Are classical liberals and libertarians the same?
A few years ago I tried to explain why I felt more comfortable with the label ‘classical liberal’ than ‘libertarian’. The Australian political identity survey can help see if the distinctions I was trying to make hold up.
One of my claims was that libertarians tend towards a rights-based view of politics. Consistent with this, 59% of the 184 libertarians in the survey supported either a constitutional bill of rights or a statutory charter of rights. By contrast, 52% of the 256 classical liberals preferred leaving the protection of individual freedoms to the democratic system, which among other things allows broader considerations to be taken into account. (Charts containing classical liberal and libertarian views compared, and further analysis can be found here.) However, a large minority of classical liberals want freedoms to be protected by the courts, and a large minority of libertarians preferred the democratic system.
Across most issues, there was a pattern of classical liberals and libertarians being on the same side of a broad debate but with libertarians taking the more radical stance. For example, while 40% of classical liberals chose the most radical option of cutting tax as a proportion of GDP to 20% or less, 57% of libertarians chose that option. While 46% of classical liberals thought that minimum wage laws should be repealed, 59% of libertarians took that view. While 50% of classical liberals would legalise marijuana entirely, 65% of libertarians would do so. As I said in 2006, ‘if libertarianism and classical liberalism are not identical twins they are at least first cousins, which is why classical liberals can end up appearing like “moderate” libertarians.’
As these numbers indicate, while general knowledge of the pro-freedom, pro-market ideologies of classical liberalism and libertarianism lets us predict what side of an issue most respondents will be on, for many issues significant numbers of respondents do not take their ideological logic to its most extreme conclusion. Many take a more ‘moderate’ view, and on some issues surprisingly large minorities take an opposing view.
For example, 38% of classical liberals and 27% of libertarians support a state or national curriculum. A government monopoly to indoctrinate young people sounds like an improbable conclusion from classical liberal or libertarian first principles. Yet even narrowing the sample to strong supporters only, still 25% of classical liberals and 17% of libertarians supported monopoly curriculum. Very large minorities of both groups also support compulsory voting.
While classical liberals and libertarians appear divided on a number of issues, these divisions can be as much within the groups as between. For example, there are no majority views on climate change. While the pure ‘denialist’ view is 10% or less in both groups, those who believe it is happening are divided between natural and human causes (with slightly more supporting the latter general consensus view). Similarly, none of the three options for responding (nothing, carbon trading, carbon tax) received majority support from either group.
ACCC review of company mergers causes debate in classical liberal and libertarian circles, and there were supporters of both the for and against the ACCC view in both groups. Though larger numbers in both groups favoured ACCC intervention where a merger would substantially lessen competition, it was a 39-percentage point margin for classical liberals but only a 2-percentage point margin for libertarians.
Though generally libertarians are radical classical liberals, on quite a few issues the responses of the two groups were near identical. They hold the same unfavourable views on benefits for families capable of self-reliance, the same favourable views on privatisation of government assets, nearly the same levels of support for the idea that government should fund but not deliver school education and health services, the same attitudes to abortion (legal in the first 24 weeks was the most popular option), both in almost equal proportions think that penalty rates should be decided by negotiation rather than by government, and their views on the effects of phasing out tariffs are the same.
Tthe survey provides no evidence of the religious influence sometimes claimed by critics on the left. 62% of classical liberals and 72% of libertarians say that they are either agnostics or atheists. Their pro-abortion views and overwhelming support for either improved legal recognition of gay relationships or marriage being a matter of private contract are consistent with this strong secular stance.
In my methodology post, I noted the low proportion of female respondents. I checked to see whether male and female responses differed. On most questions, males and females took the same side of the debate, but on a number of questions, female classical liberal respondents preferred different options to male respondents. These were unfair dismissal laws (females preferring application to larger companies rather than abolition), marijuana use (females preferring legalisation for personal use only), minimum wage laws (females preferring them, while recognising effects on employment) and compulsory voting (females in favour, males against). It’s hard to know whether these women were representative of classical liberal women more generally, but overall there is little reason to believe that more women would have substantially altered the results.
In general, the survey is consistent with the impressions I had of the differences between the two groups, though it did not ask questions on deeper philosophical points and could not measure intellectual style. Classical liberals and libertarians are on the same side of the political debates covered in this survey, with libertarians tending to be more radical. However, there are substantial differences of opinion within both groups, including sometimes large minorities holding views apparently inconsistent with their broader ideological commitments.
April 12th, 2009 20:47
When describing my political position to Americans I say “classical liberal, roughly what Americans call ‘libertarian’ “. I am uncomfortable with the libertarian label because the label seems to me to imply too narrow and too absolutist a view of politics and policy. The American use of ‘liberal’ meaning ‘politically cross-dressing social democrat’ creating the need to go into further and better particulars. (See my response to Jonah Goldberg’s responses to my review of his Liberal Fascism.) The responses you report broadly fit in with why I do not use the label ‘libertarian’.
April 12th, 2009 22:18
Michael – I’m uneasy with the term “libertarian” in America for the same reasons as you, but I find I can describe my position quite adequately there as just “free market liberal”. (Works in Europe, too.)
April 12th, 2009 23:02
Congrats on a worthwhile project Andrew, will look forward to looking at the results in more detail soon.
April 13th, 2009 00:45
The differences between classical liberal males and classical liberal females are interesting. Would love to hear your thoughts on causation Andrew.
I’d also like to see whether party identification has an effect on policy independent of liberal/libertarian identification. I suspect those who don’t identify with the Liberal Party would be more radical on abortion and a bill of rights independent of ideological labels, but would be interested to see if that’s the case.
April 13th, 2009 01:13
Your survey had zero questions on foreign policy, which means that it doesn’t provide any data on a most important question: are there in fact any libertarians or liberals in Australia at all?
All the leading thinkers of the freedom philosophy (none of whom have originated in Australia) agree that it is impossible to call yourself a liberal or libertarian unless you believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy and oppose draconian wartime measures at home. This single issue is a “litmus test”, so to speak. Prominent thinkers such Thomas Jefferson, Richard Cobden, Murray Rothbard (to name but a few) had strongly anti-war views. Yet how many so-called Australian liberals or libertarians would fit the bill in this regard? How many would “fit in” at the leading conferences among scholars in America or Britain, most of whom understand that the key tenet of liberalism is anti-war foreign policy views? I would suggest perhaps 10-20, at the most.
By American standards, it’s clear that very few people in Australia are in actual fact philosophically “liberal” or “libertarian”. In Australia, these two terms are (wrongly) equated with “free-market” economics.
It is my hypothesis that there is in fact no “libertarian” or “liberal” movement in Australia whatsoever. What we have instead is a “free-market” economists’ movement. Free-market economics is certainly welcome, however it’s a far cry from the strong and explicitly libertarian movement in America. It would have been nice to have had some data to back up my hypothesis, but unfortunately, your survey doesn’t probe the question.
April 13th, 2009 02:11
Most of the people who took the survey would be self-aware enough to classify their own political ideology, they don’t need you to tell them they are wrong because their understanding of libertarianism and liberalism is different from yours in regards to one issue.
That might have been an interesting area of research Andrew, whether single-issue nutters are more common among liberals or libertarians.
April 13th, 2009 06:17
Looking at the chart on political party support here are a few observations.
1. From the perspective of the National Party it is a really good thing that not all Australians share the libertarian / classical liberal worldview. The Greens don’t get a whole lot of support from this crowd but the Nationals get nothing.
2. The Liberal Democrats (LDP) have a marketing problem when it comes to Classical Liberals. In spite of a policy offering that avoides the relative radicalism of most libertarians, precisely because it wants the support of classical liberals, it does not appeal much to this latter group. It could be that there are LDP policies positions that classical liberals really hate (although none revealed by this survey) or it could be that Classical Liberals are more tribally loyal to traditional parties. Or perhaps they have just never heard of the LDP.
April 13th, 2009 07:04
[...] Liberals and the LDP Andrew Norton has started offering some results and analysis from his Australian Political Identity Survey. The prime objective of the survey was to distill [...]
April 13th, 2009 08:22
Sukrit – I agree fully that I should have had a foreign policy question. On the other hand, while I agree that wars cause domestic government to expand, I don’t agree with the rest of your comment. The practical result of your position in the 20th century would have been a somewhat smaller US state, but long-term totalitarian governments in Western Europe (and possibly eventually the UK), Japan, all of Korea, and who knows where else as either or both of Nazi Germany and Communist USSR had no major balancing force in global politics. You’ve heard all these arguments before, but I am prepared to wear a larger state to avoid these catastrophic results for human freedom.
Intellectual and political history is also littered with claims by various factions in intra-ideological wars that they have the one and only ‘true’ version of their philosophy. I am also sceptical of this. In reality, all the major ideologies – even supposedly universal ideologies like liberalism or socialism – are traditions that vary over time, between countries, and within themselves at any given time and place. So long as someone generally supports the key institutions of classical liberalism in contemporary debates I am prepared to call them a classical liberal, even if (as this survey reveals) they do not adopt every single position logically deduced from classical liberalism’s general beliefs.
April 13th, 2009 08:49
Andrew – two areas of questioning that you have flagged that might have been useful (and will hopefully be in any future survey) are:-
1. Firearms control.
2. Foreign Policy.
I’d suggest that support for a gold standard also defines (and divides) a lot of libertarians. I think it ought to be in any future survey.
April 13th, 2009 09:06
It could be that there are LDP policies positions that classical liberals really hate (although none revealed by this survey) or it could be that Classical Liberals are more tribally loyal to traditional parties. Or perhaps they have just never heard of the LDP.
Terje – Classical liberals want to appear moderate, balanced, articulate and sophisticated. That’s why they call themselves classical liberals instead of ‘moderate libertarian’ or ‘Liberal Party libertarian’. You can rest assured that if the LDP ever achieves enough success to appear on TV in a positive, progressive light, these people will link themselves to it in droves.
Sukrit – if the real test between a classical liberal and libertarian is their level of fanaticism and angriness then you are truly a libertarian!
April 13th, 2009 09:25
There is no religious bent because you were not measuring Conservatives but liberals and liberals of all stripes I might add.
The line between classical liberalism and libertarianism is so fine, it doesn’t bare distinction until a libertarianism subset branches off into anarchism or something else extreme.
I’ve stood by this for some time now, there are no liberals in the Liberal party, none that can affect any change whatsoever anyway. Most have either joined the LDP or recognised that the ALP pass more liberal laws than the LPA. The Liberal party is Conservative and so are those that proclaim to be liberals that stick with the party.
April 13th, 2009 09:28
No concerns then about Internet filtering then?
April 13th, 2009 09:42
As far as I know, no Australian liberal or libertarian is a slave-owner, friend of the French emperor, or Pat Buchanan supporter.
April 13th, 2009 10:22
[...] Norton is in the process of writing up his political identity survey. The results look very interesting so far. One result that has [...]
April 13th, 2009 10:35
Andrew – that’s a very rosy picture of the link between Big Government and war. A “somewhat smaller” state? That is not the conclusion of most people who have written entire books on the subject (in particular, I recommend Bruce Porter, Robert Higgs and Martin van Creveld). Both World Wars were ambiguous at best from the perspective of freedom. The net outcome of WWII was less freedom globally, as the libertarian John V. Denson has brilliantly shown. This is a complex historical subject involving inter-linked events in many different countries and your arguments do not differentiate between the “seen” and “unseen” effects of war.
Every major classical liberal thinker has recognized that war is the “key” to unlocking Big Government, and especially Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. I can also dig up several quotes by Milton and David Friedman to the same effect. So clearly, what I am saying is not anything particularly new or dogmatic. The people who disagree seem to think that they themselves are experts on what libertarianism is and is not, and fail to rationalize their views by citing some prominent libertarians that disagree with me. The foreign policy work put out by the three major libertarian think tanks in the US – Cato, Mises and Independent – supports my argument, as I well know, since I have spent the past 6 months reading this work very closely.
April 13th, 2009 10:50
So Sukrit, how would you handle foreign aggression?
April 13th, 2009 10:50
So to sum up, there should have been a foreign policy question. Almost every thinker who has spent time thinking deeply about war and peace in the top libertarian publications has come to the same conclusion. This suggests that there is a well established position, so anyone who deviates significantly from the well established position is ipso facto probably not libertarian/liberal. War and peace isn’t like immigration, intellectual property, or abortion, where there are many prominent libertarians offering arguments on both sides. The debate is lopsided in favour of the anti-war position, starting as far back as Thomas Jefferson and continuing to the present day. That suggests there is a “dogmatic” position on the issue, and I would not trust any Australian who has not written extensively on the topic to tell me otherwise.
April 13th, 2009 10:53
So Sukrit, how would you handle foreign aggression?
II
April 13th, 2009 11:06
Sukrit, perhaps you don’t understand my question. Consider the following quote.
Options include surrendering or fighting. If we were to adopt your views, there would be no Mises (or even Rothbard) to read today. Perhaps you could discuss your understanding more fully?
April 13th, 2009 11:17
Sukrit – Wars do increase government, and spectacularly so when the militarily successful invading state is a totalitarian one. Staid, social democratic ‘old Europe’ is a libertarian paradise compared to what it was in the early 1940s, and would continue to have been without US military action, aided by the other Anglo democracies.
I agree that going to war is an enormously difficult decision that is certain to have negative consequences even if military victory is achieved. But I also think that the universalist element of liberalism and libertarianism means that the interests of non-members of our own state cannot morally be reduced to zero, which is what happens under the isolationist view. Indeed, I could not subscribe to an ideology that did this.
Isolationalism is a particular strand of American thinking, but I did not think that it is more than an element of the global classical liberal/libertarian tradition.
April 13th, 2009 15:06
Liberalism has always wavered between a proprietarian (rights-based) and utilitarian (interest-based) social philosophy. The foundational liberals were divided between philosophers like Locke who favoured rights and economists like Bentham who thought rights were nonsense.
THere has always been a struggle in liberalism to determine which form should be prevalent. Let me have a crack at squaring the ideological circle.
Liberalism is the foundational philosophy of modernity. That is, liberalism is a philosophy of the legality of liberty. And legality is measured in stocks of rights to flows of value.
It is sold as a philosophy of acceptable individual autonomy. This is its proprietarian principle.
But it works as a philosophy of accountable institutional authority. This is its utilitarian practice.
As a public philosophy it is impossible to ignore accountability, both within and without the firm. That means measuring the flow of values. And that means utilitarianism.
The biggest problem with the rights-based view is that it is counter-evolutionary. The world changes always, everywhere, and rights must change with it. It does not pay to get too attached to a legal claim. What happens if “the deals off”?
The problem with rights is that they are rather self-centred and short-term. They dont always take into account the public interest which is long-run and big-picture.
Also, in the post-modern context, negative rights have turned into positive entitlements. I dont have a problem with entitlements, but I dont think they have the absolute status of rights.
April 13th, 2009 15:25
What about the social democrats? It’s a pity about the sheilahs. For some reason, smart chicks just don’t seem to be attracted to blogging, hence the over representation of the bovine 1970s boilersuit sapphists.
April 13th, 2009 15:29
To most people “liberatarian” means having cocaine snorted off your dick while you drive at 200 miles per hour, seat belt free, high on legal ecstasy you paid from your tax-free income. Issues such as school vouchers really do not come into it.
April 13th, 2009 15:31
Liberals respect traditional authority.
Libertarians adore fashionable autonomies.
The biggest difference bw liberal and libertarians is probably on drug legalisation.
Libertarians just love the idea of letting every one get stoned if they want to and can afford to.
Liberals remember that their philosophy depends on the assumption that everyone will act in a fair and reasonable manner, like traditional Englishman.
We have an example of how drug liberalisation works: California.
Anyone been to Venice Beach lately? All the old stoners shuffling about, talking to themselves or snatching at unidentifiable flying objects doing low-flying bombing runs past their noses.
Of if that doesnt grab you, try the Pakistan-Afghan border. Lots of people sampling free drugs their. Hows that working out?
April 13th, 2009 17:17
Jack,
You can not legislate common-sense or self control. Sooner or later, hopefully the sooner, a healthy dose of social Darwinism will come into play and sort out the problem for the responsible among us.
April 13th, 2009 17:46
I didn’t notice any of the academic or blogging neo-liberals here in Australia or elsewhere protesting about the label before most of the rest of the world finally woke up it its greedy idiocy. Funny about that, eh, wot?
April 13th, 2009 19:06
SL – If you click on the link in this comment of mine this morning you can see that I was criticising it as long ago as 2001.
April 13th, 2009 19:50
Jack,
I think drug legalisation should be accompanied by a) licensing of supply and b) licensing of users.
a) is achieved by safe production and strict dosage limits according to b). In the case of addictive drugs, also immediate consumption (which may make it necessary to have dispensaries close to/within clubs and festivals).
b) is achieved by education of users (on the dangers of drugs), who are then granted a dosage (similar to methadone). The dosage can be increased upon subsequent – more graphic, personal – education.
This will take much of the social rebellion and personal identity forming out of drugs, making it a purely sensory experience, almost* removing the chance that anyone will become a ’shuffling hippy’ from over-exposure.
Ironic perhaps that this solution to drug abuse is so reliant upon government intervention given libertarians love of the idea.
*some people with tendencies toward psychosis can be permanently affected by only a very few dosages, but this is an acceptable percentage I would say.
April 13th, 2009 21:03
# 29 invig April 13th, 2009 19:50
THis is an out-dated view of the drug problem. About 20 years out of date.
The drug problem is a cultural problem, not just a medical or criminal one, although it is that as well. And libertarianism would make it as bad as it could possibly be.
Cultural problems cause culture wars. And these are not just about moral values. They are about real estate values, the holiest of holies. They are about social-status.
Libertarians, or post-modern liberals as I prefer to call them, want sub-culturalism to provide a bit of excitement in their hum-drum lives. And they also want multiculturalism to that they can have some diversity to ostentatiously celebrate.
Drug subcultures. although fashion-driven, are a pain in the fisc with all the social costs of correction and medication. That bad enough. Multicultures that do not properly integrate will tend to form lower social strata. Thats worse.
Combine drug subcultures with gang multicultures and what do you get: gangsta ghettos.
The US has been there and done that 40 years ago. That explosive cultural mix was enough to transform liberal JFK America into corporal RMN America in the space of ten years. From Gregory Peck to Clint Eastwood.
You can see where this is heading. The drug cultural problem is going to do wonders for property values in a neighbourhood near you. “There goes the neighbourhood”, as the saying went.
I have been banging on with this theory for more than a decade. Its already happened to urban indigenes. I see that ethnic motorcycle gangs (mutliculturalism!) have now taken over Sydney’s amphetamine trade (subculturalism).
This sort of thing is music to the ears of Larvatus Prodeo folk who can then blame the whole mess on Nixon or Howard or some bogeyman. Or “lack of funding” or “cultural insensitivity” by the bogans. That is the mantra of “libertarians”.
Do you think Australians, with their worship of real estate, will wear this if it is amplified under post-modern liberal – libertarian guise?
Libertarianism, whether cultural or financial, destroys the moral foundation of liberalism.
April 13th, 2009 21:11
So you can bring up the aging hippies as a relevant argument but then when I use it, it is 20 years out of date?
My friend, your arguments are unclear, full of jargon, accusatory. I therefore suspect you are obfuscating.
Please try again: this time using clear logical statements of cause and effect.
April 13th, 2009 21:22
Jack Strocchi and John Greenfield need to learn the distinction between libertine and libertarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
April 13th, 2009 21:33
Nice work Jack! Where have you been hiding out lately?
The left critique of “neoliberalism” is a crock, typical examples are David McKnight (Beyond Left and Right) and Stephen Loosley in the Weekend Australian Review yesterday. Their arguments have been covered for yonks as Andrew pointed out but they don’t take any notice. So much for the benefits of keeping kids in school for 12 years and then sending them on for higher education. Maybe the Education Revolution and 100x faster Net connections will help.
April 13th, 2009 22:27
Actually, you probably are making sense, and I was too distracted to see it.
I’ll come back and have another shot at a later date – although it may be a few days…my beautiful girlie arrives tomorrow for a visit.
A drug free one mind you lol.
April 13th, 2009 23:16
Since most of these scores can be plugged into a stats package of some sort –
There are patterns discernible across these questions, but to what extent are these coherent world views and to what extent random prejudices in each category?
Could some measure be placed as to how respondents ‘lined up’. Did the same group provide the free responses and another cohesive group the statist responses?
A very good piece of work and it would seem worthy of replication and refinement – as the correspondence is very lively.
April 14th, 2009 07:24
Jack, I think you’re suffering drug paranoia (at least for marijuana where proper studies have been done). Most evidence shows that there are almost no cognitive effects once you are off it (excluding indirect ones from related risks caused by cancer, strokes and the the like, which are never measured — I image this is where most of the real cost is). In fact, most initial studies looking at previous moderate users (who had averaged a few thousand joints) never found any significant effects, and even ones looking at previous chronic users have only reported tiny effects.
.
On this note,
1) If you’re worried about the direct effect of drugs, the one with the most impact on society is of alcohol, but that’s already legal.
2) If you’re worried about indirect effects (like gangs), then surely decriminilization will reduce that, since the gangs will have to think of something else to make money from.
3) Blaming drug abuse on multiculturalism is a really strange thing to do — white Australians are some of the biggest users in the world. Even if it happens to be “ethnic” gangs selling the white kids their drugs (which seems unlikely — most drugs sales are no doubt from whites to whites), then surely most of the blame lies with white kids creating the demand (or are white kids too stupid to take any responsibility for themselves?).
4) Even blaming crime, gangs, etc. on multiculturalism is a strange thing to do. White Australians are some of the biggest crime producers in the OECD (feel free to look it up). The average immigrant creates less crime than the average Australia. Clearly then, multiculturalism must lead to less and not more overall crime in Australia.
April 14th, 2009 07:29
Marijuana might be a soft drug and not harmful, or it might not. Most studies show that long term use causes psychosis and respiratory ailments including cancer. Not good.
Even if marijuana is relatively harmless, do we need another generation of teenagers turned into pointlessly-giggling munchie-craving lard-assed couch potatoes?
April 14th, 2009 07:34
Regarding the drug sub-culture and ethnic multicultures, I have one word for you: Mafia.
Crime is a business where contract enforcement is costly. You cant go to the police when someone rips off your stash. Thats why criminals have “enforcers” with whom they take out “contracts”.
But its much easier to do business with members of the family. Afterall, if they are married to your sister then even if the deal goes sour the money stays in the family.
So the connection between criminal drug production and ethnic gangs is a no brainer.
On the criminal drug consumption side of the equation you get the problem of chronicly under-achieving minorities turning to drugs as a solace. Sort of opium of the under-class.
Does this not accord with your observation?
If not, you should get out more.
(I lived in NYC during the Crack Wars. Its where I lost my liberal illusions.)
April 14th, 2009 09:14
#36 conrad April 14th, 2009 07:24
Immigrants, including NESBs, are by and large a fairly law-abiding group, a fact I have never denied. This trend is largely due to AUS’s strict controls on immigration going back over the past century. It has nothing much to do with “multiculturalism”.
The average immigrant is typically selected for points accumulated on a skills and resources scoring list. A list which has little or no cultural “valency” one way or another. Just modern industrial pragmatism.
When NESB immigrants are selected for “cultural” reasons (family re-union or refugee) then their social pathology tends to rise dramatically. No names, no pack drill.
Although, contrary to conrads empirical claim, there have been some disturbing socio-pathological trends amongst some ethnic sub-classes. (As the immigration system gets rorted when the pressure to get more bums onto seats gets higher.) This AIC study of ethnic crime in VIC drew the following conclusion:
Of course, focusing on immigrants ignores the critical question of “where is all this heading”? That is why people like me get cranky about the NESB immigrants subject. Its not the hard-working, law-abiding parents – its their kids running wild.
And that is where the toxic currents within multiculturalism and subculturalism make confluence: in the first generation.
Here is where libertarianism comes into “play”. (Play being the operative word for such a self-indulgent philosophy.)
Libertarians believe in open borders and state indifference to alien cultural values. That is multiculturalism alright.
Libertarians also believe in life-style choice and drug liberalisation. That is subculturalism alright.
Put libertarian multiculturalism into the same boat as libertarian subculturalism and ten years later you go from JFK and Gregory Peck to RMN and Clint Eastwood.
Plus a mammoth increase in police surveillance and the penal correction state. Is that the way to get a free society?
Libertarianism has done more damage to the brand name of liberalism than any number of Marxists or radical fire-brands. Most decent people associate “libertarianism” with “doing your own thing” not caring about anybody else, just out for yourself.
I mean, cultural libertarianism leads to train-wreck lives of self-indulgence, like Courtney Love. And financial libertarianism leads to outbreaks of scam-of-the-century eg Bernie Madoff.
And libertarians do very little to disavow that image. Anyone remember the name of Ayn Rand’s core philosophical book?
Meanwhile there are the people who decide political leadership and public policy. I mean the great bulk of middle-classes out there in mortgage belt land, mostly (not totally) Cauc-Asian in race, “Christian” in religion and Constitutional in regent. They are the people who generally staff and manage the country. Play by the rules.
Although they are happy to take their hand-outs they still prefer to run their own lives independently. Strong urge to own their own home, educate kids in private schools, not be a burden to public health.
Do you think that they will buy into legalising dope when it leads to the ghettoisation of influxing ethnic groups? If you do then you have learned nothing about the history of the past two generations.
Multiply all that by a factor of ten when you take into account the amount of resources now ploughed into private home ownership and private education. All of which is risked when drug usage gets out of hand which it always tends to do.
The boring middle classes are the cultural foundation of freedom. That is why such people have a fairly surprisingly strong political sympathy with such boring control-freaks as Howard and Rudd. Because freedom, lived as self-government, is based on aboring control-freakish populace with like-minded role models in leadership.
April 14th, 2009 09:19
“Most studies show that long term use causes psychosis and respiratory ailments including cancer.”
.
No they don’t. The evidence for the first is mixed. In addition, even if the first happens to be true, it’s such a tiny effect compared to the likely size of the effect of the second it’s essentially irrelevant. Given the second is the same problem as with cigarettes, it doesn’t make sense to ban one and not the other.
.
“Even if marijuana is relatively harmless, do we need another generation of teenagers turned into pointlessly-giggling munchie-craving lard-assed couch potatoes”
.
Should we ban most television too?
.
“On the criminal drug consumption side of the equation you get the problem of chronicly under-achieving minorities turning to drugs as a solace. Sort of opium of the under-class. Does this not accord with your observation?”
.
Yes, that does accord with my observations (with alcohol being the number 1 drug) — I just don’t see how banning what amounts to widely available drugs solves that problem at all (perhaps it would work in Singapore, where you really can ban drugs). As far as I’m concerned, if usage goes up but all the related enforcement problem goes down, that’s not a bad trade off.
.
“So the connection between criminal drug production and ethnic gangs is a no brainer”
.
You keep on saying ethnic. But it also seems to me a no-brainer that most drug consumption and most drug sales are done by white kids. What’s ethnic about that? No doubt for some drugs importation is done initially by ethnic gangs, but it seems to me that even if this is the case, you are ascribing the problem entirely to the seller and not the user, even though you admit it’s a cultural problem (white kids liking drugs too much). That makes no sense to me. In any case, legalization would reduce the gang crime problem (of whatever ethnic persuasion), not increase it, since legalization would stop money being made from it.
.
Anyway, I think we’re getting way off topic here, suffice to say there is a big difference between the conservative and liberal positions on this!
April 14th, 2009 09:52
Sinclair – We’ve had the discussion before. I’m not interested in repeating myself, and neither are you I’m sure. Last time around, I set you some homework and told you to go forth and read. It doesn’t appear as if you’ve done that, so we’re stuck with the same inane questions about “fighting” or “surrendering”. Instead of wasting further time, can you point me to a book length defense of the libertarian case for warmongering? I want to see where you’re getting your views from. Remember it has to be written by a libertarian, because that’s the only way to find the correct ideological position. You can’t cite a conservative on what libertarians do and do not believe, you have to go straight to the libertarian source.
April 14th, 2009 09:53
Andrew – First, your usage of the term “isolationism” indicates you don’t really understand what libertarianism is about. Since 1776, American libertarianism has been about non-interventionism, not isolationism. Second, “universalism” as a justification for interventionism is something you appear to have made up on the spot. Is there a book-length defense of the pro-war libertarian case you can point me towards? Remember, it has to be written by a self-identified libertarian/liberal.
April 14th, 2009 10:13
Sukrit – this book, I think, might meet your criteria. I draw your attention to the second last line on page 832.
The emphasis is on “to defeat the aggressors”. Notice that in von Mises’ own life. He tried to flee the aggressors by first moving to Switzerland, he then had to flee to the US. It was only in the US, in the safety of the great evil empire etc. etc., that he was safe. Because they fought back and won. The next line is
On that point we all agree. But you are wrong if you think that unilateral pacifism is the way to to achieve that end.
So we have the words and deeds of von Mises stacked up against you.
April 14th, 2009 10:14
ake should be ‘make’
April 14th, 2009 10:30
#40 conrad April 14th, 2009 09:19
You are looking at the problem in a narrow way, as a time slice rather than time series. Small focus rather than big picture.
Ethnicity can become a problem because it is a variable with generational potential. It also becomes a hot button issue when social pathologies lead to social stratification.
If you put (largely minority) ethnic multicultures together with (largely majority) sociopathic subcultures you get ethnic drug gangs and ethnic drug ghettos. That is, ethnic drug gangs distributing drugs to white kids, getting high on their own supply and turning their neighbourhoods into ghettos.
This problem can become endemic with some ethnic groups who struggle to follow the school-college-career path. Educational under-achievement combines with degradational drug abuse leading to under-class stratification, ethnic enclaves and ghettos. Then follows race-riots, possibly terrorism and extreme cases, seperatism.
Its true that most drug consumption is done by “white kids”. I lived in Stkilda and Kings Cross for nearly 20 years. (when not in SF or NYC.) I know of what I speak.
Its not good when “white kids” turn to drugs. It wastes their expensive education. But Majority sub-cultures tend to be fashion-driven and die out every five-ten years. Eventually you grow up and grow out of these things. Get older, fatter and more bourgeois.
But minority multicultures are much more intractable because they are based on kinship and family lineage. To conserve ethnic identity one must be endogamous and tradition-bound.
Libertarians endorse minority multicultualism which generates ethnic gangstaism.
Libertarians are prepared to allow all sorts of majority subculturalism which engenders drug addiction.
So their philosophy provides ideological cover for a potential sociological disaster.
You can, if you want, maintain that “it cant happen here”. Like Cabramatta and Lakemba and Footscray and Springvale are just figments of our imagination.
It took us about 20 years to go from Grassby-Keating to Hanson-Howard. About twice as long as the US because AUS was always stricter than the US. Our state governments rapidly took up the “law and order” cry from shock jocks and tabloids.
The US has already been there and done that. They got the situation that almost destroyed civic life in the US bw 1965-95. The Second American Civil War killed almost 300,000 people over and above the secular trend in homicides.
This was not a good result for colored people, never mind aging white hippies shuffling along Venice Beach promenade.
In short, you get the Culture War. Way to go for a brighter, happier future.
April 14th, 2009 10:31
Sinclair, maybe it’s because you’re an economist not a historian, but when Mises was talking about defeating “aggressors” he actually meant defeating aggressors. Yet in many conflicts of the 20th century, the US was the major aggressor. They even provoked the attack on Pearl Harbour during WWII (read John V. Denson’s book)! So how is that inconsistent with what I’m saying?
In any case, that’s not a book-length defense of pro-war libertarianism, it’s merely a chapter in one of Mises’ books. Because Mises also makes a variety of statements favourable to my argument here. It’s true Mises does make some statements that most American libertarians today would shy away from, however if you read his Omnipotent Government, you will find that he understands precisely the link between warfare and Big Government at home.
So another reference please. I can provide you dozens of book-length defenses of anti-war libertarianism, so it’s only reasonable you give me at least one pro-war reference.
April 14th, 2009 10:38
Who said this?
Answer.
April 14th, 2009 10:43
Sukrit – you’re grasping at straws. You are advocating a position at variance with von Mises; yet claiming to be the true libertarian? Then you say ‘oh, no that is a chapter not a book.’ Then you say you’re an economist not an historian? Hmm, if you want to debate with the adult you’re going to have to move beyond the undergraduate offerings.
We all know the arguments against war and we all agree with them. What we don’t agree with is your pacifism being consistent with libertarianism.
April 14th, 2009 10:50
So basically, classical liberals are just “moderate libertarians”.
I note that you didn’t allow people to call themselves both. That is like giving people an option for “male” or being a “man” and then assuming the difference matters.
I also note your suggestion about deontology v utilitarian reasons for belief is quite unlikely. John Locke took a “rights-based” approach, and presumably you’d call him a “liberal”. Friedman and Hayek both took utilitarian approaches and yet admitted to being “libertarian”. The distinction is purely cosmetic.
In the Australian context, if you insist that libertarians are rights-based then you lose quite a few prominent australian libertarians. The two biggest libertarian blogs (catallaxy & ALS) would not be “libertarian” under that definition.
I would suggest a better use of words in this context is to understand “libertarian” as being an umbrella term that includes all “small-government people”, which is split between “moderates”, “minarchists” and “anarchists”. The fact that you aren’t an anarchist does NOT mean that you are not a libertarian.
April 14th, 2009 10:58
John, what you complaining about? Classical liberals are almost communists and you’re a war-monger.
April 14th, 2009 11:57
Sinclair, I’m not a pacifist, as you would have known if you had
read anything about foreign policy from Cato, Independent or Mises. So Mises’ quote doesn’t apply to me. It applies to pacifists, of which I am not one.
I’m asking you to demonstrate that you have some SOURCES for your allegedly libertarian views. You are not the authority on what libertarianism is and is not. You need sources to back your arguments up.
Allow me to demonstrate. You can find on the this website dozens of book-length defenses of anti-war libertarianism, written by libertarians. Please reciprocate, so I know you’re not making things up on the fly.
Mises’ chapter in Human Action is just that – a brief chapter. And he agrees with me anyway. You can email someone who has spent their life studying Mises, like Robert Higgs or Walter Block, to confirm this. CC me into the email if you do.
April 14th, 2009 12:31
The difference bw liberals and libertarians is that liberals had a conservative theory of human nature linked to a working theory of modern social structure. Whereas libertarians have no theory of human nature and a worthless theory of post-modern social structure.
Classical liberals are what I call “modernist liberals”, who base their social model on a theory of human nature that at least allows for heritable characteristics. Thus the framers of the US constitution assumed the worst about human nature and power, hence checks and balances.
They also generally recognised that religion helped to keep the lower orders in check. This is an outrageously snobbish and sectarian attitude which unfortunately has proven to be true. Just check out how British youth are now without religion to mind their manners. (Ladettes and Lads.)
Libertarians are “post-modernist liberals”, following post-sixties fashions in social theory. They have no real theory of human nature beyond the Blank Slate of homo economicus. (Thats slowly changing now with Psychological Economics.)
Left-libertarians (Abby Hoffman on drug liberalisation) thought that there would be no problem deregulating drug usage amongst indigenes and urban NESBs. Every one assumed that rational self-interest would prevent a drug epidemic. How did that work out?
And Right-libertarians (Black-Scholes on derivative trading) assumed that market self-regulating function would control asset-pricing. Everyone assumed that rational self-interest would prevent a bubble. How did that work out?
But libertarians saved the best till last when they combined Right- and Left-libertarian social policies. Combining financial liberalisation (abolishing regulations on securitisation) with cultural liberalisation (abolishing red-lining of neighborhoods). That gave us the “debtquity and diversity” recession.
Wall Street got caught napping when sub-prime loans started to foreclose at a phenomenal rate. Hey that wasnt supposed to happen according to our nice smooth Gaussian functions.
Apparently not all loans are equal.
April 14th, 2009 12:39
Sukrit – if you knew anything about libertarianism you’d know that there are no pro-war libertarians, let alone books on the subject. We are discussing your argument that the defining criteria for libertarianism is being anti-war in all shapes and sizes. We want to know how to respond to foreign aggressors in your viewpoint. We have good authority (von Mises) that war to defeat aggressors is consistent with libertarianism. What do you have to support your pacificism? (I’ve been reading Mises and Hayek since before you were born, so I’m not going to email anyone.)
April 14th, 2009 13:08
Sinc – Your starting assumption appears to be that “Sukrit is a pacifist”. That was the wrong assumption. Therefore, since the initial assumption was wrong, the Mises quotes you have provided don’t apply to me. I fully agree that retaliation in self-defense is permissible for a country. The point is, that even if you apply this criteria of self-defense, very few wars in history have been justified. The Iraq war certainly wasn’t about self-defense. Whose territory was threatened? Not ours, not the Brits, not the Americans.
.
Now, back to the main point. War is the defining issue for libertarians, in the sense that it separates those who are libertarian from those who aren’t. I have sources for this claim. Read this article by Robert Higgs. Then listen to this speech by Walter Block. Then read “War, Peace and the State” by Murray Rothbard. This is just for starters. Now, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to disagree that the principles of libertarianism don’t lead the conclusion of non-intervention in foreign affairs. But then you should write an article about it, disputing the well-established consensus among libertarians, and see if others agree with you (unlikely, but possible). Maybe something for the Journal of Libertarian Studies?
.
Finally, let the record show that Professor Sinclair Davidson was unable to provide me with a single reference disputing the well established consensus among libertarians that “War is the health of the State”, and that non-intervention (not pacifism) in foreign affairs is the logical conclusion of libertarian principles.
April 14th, 2009 13:15
And for the record, I don’t think John Humphreys is a warmonger. He understands that war brings heavy, often hidden, costs.
April 14th, 2009 13:19
LoL. Sukrit, you’re far too serious.
April 14th, 2009 13:21
Sukrit, I think you’re taking a page from the Tim Lambert school of blogging. I have provided references to Mises who supports military action against aggressors and explicitly rejects pacifism – an ideology that you claim to be the linchpin of libertarianism.
April 14th, 2009 13:23
I take mass murder by government seriously, Sinclair. Naturally, I have a lot more humour offline.
But everyone needs motivation for their work, and i find much inspiration in ensuring people don’t spread a version of libertarianism that is totally at odds with the evidence.
April 14th, 2009 13:24
How many times do I have to repeat that I’m not a pacifist? Have you even read the Wikipedia article about non-intervention? Take that as your starting point.
April 14th, 2009 13:28
just who is the Australian govt mass murdering Sukrit?
Foreign policy is a 50th order issue. Our very modest deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq did not substantially blow out the size of government in Australia like it did in the US. There are far more important drivers of government in Australia. The Ruddster has been on a bad policy roll lately and you spend your time being the poor, poor, poor man’s Noam Chomsky. Perhaps consider moving to the US if you want your monomania to be more relevant.
April 14th, 2009 13:40
The American dropped two atomic bombs that historians have shown were totally unnecessary to defeat Japan. The Australians lost 60,000 during WWI, a war that had nothing to do with Australian national security but was only fought because of the British empire. The Brits have a long colonial past that reeks of mass murder and abuse.
.
WWI and II vastly expanded the scope of government in Australia, in case you didn’t notice Jason. My honours thesis next year is on this topic, but I don’t expect you’ll read it or pay attention.
April 14th, 2009 13:53
For a really vivid text-book example of what post-modernist liberailsm (libertarianism) can do when unleashed on an unsuspecting population I give you post-Soviet Russia. Here we have the full monty of libertarianism:
- financial libertarianism: deregulation and privatisation, low flat taxes, banks running amok, tax evasion through off shore accounts,
- cultural libertarianism: porn, drugs gangs, full-on abortion on demand, disrespect towards elderly, irreligion, drunkeness, prostitution
Absolutely one can blame much of the dissipation of social capital on Bolshevism’s attacks on the upper, middle and peasant classes and their respective institutions. But to Bolshevism’s knavery we can add po-mo liberalisms follies.
And this willy-nilly liberalism is having the following effect on Russia, a foundational nation of the Occident: auto-genocide. Nicholas Eberstadt traces the sl-mo catastrophe:
Also the katastroika is decimating the population of young people who are supposed to be the future of Russia, you know virile and fertile. Instead they are self-destructing on alcohol abuse and STDs:
The end-game is in sight and it is appalling. Russsia as a country with Third World living standards atop a First World military arsenal:
The historic nation of Russia is disappearing before our very eyes and no one gives a damn. How ho-hum nothing to see here, just routine social process, move along folks.
In fact, I am sure I detect some grim satisfaction amongst commentators who have bothered to notice Russia’s plunge into the abyss.
Muggeridge published his “Great Liberal Death Wish” article a generation ago. He had the First World nations, in their infatuation with the Soviet experiment. Its probable that Muggeridge would not be surprised that Russia looks like being the first nation of modernity to succumb to liberalism’s self-destructive urge.
April 14th, 2009 14:25
Jack,
.
you are still suffering ethnic paranoia. Most states in the world have more than one ethic group, including some of the worst and the best places to live. Some places get great benefits from having multiple ethnic groups (e.g., Australia, everywhere the Greeks went after the fall of Constantinople) and sometimes it leads to a mess (e.g., modern day Sri Lanka). In addition, having one ethnic group doesn’t mean you will have either prosperity or that people won’t think of some way to fight amongst themselves. Just look at Thailand now.
.
I also find your examples biased (and the Russian one, just silly). Some of the best places to live in the world have the most libertarian policies, like the Netherlands and the US (despite the people themselves being relatively conservative), and other things, which you claim are libertarian, such as not respecting your elders (!), have little to do with it.
April 14th, 2009 14:53
Conrad, reinforcing your point, the problem in Sir Lanka was not the racial mix but affirmative action (racist and discriminatory in the worst sense). A typical pattern as noted by Sowell http://www.the-rathouse.com/revaffirm.html
Jack, the full monte of classical liberalism includes protection of property rights, the rule of law and a decent moral framework, so don’t blame that kind of liberalism for the debacle in the USSR.
April 14th, 2009 15:22
# 63 conrad April 14th, 2009 14:25
Conrad,
Please try and go through the motions of rational debate before doing hatchet-jobs on flimsy strawmen. Your wild swings are giving the air a good thrashing but are irrelevant to substantive issues.
You seem to be confusing “ethnicity” with what I am concerned with, which is a toxic combinations in cultural values. One can be an Italian ethnic and be a filthy rich gun-toting mafiosi in a tight-knit Napolitan clan or a Classics professor in Florence. Do you see the difference?
I am not “suffering ethnic paranoia”. If anything I am a big fan of high-IQ ethnic immigration esp Chinese and Indians. Someone will have to do the hard yards in sci-tech to keep this middle-aging baby boomer whitey off the Zimmer frames.
Although I will go along with William Burroughs and acknowledge that “a paranoid man is one in full possession of the facts”. I am simply pointing out inconvenient cultural facts that spoil the libertarian fairy tale.
I have not argued that AUS should be a mono-ethnic state. (I said above that NESB immigrants are “hard-working and law-abiding”)
I have not denied that AUS has derived benefits from participating in diverse ethnic cultures. (eg As a part-Italian I can hardly be against Mediterranean restaurants.)
I have not denied that some multi-ethnic states are “the best places to live”. Switzerland for example. Although it is noticeable that multi-ethnic jurisdictions with the most cultural distance between ethnicities tend to have the most, shall we say,…interesting times.
What I have said is that in Anglomorphic jurisdictions over the past generation the libertarian push has unleashed “toxic currents within multiculturalism and subculturalism…confluenc[ing]…in the first generation”.
You gloss over this point because it is the gorilla in the living room of libertarianism. See the history of urban decay and unruliness in the USA 1965-95 and likewise in AUS over comparable periods. The whole process obviously caused enormous political angst amongst the white middle class eg Wallace-Nixon in the USA and Hanson-Howard in AUS.
The cultural crisis was alleviated over the past decade or so, once there was a roll-back of libertarianism by Right-wing politicians ie in the US, three strikes you are out, ending welfare as we know it, the prison building boom, pervasive CCTV. In AUS, mutual obligation, successes in the war on drugs, law and order state govts. etc
And one can only imagine how much worse this back-lash would be if a replay of libertarianism was offered, only this time upping the ante with massive accumulations of residential and intellectual capital at stake. Already there are major signs of “white flight” in NSW and VIC.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to learn from this. Instead of mindlessly parotting the liberal mantras one picked up in ones under-graduate days right through to one’s under-taking day.
conrad says:
The financial restructuring of Russia under Yeltsin was universally recognized as an experiment in libertarian economic policy. So you are blatantly false on that score.
Whether the cultural restructuring of Russia can be described as libertarian is perhaps more contentious. It certainly looks like a replay of the anomie that occurs when cultural inhibitions are relaxed, eg San Francisco and remote indigenous communities.
Free access to grog, porn and a collapse of generational control over sexual interactions. Leading to substance abuse and STD plagues. A Darwinian auto-destruct.
Also your citation of the Netherlands as an example of happy-clappy, arty-farty, touch-feely libertarianism has a kind of faded, sepia look about it. The Dutch have had their experiment and it failed. Here is WaPo covering the change of heart by the Dutch. Its been going on since the early noughties as its governing parties swung to the Cultural Right:
The rise of the Cultural Right has been underway in the EU for most of the noughties. But it appears to have passed under the radar screen of head-in-the-clouds libertarians like conrad.
None of these Cultural Right wing governments are proposing to liberalise anything. Quite the opposite.
You libertarians had your chance. And you blew it.
April 14th, 2009 19:32
[...] Filed under: Australia, Politics — Sukrit Sabhlok @ 8:32 pm Sadly, the answer is no, as this thread at Andrew Norton’s blog makes [...]
April 14th, 2009 20:55
Jack, I think that most of the racial and social tension that you have identified is either caused by (a) social welfare-related policies that attracted people from diverse cultures to share the welfare benefits of the host nation [to reap where they had not sown] or (b) government intervention of various kinds that is perceived to favour particular races, genders or subgroups of various kinds.
The left-right spectrum as popularly used simply obscures or makes invisible the position of classical liberalism.
April 14th, 2009 21:35
We have two social conflicts running in parallel.
– Class War, fought on largely economic grounds:
Old Left (poor, workers)
v
New Right (rich, capitalists) .
- Culture War, fought on largely ethnic grounds:
New Left (women, coloreds, gays, atheists)
v
Old Right (Caucasians, atraights, Christians, monarchists)
Its possible to run the Class War and preserve a semblance of social peace eg fifties
Its possible to run the Culture War and preserve a semblance of social peace eg nineties
But when you try and run a Class War and Culture War at the same time it gets pretty dicey eg Germany in the thirties and France in the sixties.
Thats when government become overloaded and you get some sort of backlash. The popularity of Howard is largely a function of backlash against an excessive entitlement culture.
April 16th, 2009 00:28
Oh god Andrew. What have you done? This place reads like Catallaxy. I don’t think I’ll bother weighing in on either of the two main debates and instead address the topic.
As for the difference between the libertarians and liberals I think Mick Sutcliffe got it spot on:
“Classical liberals want to appear moderate, balanced, articulate and sophisticated. That’s why they call themselves classical liberals instead of ‘moderate libertarian’ or ‘Liberal Party libertarian’.”
To me the difference is mostly one of image. People identify as “classical liberal” if they want to be seen as reformist, moderate and reasoned. People identify as “libertarian” if they want to be seen as revolutionary, radical and on the moral high ground. Most people aren’t entirely at either extreme- there is a trade off. I struggle between defining myself as libertarian or classical liberal simply because I want to be seen as a reasoned radical.
I think the biggest criticism of classical liberals if that they compromise too much.
I think the biggest criticism of libertarians is that they don’t compromise enough.
The party affiliation, in my opinion, is one of the most important questions here. As Terje asks over at ALS, though, is the party affiliation distinction based on policy (gun policy springs to mind as a potential difference), willingness to compromise or is it purely an image thing?
I think another important question would go something like “on the whole would you say the Howard government improved things in Australia, or made them worse?”
I think levels of optimism about the current state of the country might come into play here, too. I’d wager that classical liberals are by and large happy/ content with the current state of the country but hope for more liberalisation. Whereas libertarians are probably far less content and want to move countries/ change the government.
April 16th, 2009 07:05
‘People identify as “classical liberal” if they want to be seen as reformist, moderate and reasoned. ‘
Shem, I don’t just want to ‘be seen as’ reformist and reasoned, I want to be reformist and reasoned. I want to be in real policy debates, and offer ideas that are carefully thought through to achieve the intended goals. I will compromise to achieve goals – democratic politics is about better and worse, not meeting ideal outcomes.
April 16th, 2009 17:06
Part of me agrees. But part of me thinks that civil unions, or even gay marriage are cop outs when the government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage.
Part of me would be happy with gradual deregulation of schools and part of me can’t stand to see another pass by with the current lack of school autonomy.
Part of me understands that people want more money from the government and part of me despises every new middle-class welfare measure introduced by government.
I can see merit in both approaches. But at the end of the day I think the compromise offered by the Liberal Party is too much for me, or at least it was under Howard. I can’t dilute my values that much. I don’t know if that makes me a libertarian or a classical liberal. But given a choice between worse and even worse I’d rather choose neither and find another way.
Think tanks usually do a good job, because even their reformist policy initiatives are moving in the right direction. But too often the major parties are moving AWAY from liberty rather than towards it. I don’t mind if government only ever moves slowly and incrementally towards freedom, but it has to be at least facing in the right direction!
April 19th, 2009 20:08
Well the girlie has left and I have time to read Jack’s post (No. 30).
But I don’t want to. It is dumb and silly.
However, I will posit this article from the Age as evidence we should allowed medicalised dosage of drugs.
Bye Jack, I don’t think I will bother reading any more of your thoughts.