David Leyonhjelm on guns, alcohol, and Australia's libertarian party, the Liberty & Democracy Party.
David Leyonhjelm, a target shooter, is Treasurer and acting Secretary of the Liberty & Democracy Party in Australia.
The former veterinarian has stood against former-Prime Minister John Howard’s crazy anti-gun laws, and now runs his own company in Sydney, Australia.
Most recently, he answered my 9 “fair dinkum” questions. So, sit back, and enjoy!
* * *
Q1: Thanks for your time. Hunting, I’m told, is safer than table tennis, so why are hunters treated like “red necks” even if they’re Africans?
A: Red neck is a term of derision used by 'progressives' to refer to those they disagree with. Progressives disapprove of hunting.
Q2: America’s National Sporting Goods Association (NGSA) estimates that roughly 3 million women are hunting. Still, I rarely come across media representations of female hunters in the West.
Why, in your view, is there a blackout?
A: Much of the media is progressive. Hunting by females does not fit their paradigm.
Q3: According to one study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (“School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999”), about 12 percent of homicides in U.S. schools occurred in rural areas, with high hunting participation rates. Yet, 88 percent occurred in urban and suburban school districts (with lower hunting participation rates).
Why are country kids who grow up with guns less likely to shoot up schools than their city cousins?
A: I need to make the assumption that [the above reference] is an accurate statement as I haven't independently verified it.
Assuming it is true, I believe the explanation is that kids who grow up with guns tend to develop a sense of responsibility and are less likely to romanticize gun ownership.
By that I mean, they learn that they can be dangerous and need to be used with care, and that they are merely a tool in the pursuit of something else (e.g. rabbits, deer, or a higher score at the range).
The fantasy world shown in the movies remains a fantasy because it conflicts with reality. Kids who have no exposure to guns sometimes believe the fantasy is real and a few ultimately go on to live it out.
Q4: What can a small libertarian party offer Australia ’s pro-choice gun owners?
A: The LDP is a party of principle, not a single-issue party. Thus it supports gun ownership on principle, not simply because many of its members are shooters.
Also, Government intrusion, regulation and nanny-state impositions affect many more people than gun owners. By seeking common cause with others, united by the common desire for small government and greater individual liberty, we can make greater progress.
Q5: Are there any countries (or regions) they should now be looking up to for leadership? Explain.
A: I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details of gun laws in other countries to use them as a model. Switzerland is one possibility though.
Q6: There’s also a trend, here, in Australia’s elite circles, to ritually denounce “Big Alcohol.”
Again, what’s your take? One of the ABC’s rich “medical experts” is calling for higher taxes – and frankly, I’m livid.
A: Blaming the supplier of a product for the poor choices by consumers is patronizing in the extreme. We should each make our own choices, whether they are sensible or not, and accept the consequences.
Blaming the supplier of alcohol for the consequences is a cop out. It's the same as blaming a car manufacturer for driving too fast, a tobacco company for smoking excessively, McDonald's for eating too much or a poker machine manufacturer for losing too much money. In each case, individuals make their own choices and should bear the consequences.
Q7: Your advice to nervous Danish cartoonists?
A: Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom. It should be defended at all costs.
Q8: For the younger readers, at home, what’s the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?
A: Anarchists believe in no government. Libertarians accept the need for some government, although they argue a lot about how much is acceptable.
Q9: Finally, there are, to be fair, “pot heads” who fail to take responsibility for their actions. I’ve observed Christians feeding their malnourished kids.
So, how do the Liberty and Democracy Party members promote real responsibility? I mean, one doesn’t want to be known as an “adults-only libertarian.”
A: Individual liberty must be accompanied by responsibility. People should be free to make bad choices, such as taking drugs, but they must accept responsibility for the consequences. In particular, there should be no coercion of others. It is therefore not acceptable to neglect dependents.
The LDP would promote responsibility via the welfare system and by abolishing the minimum wage. Thus even “pot heads” would be employable somewhere and the welfare system would offer an incentive to get a job and earn more.
There would nonetheless be some families in which children would still be vulnerable. Government assistance to help protect them is acceptable to the LDP, but preferably distributed by committed charities rather than government bureaucracies.
Ben-Peter: Thank you.
pizzatrays@yahoo.com
http://pizzatraysandbeerbottles.blogspot.com
Read more articles by Ben-Peter Terpstra
