party.

Interviewer: So you want to get rid of the income tax. Would you replace it with a flat tax?

Ron Paul: Yes I would. In fact it would be so flat, it would be about 0%

The 30% LDP flat tax is a monstrosity. You shouldn't be giving lip service to the green frauds either. The front page of the site should say "we will abolish all green programs".

The negative income tax makes welfare too easy to get.

LDP should have a big list of things that can be immediately abolished. ABC, SBS, Department of Environment and Heritage, Department of Climate Change, Human RIghts Commission, all the various aboriginal agencies, ALL FOREIGN AID and on and on and on and on and on ...............

I mean ffs. At least say global warming is a fraud. Have some f-ing balls.

[Sukrit]

Utilitarian does not mean "moderate".

Yes it does, because utilitarians have no principled defence of liberty. That means they'd torture their own grandmother if "the benefits outweighed the costs". I recommend Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty for more on this point. Also see Benjamin Marks' Against Utilitarian Arguments for Capitalism.

Unfortunately, if the LDP was more radical, it is unlikely it would ever have existed. I suggest it is better to have a moderate libertarian party rather than no libertarian party.

A moderate libertarian party in theory, means no libertarian party in practice. I'm willing to bet that if the LDP gets a member in, that person will vote in a statist way on many ocassions in order to "compromise" and be "pragmatic". After all, watering down the LDP's policies even before being elected, and before anyone has placed any political pressure upon them really shows a tremendous lack of spine. Just imagine how much the LDP will sell out once they get a member in, and that person has to deal with the Liberals and Labor breathing down their neck!

As for "utilitarian", that is a totally separate issue. First, it is possible to be a utilitarian anarchist (such as David Friedman).

Yes, but does he hate the state? I think not.

Second, I suggest that everybody does care about consequences.

Yes, natural law people like Ron Paul, Rothbard care about consequences too. But utilitarians don't care about natural law. So it doesn't apply vice versa. That's the difference, and that's the reason why utiltarians can't be trusted.

Arguing against utilitarian considerations is only going to alienate people who do care about outcomes, without convincing anybody. We should argue both "means" and "ends" depending on who is the audience.

I'm arguing against utilitarianism as the dominant paradigm. I'm not saying we shouldn't use utilitarian arguments. I'm just saying they should be secondary. Ron Paul, for example, starts off by defending the non-aggression axiom, and then finishes by saying "look, it works in practice too". So he does both, and so do I. But utilitarians, as I stated above, tend to only argue consequences and only in narrow terms. They don't have the philosophical depth to even defend the principle of liberty properly - all they understand is economics, and that too the watered down free-market economics originating from the Chicago school.

[johnhumphreys]

Eric -- your complaint is that the LDP is a moderate libertarian party instead of a pure libertarian party. That is true. That is how it was designed. I would love to see both a moderate and a pure libertarian party in Australia, and I look forward to you guys creating the pure version. Until then, the moderate version is the best we have.

Sukrit -- you once again assert that utilitarians must be moderates. But there are utilitarian an-caps... so you're just plain wrong.

Regarding the LDP, you seem to be suggesting that it would be better to have no party rather than the LDP. I think that is short-sighted. The LDP helps to introduce people to broadly libertarian concepts, and I think that is a good thing. Many people discover libertarian thinking thanks to moderate writers such as Milton Friedman. Unless you want to keep libertarian ideas as a hidden secret, what is wrong with that?

You admit that you care about consequences, and unless you want the consequences to be "disutility" that seems to admit my point... that we are all utilitarians. You then suggest that utilitarians don't care about deontology, but that simply isn't true. I care about both. Does your argument really rest on the idea that I don't exist? Instead of creating a false dichotomy between "natural rights" and "utilitarians", we should admit that both matter and go forward from there.

[Sukrit]

John, you say I'm repeating the assertion that utilitarianism equals "moderate".

Well you're repeating the assertion that we HAVE a libertarian party in this country. Where is the proof of this? The LDP is not in any way, shape or form "libertarian". See their defense and Taiwan policies. These two policies aren't even "moderate" - they actively work against liberty. Also, we have no proof that their candidates are sufficiently honest or intelligent to vote in libertarian ways upon being elected. Their Treasurer David Leyonhjelm cannot even grasp the elementary fact that bombing innocent people is wrong.

There's no point spending thousands of dollars and hours of time just to sell a message that's marginally better than that of the two major parties (think of the opportunity cost!). If you're going to start a libertarian party, one should do it properly to achieve brand distinction.

David Friedman is a utilitarian an-cap, but not all utilitarian "libertarians" accept his analysis. Whereas if you're a natural law libertarian who accepts the NAP, it pretty much follows that you have to accept an an-cap society. Utilitarianism leaves room for doubt, and it leaves plenty of room for Milton Friedman style "libertarianism". However if the LDP was full of David Friedman an-caps then that'd obviously be an improvement and the movement might get somewhere.

[Sukrit]

Originally Posted by johnhumphreys

The LDP helps to introduce people to broadly libertarian concepts, and I think that is a good thing.

Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that the moderate strategy has been tried since time immemorial by the IPA, CIS, ALS, LDP and other such groups and has failed miserably (we have ever growing government, there is no general awareness that taxation is theft, that war is murder or that the military draft equals kidnapping).

On the other hand in America, in the Ron Paul campaign, we have clear evidence that the radical approach works better at mobilizing supporters. Ron Paul would've got about two supporters if he'd proposed a 30-30 tax plan. But he argued in favor of abolishing the income tax, thereby energizing young people and making principled arguments.

The socialist ëxtremists have been successful at getting their policies adopted precisely because they present a radical and clear message, rather than a wishy-washy one. Even Milton Friedman acknowledges their success rate.

Karl Marx's 10 planks are now implemented in policy by Australia. We have a central bank (5th plank) and progressive income taxation (2nd plank), just to name two. You just can't get that kind of success rate with the wussy - for lack of a better word - libertarianism you are arguing for.

You say you care about natural law, do you therefore accept that the non-aggression principle should form the basis of inter-personal relations? Do you then accept that an-cap society is the only one consistent with this belief? Then why do you only promote minarchism in your published work? Aren't you proving my argument that utilitarians tend to engage in double-think and water down their views for the sake of short-term influence? Natural law people, having a firm ethical foundation, are less likely to 'sell out' and that is borne out by the history of the libertarian movement. So I think I'm on safe ground arguing that utilitarianism tends to veer towards moderation.