Abe Salt: The Man who Shoots for Liberty Balance

 
To the surprise of many and the consternation of some, Australia’s Liberal Democratic Party won a national Senate seat in the 2013 election (that senator, David Leyonhjelm, was recently interviewed by The Savvy Street). This gave the LDP the rare distinction of being a Libertarian party with an elected member in a national parliament. Was it a fluke or an inflection point marking a trend toward less government and more individual freedom? The Savvy Street’s Robin Craig (RC) interviews Abe Salt, the LDP’s lead candidate for the Legislative Council’s Eastern Metropolitan Region in the upcoming Victorian State election.
 
RC:       These days, people often vote for a party without knowing or caring about the actual candidates. But we put a man or woman into parliament, not a manifesto. Tell us something about yourself. Why should people vote for you as a person, not just as any random member of the Liberal Democrats?

AS:       I’m a married father of two. Family is everything to me. I became involved in politics because I grew frustrated with others telling me how I should lead my life and continually taxing me so others could life the life they want.

As a father, I’m particularly concerned about the limited education options available in Australia. We are forced to pay for a state school system which has a woeful track record, for-profit schools are prohibited, childcare places are artificially limited by government regulation and governments try to solve all of these problems with more taxes, when less government is the real answer.

RC:       What are your core values and how do they inform your political principles and policies?

AS:       My life is guided by the values of integrity, self-sufficiency and tolerance.

My political views are a natural extension of those values. I sought a political party with philosophically cohesive policies, a respect for the individual, and a willingness to tolerate the non-threatening choices of others.

RC:       Which political leader (past or present) do you most admire and why?

AS:       Benjamin Franklin. He showed that hard work and a willingness to think differently could elevate an individual from humble beginnings (he was a candlemaker’s assistant with very little education) to the pinnacle of society. He didn’t preach. He led by example.

But, most importantly, he showed that communities working together could deliver amazing results (forming a volunteer fire brigade without government, creating libraries without government, fostering tolerance of differing religions without a government decree and developing life-changing inventions without the need for a government grant).

Lastly, together with the other US Founding Fathers, Franklin created the framework for a free society. His contribution to Western democracy cannot be overstated.

RC:       Politics is a branch and a consequence of philosophy, explicit or implicit. Is there a particular philosophy behind your political beliefs and principles?

AS:       I identify as a classical liberal. Classical liberals believe in the inherent rights of the individual – rights that stem from nature rather than a government decree. They believe in private property, the rule of law and respect for others. That philosophical grounding enables me to address issues from first principles rather than gut-feel and it enables me to hold consistent beliefs.

RC:       The Liberal Democrats are described as a Libertarian party. What does ‘Libertarian’ mean to you, and do you think that is what the Liberal Democrats are?

AS:       Libertarians approach issues from the deep-seated belief in the sanctity of private property. They have some pretty common-sense beliefs: don’t hit, don’t steal and don’t lie. Most people agree with those ideas, but they carve out a massive exception for government. Libertarians recognize that governments are just a collection of people and therefore should be subject to the same rules.

The Liberal Democrats share those libertarian ideals. We will never vote for an increase in taxes or a reduction in personal liberty. Yet, at the same time, the Liberal Democrats ground their beliefs in what is acceptable to the public. We are not anarchists. We simply represent the large segment of the community who believe the government is too intrusive.

RC:       Political parties are often founded to represent a particular segment of society. We see this in minor parties like the Motoring Enthusiasts but also in major parties, with the Labor Party associated with unions and the old Country Party with farmers. Who do the Liberal Democrats represent?

AS:       We represent an enormous swathe of Australians who believe the government has grown too big and too intrusive. Many single-issue parties are asking for the government to stay out of their personal affairs in relation to that single issue (the Sex Party, Voluntary Euthanasia Party, Motoring Enthusiasts, Shooters & Fishers, Smokers’ Rights, HEMP, etc.). Our goal is to help those single-issue groups see that we can only protect our own freedoms if we are willing to stand up for the freedom of others, irrespective of whether we approve.

RC:       When the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm was elected to the Senate, I read a news article that described the Party as “the gun-loving Liberal Democrats.” Why do you think they latched onto that minor aspect as the essence of your platform? How can you combat that attitude?

AS:       It is the combination of lazy journalism and a set of viewers and readers who do not wish to think critically about any issue. They hope that their gut-feel reaction is right (“guns are bad, we need less guns”) and do not have the time or inclination to understand our philosophical beliefs. In some respects, I don’t blame them. They have been taught to think uncritically and have never come across an Australian political party that has a set of unbending guiding principles.

RC:       So how would you describe the essence of the Liberal Democrats?

AS:       We are a diverse group of people who believe in the moral imperative of winding back the size of government. We intend to do that through philosophy, education and the message of tolerance.

RC:       Have you seen any signs that having a Senator elected from your party is increasing understanding or acceptance of what they stand for, among either the general public or the press?

AS:       David has made great strides in showing that our beliefs extend beyond ‘right-wing’ issues like guns and low taxes, to ‘left-wing’ issues like marriage equality, marijuana, privacy and free speech. Steadily, the media and general public are seeing the common thread of liberty through all of our policies and we are winning their respect.

RC:       In the last federal election several other minor parties also gained Senators. Looking at the diversity of minor issues they represent, from the Motoring Enthusiasts to the Sports Party, it seems that they were elected because of disenchantment with the major parties coupled with our Byzantine preferential voting system – rather than from any groundswell of public principle. Do you think you can channel this vague disenchantment into a positive political movement?

AS:       Absolutely. We are hopeful of converting supporters from a wide range of single-issue parties to the Liberal Democrats. Whether it is popular or not, we will stand up for the individual freedoms of everyone, from bikies to pot-smoking hippies.

We will also capitalize on the Liberal Party’s abandonment of their core constituency. The Liberal Party has now devolved into a high-taxing, high-spending, pork-barreling, protectionist party, devoid of any economic credibility. Similarly, we will win support from disenchanted ALP supporters who have seen their party abandon their pursuit of social tolerance (classically shown by their response to the boat-people issue). We stand for liberty, both economically and socially. We think many others instinctively agree with us.

RC:       Australia has more of a tradition of a paternalistic government than, say, the USA, and at least since Gough Whitlam both the government and the people have shown a strong thread of ‘you have a right to be looked after by the government’. Do you think Australians are ready for a more libertarian strain of politics?

AS:       We are starting on the back foot because Australians have had decades of being told that the government will look after them, that successful people are bad and that it’s OK to infringe on the rights of others so long as you get a majority of people to support you.

But Australians inherently have a libertarian streak. The right to a ‘fair go’ related to the right to roll up your sleeves and give something a try, it didn’t mean Aussies wanted a handout. For the most part, we are hardworking, tolerant and willing to help each other out. Those qualities provide a great deal of hope for the Liberal Democrats.

RC:       It has been said that a nation’s fate is sealed when more people vote for a living than work for a living. How do you think you can show people that their actual interests lie in more self-sufficiency rather than more government benefits?

AS:       That is a problem in many Western countries. Voters treat the public coffers as their own piggy bank and do not take the time to sit down and assess whether it is sustainable. It is not.

The Liberal Democrats have a crucial role in raising these issues and highlighting government waste to voters. We need to show people what can be achieved without government and have a frank discussion about what the legitimate role of government is. We also need to remind people that the government only gets money by taking it from others. So when a middle class person thinks about asking the government for more funding for a sports stadium or an art museum, they can first ask themselves why other people should be forced to pay for their preferences.

RC:       The USA has a far greater tradition of individual freedom and limited government than Australia, yet even there Libertarian parties have failed to make any significant gains. A recent exception is the “Tea Party” movement, which despite contrary trends like religious conservatism has a strong streak of libertarian feeling. But its electoral success has been as a wing of a major party, the Republicans. Given that Australia seems even less fertile ground for these ideas than the USA, why do you think it is better to start a new party rather than nurture a pro-freedom wing inside one of the major parties?

AS:       Much like the Libertarian Party in the USA, the role of the Liberal Democrats is partly to introduce people to the philosophy of liberty. It is important that we develop that understanding at a very deep level. It is also important that we demand other parties have cohesive and consistent principles. Without those principles, the major parties are simply allowed to pander to populist views and form bipartisan support for all kinds of nonsense.

It would be very hard to communicate our philosophy from within another party because the message would need to be tempered.

RC:       Independents or minor parties who have held the balance of power have not always had a good track record of sticking to the brave words that got them elected. If you held the balance of power, how would you juggle the pragmatic calculation of political horse-trading with standing by your principles?

AS:       We think we can find common ground with most parties. The ideas of liberty and tolerance are scattered throughout the rhetoric of our opponents and we look forward to helping them deliver on those promises. Whether it is the legalization of marijuana, the lowering of taxes, or marriage equality, if other parties wish to promote individual freedom they will find a supporter in the Liberal Democrats.

RC:       One difficulty politicians must face is making decisions in areas where they aren’t experts. How do you think governments should handle scientific issues? For example, both climate change and genetically modified organisms cause great controversy, and both have engendered a push for strong government regulations to control what people do. How do you think you can balance protecting liberty on the one hand and preventing imposed harm on the other, when you can’t be sure where the truth lies?

AS:       We believe the government should stay out of issues that can be better addressed by the private sector. It is not the government’s role to make scientific discoveries or pick winners and losers. For example, it should not favor wind power over nuclear power; that choice should be left up to individuals. The government certainly has a role in protecting private property if it is proven to be harmed by climate change or a GMO program.

RC:       In business, an “elevator pitch” is where you try to grab the attention and interest of an investor in no more time than you have when sharing an elevator ride. Give us your elevator pitch of why we should vote for you.

AS:       The Liberal Democrats promise to give you nothing. But we are the only party who will not take anything away from you. We are the only party who will support your right to live your life as you see fit, so long as you aren’t hurting anyone else. If you believe in tolerance and less government intrusion, the Liberal Democrats are the party for you.

RC:       If you are elected, what would you most like to accomplish?

AS:       One of our highest priorities is removing payroll tax. It is simply another name for a jobs tax. Even for those who like taxes, it is remarkable that we would want to punish people for creating jobs. It is absolute nonsense and completely indefensible. We’d also like to abolish stamp duty and loosen Victoria’s zoning laws, both of which are significant reasons why our housing is so unaffordable.

RC:       When I was a teenager, a rather uninspiring looking solicitor ran for parliament in my electorate of Bennelong. His name was John Howard. Am I talking to another future Prime Minister of Australia?

AS:       No. I have no aspirations of becoming a career politician. I’d rather just get on with my life without wanting to control the lives of others. I only wish others had the same ambition.
 

Related Posts:

1. Has Australia become “Authorataria?” (An Audio Podcast)
2. The Reason “Green Ideology” Can Light Catastrophic Fires in Australia
3. An Open Letter to Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia

   

About the Author: Robin Craig

Robin Craig, BSc (Hons 1, Univ. Medal), PhD graduated in molecular biology and is now an owner and COO of Australia’s longest surviving private biotechnology company. He has a long-term interest in both science and Objectivist philosophy and has hosted private monthly philosophy salons for over 15 years. His publications are wide ranging and include numerous scientific papers in genetics, philosophically-themed near-future science-fiction novels (the Just Hunter series) and short stories, the chapter “Good Without God” in The Australian Book of Atheism, philosophical essays on Amazon, and twenty years of Philosophical Reflections, a popular and controversial column in TableAus (the magazine of Australian Mensa). His website monorealism.com includes essays and debates on numerous philosophical topics.