Unfortunately I have to agree with David’s first comment above. Your argument against extending the citizenship time because it would ‘infringe on freedom of association’ is very one-dimensional and does not address the very real issue of Australia’s mass migration problem. Considering freedom of association alone is not sufficient on the broader scale of migration issues — which requires consideration of national interests, not just the personal interests of migrants. That should not even have to be stated, I thought it was so obvious! Attainment of citizenship is a necessarily high bar because it is the manifestation of Australians collectively (as a nation) exercising *our* right of freedom of association and choosing who is allowed to join our great nation. The interests of the country need to be put before migrants’ personal interests. Most Australians possessing common sense would agree. The uptick in the One Nation vote suggests this.
In your pro-trans rights argument you have dismissed the very real, and dare I say more important, issue of women’s rights. Increasingly people are becoming aware that men masquerading as women suddenly have more individual freedoms than actual women. This issue is one that conservatives and real (‘old-school’) feminists can agree on, and it would therefore win far more votes than yet another pandering pro-trans policy, in my opinion. I understand these are your personal reasons for not voting for the Libertarian party, but I don’t think you can really say that the party has gone ‘too conservative’ and will lose votes because they are not in alignment with your ‘more libertarian’ thoughts on these highly specific issues. Perhaps that was not your inference, but I think the party’s stance on these issues will actually help them win votes.
Thanks for your reply Jade. Yes I did read your conversation with David, and I agree it is certainly a nuanced topic that requires a lot of balancing. A dedicated article on that particular issue is a great idea.
Thanks for sharing some more points. They definitely clarify your position, which is helpful. I wonder why you think it is best to avoid giving expats the impression that they are not wanted? I can definitely understand it in the case of someone who has already spent considerable time and effort integrating. But I still think national interests need to trump migrants’ personal feelings and situations, and maybe sometimes they are indeed not wanted. And I think that is ok - because not everybody should expect to be welcomed, particularly where they don’t try to integrate or respect our culture. But I do agree with you that it is right to be as welcoming as is reasonable to proven well-intentioned integrated migrants. Perhaps you should write about that too, in light of touching on the housing aspect of migration. Thanks again for your thoughts.
You label it ‘trans panic’ to wave it away, but these are textbook libertarian issues: the state banning voluntary prayer or talk therapy, mandating affirmation-only counseling on pain of losing your license, schools lying to parents while socially transitioning their kids, and doctors performing irreversible procedures on minors with state backing.
Libertarians exist to oppose state violence and coercion.
Full stop.
Telling us to sit these out because they’ve been declared ‘culture war’ by the same people expanding the state’s power is not a serious libertarian argument. It’s a surrender dressed up as pragmatism.
But then, you were never actually here for the Libertarian vote, were you.
The socialist left calls anything that threatens its cultural hegemony a ‘culture war distraction’ right up until it finishes capturing the institution. Libertarians parrot that line at their peril.
Funny, none of that nuanced parental-rights argument made it into your article.
You spent 1,200 words calling it ‘trans panic’ and blaming libertarians for the vote collapse, without once mentioning the state coercion you now admit is ‘legitimate concern.’
If you actually believed the state has no business mandating affirmation-only therapy, criminalising exploratory counselling, or letting schools hide social transition from parents, you’d have said so upfront instead of waiting until you were called out.
Nobody is throwing adult trans people under the bus but they don't get a pass either. The trans people we hold accountable are the ones championing coercive policies that harm children.
No, requiring government-issued ID to record biological sex does not “infringe on the privacy rights of trans adults.”
- Trans adults remain free to dress, live, date, and present however they wish.
- No one is forced to carry or show that ID in daily life unless they choose to interact with the state (driver’s licence, passport, tax file number, Centrelink, voting roll, airport security, etc.).
- The coercion isn’t the accuracy of the marker; the coercion is the state’s monopoly on credentialing in the first place. A consistent libertarian would be campaigning to abolish or privatise those ID systems, not demanding the state lie on them.
- Freedom of speech and association also means other people (doctors, employers, sports bodies, prisons, refuges) aren’t compelled to pretend sex is self-identified. Recording observable biology on state documents protects everyone else’s rights too.
Unfortunately I have to agree with David’s first comment above. Your argument against extending the citizenship time because it would ‘infringe on freedom of association’ is very one-dimensional and does not address the very real issue of Australia’s mass migration problem. Considering freedom of association alone is not sufficient on the broader scale of migration issues — which requires consideration of national interests, not just the personal interests of migrants. That should not even have to be stated, I thought it was so obvious! Attainment of citizenship is a necessarily high bar because it is the manifestation of Australians collectively (as a nation) exercising *our* right of freedom of association and choosing who is allowed to join our great nation. The interests of the country need to be put before migrants’ personal interests. Most Australians possessing common sense would agree. The uptick in the One Nation vote suggests this.
In your pro-trans rights argument you have dismissed the very real, and dare I say more important, issue of women’s rights. Increasingly people are becoming aware that men masquerading as women suddenly have more individual freedoms than actual women. This issue is one that conservatives and real (‘old-school’) feminists can agree on, and it would therefore win far more votes than yet another pandering pro-trans policy, in my opinion. I understand these are your personal reasons for not voting for the Libertarian party, but I don’t think you can really say that the party has gone ‘too conservative’ and will lose votes because they are not in alignment with your ‘more libertarian’ thoughts on these highly specific issues. Perhaps that was not your inference, but I think the party’s stance on these issues will actually help them win votes.
Thanks for your reply Jade. Yes I did read your conversation with David, and I agree it is certainly a nuanced topic that requires a lot of balancing. A dedicated article on that particular issue is a great idea.
Thanks for sharing some more points. They definitely clarify your position, which is helpful. I wonder why you think it is best to avoid giving expats the impression that they are not wanted? I can definitely understand it in the case of someone who has already spent considerable time and effort integrating. But I still think national interests need to trump migrants’ personal feelings and situations, and maybe sometimes they are indeed not wanted. And I think that is ok - because not everybody should expect to be welcomed, particularly where they don’t try to integrate or respect our culture. But I do agree with you that it is right to be as welcoming as is reasonable to proven well-intentioned integrated migrants. Perhaps you should write about that too, in light of touching on the housing aspect of migration. Thanks again for your thoughts.
This is the worst analysis I've read in a long time. I'm embarrassed for you Jade.
That’s a lot of projection, Jade.
You label it ‘trans panic’ to wave it away, but these are textbook libertarian issues: the state banning voluntary prayer or talk therapy, mandating affirmation-only counseling on pain of losing your license, schools lying to parents while socially transitioning their kids, and doctors performing irreversible procedures on minors with state backing.
Libertarians exist to oppose state violence and coercion.
Full stop.
Telling us to sit these out because they’ve been declared ‘culture war’ by the same people expanding the state’s power is not a serious libertarian argument. It’s a surrender dressed up as pragmatism.
But then, you were never actually here for the Libertarian vote, were you.
The socialist left calls anything that threatens its cultural hegemony a ‘culture war distraction’ right up until it finishes capturing the institution. Libertarians parrot that line at their peril.
Funny, none of that nuanced parental-rights argument made it into your article.
You spent 1,200 words calling it ‘trans panic’ and blaming libertarians for the vote collapse, without once mentioning the state coercion you now admit is ‘legitimate concern.’
If you actually believed the state has no business mandating affirmation-only therapy, criminalising exploratory counselling, or letting schools hide social transition from parents, you’d have said so upfront instead of waiting until you were called out.
Nobody is throwing adult trans people under the bus but they don't get a pass either. The trans people we hold accountable are the ones championing coercive policies that harm children.
No, requiring government-issued ID to record biological sex does not “infringe on the privacy rights of trans adults.”
- Trans adults remain free to dress, live, date, and present however they wish.
- No one is forced to carry or show that ID in daily life unless they choose to interact with the state (driver’s licence, passport, tax file number, Centrelink, voting roll, airport security, etc.).
- The coercion isn’t the accuracy of the marker; the coercion is the state’s monopoly on credentialing in the first place. A consistent libertarian would be campaigning to abolish or privatise those ID systems, not demanding the state lie on them.
- Freedom of speech and association also means other people (doctors, employers, sports bodies, prisons, refuges) aren’t compelled to pretend sex is self-identified. Recording observable biology on state documents protects everyone else’s rights too.
Duly noted 🧡