The David Leyonhjelm–Sarah Hanson-Young brouhaha rolls on, with Senator Hanson-Young having issued a demand for an apology and financial compensation, as well as a deadline ahead of a potential libel action, and Leyonhjelm so far refusing to offer an apology. So far.
Since the Sky News appearance that prompted Hanson-Young’s legal demand, Leyonhjelm’s defenders have melted away. That is aside from a typically whacky item from former Leyonhjelm staffer, Helen Dale/Darville/Demidenko in the Oz, which suggests that women Green senators had started it by “going low”. “Going low” apparently involves making arguments about the nature of male violence against women, which is apparently equal to Leyonhjelm making allegations about Hanson-Young’s personal life.
What has been little remarked on is the fact that this is another chapter in what appears to be David Leyonhjelm’s central purpose: to discredit libertarianism as a real political philosophy, and confirm the suspicions of many — that libertarianism is simply an ideology into which a few tightly wound, psychologically isolated white men pour their frustrations and project them onto a changing world.
[Don’t mistake Leyonhjelm’s hate for ideology]
Leyonhjelm was gifted a Senate seat by the AEC waving through his party’s name — Liberal Democrats — and by a lucky No.1 ballot draw. He had the opportunity to use that to build a movement, instead he took the chance to take his neuroses for a walk. Whether it was having a meltdown when The Chaser team created some personalised Wicked Campers after he had defended the company; noting that there wouldn’t be many Western Sydney Wanderers fans at the funeral of Rebecca Wilson (age 54), who’d criticised the team’s fans; or wondering if the driver in the Bourke Street drive-through (six dead) had been using a “semi-automatic assault car”.
These and other delights undoubtedly gain Leyonhjelm a degree of right-wing anti-politics support, which may help him stay in the Senate, but a movement it ain’t. Many of Leyonhjelm’s newfound fans will be One Nation-style statists longing for tariffs, the revival of the Grain Elevators Board, and more cops (whom Leyonhjelm thinks, if wounded, should be left to bleed to death).
Anyone who might have been attracted to libertarianism as a philosophy of human freedom has long since been repelled by this hypocritical, tightly-wound, misanthrope as the representative of the movement. More power to your arm, David — or your hand perhaps — and we wish you well in your current choice: a grovelling apology to Senator Hanson-Young, or a draining libel defence with a possible malice loading (on a matter for which Sky News has already issued a grovelling apology).
Nothing the left could do to discredit libertarianism could compare to what David Leyonhjelm does everyday, simply by being ambulant and responsive. We’ll watch how this plays out with interest, and with popcorn.
Lyinghelm, the winner of the “head most shaped like a d**k” award, 3 years running (an award previously held by Campbell NoCanDo Newman), is a typical libertarian hypocrite…..oops, excuse the tautology.
Screams about free speech, until someone insults him. Screams about the “evils of big government” whilst happily profiting from it.
Sooner this loser sinks into complete obscurity, the better.
“that libertarianism is simply an ideology into which a few tightly wound, psychologically isolated white men pour their frustrations and project them onto a changing world”
I guess the members of the Black Libertarians group on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/BlackLibertarians) need to be told to leave this Libertarian nonsense to the white folks, Guy?
Nice try at avoiding the “angry white male” cliche though.
I think you’re correct that Senator Leyonhjelm probably hasn’t converted any rusted on Greens or Labor supporters to the cause. Looking through the comment sections of various newspapers over the past weeks or so, my read is that there are just as many respondents supporting his stance as opposing it.
I don’t agree with many of Leyonhjelm’s policies, and I think he could be a little more eloquent if he paused for a second or two more before opening his mouth sometimes.
I have enjoyed his highlighting of the climate of outrage and identity politics that has people in Australia too scared to talk about politically sensitive topics in case they offend someone and go against the “group think” that pervades our society.
“climate of outrage”.
Oh, that is so rich. Perpetual outrage is the meat & drink of the Far Right loser brigade (oops, there I go with my tautologies again). “War on Christmas”, “Ethnic Gangs”……just to mention a couple of obvious ones. Rightards do so love “Tilting at Windmills”.
Black Libertarians eh? So a Facebook group that musters 1500 members out of a worldwide population of billions of black people totally debunks the perception that Libertarianism is an ideology for tightly wound, psychologically isolated white men does it? I think only those who believe grasping at straws and lame whataboutism are suitable alternatives to reasoned arguments would agree with you.
Shame your comment couldn’t avoid perpetuating the “angry white male” cliche though.
Hi Mick, appreciate your response. How many black liberatarians would be a valid number in your mind? Do 10 black libertarians = 1 white libertarian, or is there some other yardstick I need to know about?
Hi Andy, great to hear from you. No yardstick required, just some perspective. Remember it was you that raised the whole Black Libertarians thing in a rather obvious attempt to disprove the “angry white male” cliche. A cliche you’re somewhat reinforcing with your commentary.
Demidenko – “The Hand that Swiped the Paper”.
No surprise that Lyinghelm employs known frauds. I guess birds of a feather & all that…..
What is a libertarian? Some believe the fairy story that Adam Smith’s invisible hand is all you need for an ongoing society. Some, who realise that a society ordered only by Smith’s invisible hand has only a fairy tale being, want a so-called “minimal state”, but can’t agree on what it might do. Some want a state that will only act when everyone agrees the state should act. Some want a state that will not violate anyone’s rights but can’t agree on what this means.
Leyonhjelm is probably just a naughty little boy, who wants to get away with as much as he can, while preserving the status quo. This might be a form of libertarian belief but I think he just aspires to being a wanton. Can’t we just forget him and hope that he goes down the gurgler at the next election?
Use “every day”—an adverb in two words. “Everyday”, on the other hand, is an adjective.
“Wanton” is an adjective; did you mean “wonton”, which *is* a noun?
wonton |wɒnˈtɒn|
noun (in Chinese cooking) a small round dumpling or roll with a savoury filling, usually eaten boiled in soup.
The problem with 99.99% of Adam Smith acolytes is that they’ve all read The Wealth of Nations but none of them have bothered to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In that sense they are like those people who think they can understand everything about a particular issue simply from reading a newspaper headline.
There is a reasonable Libertarian view, which is that the state should not attempt to direct people to any particular idea of a good life that is consistent with justice
Splendidly put GR; saw a recent description of him as having a head like a testicle with glasses; a bit unfair to male nether regions but sort of apt considering.