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.
When it comes to the citizenship issue, I'll admit that is more a personal grievance I have. That said, I'd argue the immigration crisis has little to do with citizenship and more to do with residency, but based on how Portugal implemented the citizenship increase, it basically sends a message to expats who have already tried to integrate that they're not wanted, and I think it would be best to avoid that approach. I suppose I'm more on the pro-immigration side, but with the caveat that zoning laws and other artificial constraints on the housing supply are moreso the issue, so I understand that under the current circumstances arguing a pro-immigration position is quite difficult.
In terms of the trans issues, I'm not sure if you read the full conversation I had with David, but I think the issue is way more nuanced than people make it out to be. In the past there were stronger safeguards that made it easier to distinguish between transsexuals and "men masquerading as women", as you put it. Putting that aside, in the article I mention a US Gallup poll from 2024 that lists transgender issues as the least important for voters, and I think in Australia interest in such issues is even lower, so from a policy perspective I think the fears don't truly resonate with many people.
I mainly got annoyed at David because he just insulted my article without explaining his reasoning (until I prompted him), so I appreciate you explaining your criticisms.
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.
Thanks again for your input. Honestly, I think the trans topic is burning me out, so I'm not sure I'm going to write that article as I've already made my main points in that conversation with David.
As for the expat issue, on principle I believe in freedom of movement as an ideal. I believe the housing crisis is an artificial issue caused by state bureaucracy, making it harder to provide additional housing supply that could be more easily provided in a genuine free market. That said, we are unfortunately in a housing crisis now thanks to state mismanagement, so my principled take on freedom of movement is currently a losing battle and I'm willing to accept compromise here.
I honestly believe 4 years is plenty of time to integrate, and if integration is an issue, increasing the language and knowledge requirements could be a better alternative to incentivise merit over mere time commitment, in other words someone could contribute a lot to the country in just four years if they're committed enough, and learning the language fluently is a great way to show that appreciation of our culture.
I mentioned the Portugal example before but I think I could explain this in more detail. People had been living there expecting to get citizenship in 5 years, but the country essentially rugpulled them so now they have to wait another 5 years or leave. Granted, there is a way to increase the citizenship time and grandfather in those already on the wait list, but Portugal didn't do that. In spite of that, I still think 10 years is an extremely long wait, whereas to me 4 years is a perfect amount of time and I honestly wish more countries offered that. 7 years was a compromise Portugal's centre-left party proposed, which I think would've been fair, but that was unfortunately rejected.
I would again reiterate my position that residency is more an issue than citizenship. Plenty of non-citizens own multiple investment properties to my knowledge, so I think if reducing demand is the goal, it would be better to either limit foreign investment or reduce the amount of annual residency permits approved, that would fit a balance of managing the supply issue while also maintaining a unique opportunity to interested expats. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's a better alternative.
You say that, yet you can't even explain why. If you're fine with the State controlling people's medical decisions, just say that. Doesn't sound libertarian to me though. Also seems petty to result to insults instead of civilised discussion, if people like you are who the Libertarian Party wants to recruit, it's no wonder their vote count crumbled.
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.
Clearly you didn't understand the point I was trying to make, but at least now you're actually engaging in the arguments, albeit childishly.
What I describe as 'trans panic' is the insistence on the State attacking the bodily autonomy and privacy rights of trans people (including adults, given the example of the passports), especially when trans people had been living their lives peacefully for decades without any of this being an issue.
I didn't touch on the issues of voluntary prayer, or the mandating of affirmation-only counseling, or schools socially transitioning kids without their parents' knowledge because these are admittedly legitimate positions of concern, in fact my whole argument about the trans teen issue was specifically on the basis of parental rights: I trust parents more than the State to decide what's best for their kids. If a parent wants their teen to socially transition, or if through a consensus mechanism of the parents, the teen, and medical professionals come to the conclusion that puberty blockers are the best course of action, that should be their right, just as parents should have the right not to do so. As far as the medical treatment itself goes, there are two sides to the story: if you understood anything about gender dysphoria you'd know that the permanent development of the secondary sex characteristics of a trans person's birth sex can be just as detrimental as transition regret is for detransitioners, but nobody seems to talk about that side of the story. In any case, the issue is way too nuanced for the State to reliably account for, and State involvement in either situation sets a dangerous precedent, even if we as individuals may disagree with the decision.
I actually voted LDP in 2019 and 2022, it was only 2025 where I couldn't stomach doing so, because the party is engaging in the same tactics as what you describe as the 'socialist left'. If you want to resist government overreach, focus on pushing back against the actual government overreach instead of throwing innocent people under the bus.
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.
I was limited to 1000 words actually, and I tried to focus on the points I considered most important to my overall argument. This specific discussion on trans issues was just one part of the argument, and there simply wasn't enough space for me to flesh it out deeply as I needed to cover other aspects of the culture war.
I'll admit, the title is a little clickbaity, when I say libertarians should reject the culture war, my point is we should reject the conservative approach to cultural issues (such as calling for blanket bans) and focus specifically on self-ownership and voluntary association, as we should with all our positions.
If a specific policy infringes on those rights, regardless of who does it, we should oppose that on the basis of libertarian principles, rather than on the basis of "wokeness". Currently the party is too heavily focused on anti-woke rhetoric that makes it look indistinguishable from the conservative populist parties, this is one of the major issues for me.
The party platform literally suggested reverting trans people's markers to their birth sex, which would infringe on the privacy rights of trans adults. That is, by definition, throwing trans adults under the bus. Also, the blanket ban approach for trans youth causes a lot of harm too, plenty of trans teens grow up into trans adults and are forced to live with permanent dysphoria due to the puberty of their birth sex. It's a nuanced issue that needs to account for individual circumstances.
Keep in mind this is my first article, and you pissed me off by insulting me without giving any constructive criticism at first. That's why I've been responding in kind. Maybe I could've made my point clearer, obviously state mandates are bad, but again I was limited by word count, so I hope the clarifications I've made here help. I even mentioned that I'd consider writing another article specifically on the trans topic, as the topic requires a way larger word count for me to properly get all my points across. As you can see from this very conversation.
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.
When it comes to the citizenship issue, I'll admit that is more a personal grievance I have. That said, I'd argue the immigration crisis has little to do with citizenship and more to do with residency, but based on how Portugal implemented the citizenship increase, it basically sends a message to expats who have already tried to integrate that they're not wanted, and I think it would be best to avoid that approach. I suppose I'm more on the pro-immigration side, but with the caveat that zoning laws and other artificial constraints on the housing supply are moreso the issue, so I understand that under the current circumstances arguing a pro-immigration position is quite difficult.
In terms of the trans issues, I'm not sure if you read the full conversation I had with David, but I think the issue is way more nuanced than people make it out to be. In the past there were stronger safeguards that made it easier to distinguish between transsexuals and "men masquerading as women", as you put it. Putting that aside, in the article I mention a US Gallup poll from 2024 that lists transgender issues as the least important for voters, and I think in Australia interest in such issues is even lower, so from a policy perspective I think the fears don't truly resonate with many people.
I mainly got annoyed at David because he just insulted my article without explaining his reasoning (until I prompted him), so I appreciate you explaining your criticisms.
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.
Thanks again for your input. Honestly, I think the trans topic is burning me out, so I'm not sure I'm going to write that article as I've already made my main points in that conversation with David.
As for the expat issue, on principle I believe in freedom of movement as an ideal. I believe the housing crisis is an artificial issue caused by state bureaucracy, making it harder to provide additional housing supply that could be more easily provided in a genuine free market. That said, we are unfortunately in a housing crisis now thanks to state mismanagement, so my principled take on freedom of movement is currently a losing battle and I'm willing to accept compromise here.
I honestly believe 4 years is plenty of time to integrate, and if integration is an issue, increasing the language and knowledge requirements could be a better alternative to incentivise merit over mere time commitment, in other words someone could contribute a lot to the country in just four years if they're committed enough, and learning the language fluently is a great way to show that appreciation of our culture.
I mentioned the Portugal example before but I think I could explain this in more detail. People had been living there expecting to get citizenship in 5 years, but the country essentially rugpulled them so now they have to wait another 5 years or leave. Granted, there is a way to increase the citizenship time and grandfather in those already on the wait list, but Portugal didn't do that. In spite of that, I still think 10 years is an extremely long wait, whereas to me 4 years is a perfect amount of time and I honestly wish more countries offered that. 7 years was a compromise Portugal's centre-left party proposed, which I think would've been fair, but that was unfortunately rejected.
I would again reiterate my position that residency is more an issue than citizenship. Plenty of non-citizens own multiple investment properties to my knowledge, so I think if reducing demand is the goal, it would be better to either limit foreign investment or reduce the amount of annual residency permits approved, that would fit a balance of managing the supply issue while also maintaining a unique opportunity to interested expats. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's a better alternative.
This is the worst analysis I've read in a long time. I'm embarrassed for you Jade.
You say that, yet you can't even explain why. If you're fine with the State controlling people's medical decisions, just say that. Doesn't sound libertarian to me though. Also seems petty to result to insults instead of civilised discussion, if people like you are who the Libertarian Party wants to recruit, it's no wonder their vote count crumbled.
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.
Clearly you didn't understand the point I was trying to make, but at least now you're actually engaging in the arguments, albeit childishly.
What I describe as 'trans panic' is the insistence on the State attacking the bodily autonomy and privacy rights of trans people (including adults, given the example of the passports), especially when trans people had been living their lives peacefully for decades without any of this being an issue.
I didn't touch on the issues of voluntary prayer, or the mandating of affirmation-only counseling, or schools socially transitioning kids without their parents' knowledge because these are admittedly legitimate positions of concern, in fact my whole argument about the trans teen issue was specifically on the basis of parental rights: I trust parents more than the State to decide what's best for their kids. If a parent wants their teen to socially transition, or if through a consensus mechanism of the parents, the teen, and medical professionals come to the conclusion that puberty blockers are the best course of action, that should be their right, just as parents should have the right not to do so. As far as the medical treatment itself goes, there are two sides to the story: if you understood anything about gender dysphoria you'd know that the permanent development of the secondary sex characteristics of a trans person's birth sex can be just as detrimental as transition regret is for detransitioners, but nobody seems to talk about that side of the story. In any case, the issue is way too nuanced for the State to reliably account for, and State involvement in either situation sets a dangerous precedent, even if we as individuals may disagree with the decision.
I actually voted LDP in 2019 and 2022, it was only 2025 where I couldn't stomach doing so, because the party is engaging in the same tactics as what you describe as the 'socialist left'. If you want to resist government overreach, focus on pushing back against the actual government overreach instead of throwing innocent people under the bus.
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.
I was limited to 1000 words actually, and I tried to focus on the points I considered most important to my overall argument. This specific discussion on trans issues was just one part of the argument, and there simply wasn't enough space for me to flesh it out deeply as I needed to cover other aspects of the culture war.
I'll admit, the title is a little clickbaity, when I say libertarians should reject the culture war, my point is we should reject the conservative approach to cultural issues (such as calling for blanket bans) and focus specifically on self-ownership and voluntary association, as we should with all our positions.
If a specific policy infringes on those rights, regardless of who does it, we should oppose that on the basis of libertarian principles, rather than on the basis of "wokeness". Currently the party is too heavily focused on anti-woke rhetoric that makes it look indistinguishable from the conservative populist parties, this is one of the major issues for me.
The party platform literally suggested reverting trans people's markers to their birth sex, which would infringe on the privacy rights of trans adults. That is, by definition, throwing trans adults under the bus. Also, the blanket ban approach for trans youth causes a lot of harm too, plenty of trans teens grow up into trans adults and are forced to live with permanent dysphoria due to the puberty of their birth sex. It's a nuanced issue that needs to account for individual circumstances.
Keep in mind this is my first article, and you pissed me off by insulting me without giving any constructive criticism at first. That's why I've been responding in kind. Maybe I could've made my point clearer, obviously state mandates are bad, but again I was limited by word count, so I hope the clarifications I've made here help. I even mentioned that I'd consider writing another article specifically on the trans topic, as the topic requires a way larger word count for me to properly get all my points across. As you can see from this very conversation.
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 🧡