Those pesky libertarians

There is a wonderful concession in Gillard’s speech – nice to know we’re getting under her skin.

In five Labor Budgets revenues have fallen by more than one and a half percentage points of GDP.

So what’s our response been? We’ve cut spending.

Down to 23.5 per cent of GDP next financial year and staying below 24 per cent over the forward estimates.

The longest sustained period at these levels since the early 1980s.

We don’t cut spending, or shrink the real size of Government, in a lunchtime libertarian seminar.

We do it in long days of expenditure review.

Libertarians make up such a small proportion of the Australian population yet the government allocates days to discuss and implement libertarian notions of shrinking the size of government. Not that they succeed, mind you.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Those pesky libertarians

  1. .

    I smell her fear. THE HUNT IS ON!

  2. Our influence extends far beyond our numbers.

    Bits of the LDP’s policies regularly appear in the proposals or policies of the Libs and occasionally Labor.

  3. .

    …and the Shooters party think you’re a Sith Lord!

  4. JC

    Down to 23.5 per cent of GDP next financial year and staying below 24 per cent over the forward estimates.

    This important, she’s obviously lying, right? Something is not quite right when we need the the carbonic and mining taxes to balance their spending.

  5. Even socialists can cut the pie and distribute the pieces, but growing it is beyond them.

    Boettke says: I try to summarize Mises’s point by saying you need property, prices, and profit/loss. They give us incentives, information, and innovation.

    Can’t see any of that in the NBN, BER, FWA, now they want to appropriate the property of miners…

  6. dan

    We do it in long days of expenditure review….

    on the phone with Tammy May of MyBudget

  7. Relevance, that’s daylight for you guys. Maybe you can change your name to the Libertarian Party and stop handing out your “Vote Liberal” how-to-votes?

  8. jtfsoon

    Get over her, NGD. Plenty of fish in the sea. Your soul is poisoned by past regret.

  9. JC

    Relevance, that’s daylight for you guys. Maybe you can change your name to the Libertarian Party and stop handing out your “Vote Liberal” how-to-votes?

    Why would that, be NGD. Hansen was the one who was expelled from the Liberal Party and you’re tacitly supporting that moronic party. It’s more like our views would sit comfortably within the Liberal Party for the most part. It’s you that has the problem, you dickhead.

  10. .

    Maybe you can get over your girlfriend, and give our name back.

  11. m0nty

    We don’t cut spending, or shrink the real size of Government, in a lunchtime libertarian seminar.

    We do it in long days of expenditure review.

    That’s not a concession, it’s an insult. Gillard is pointing out how little responsibility is given by electors to libertarians, because no one trusts them to make the right decisions. Unlike the major parties, neither of whom implement purely libertarian policies when it comes down to it.

  12. 2010 first preferences, LDP 0.17 per cent. LMFAO

  13. C.L.

    I smell her fear. THE HUNT IS ON!

    RUN FATTY, RUN.

  14. JC

    Yep, One Nation got more support, NGD, which to a small minded twisted moron like you suggests they’re a better political party. You just love the Greens then.

    You idiot.

  15. thefrollickingmole

    “Down to 23.5 per cent of GDP next financial year and staying below 24 per cent over the forward estimates.”

    Does that include the “off the books” projects like the NBN?

  16. JC

    Very insightful, Monster. So insightful I burped in the middle of reading it.

  17. Maybe you can change your name to the Libertarian Party

    actually changing the name of the LDP is not such a stupid idea.

  18. More enlightening also might be explaining what exactly is wrong with the Gillard point.

    Is it just that libertarians will never be happy until government spending is only on defence, police, and perhaps a few gangs of road workers to fill in pot holes.

    Otherwise, from a more objective economic point of view, this seems a decent enough way of looking at things.

    By the way, I would accept complaints that Labor “could do better” in terms of things like not spending on the NBN, or even the clean energy investment fund. But I don’t think that addresses the more important take from this way of viewing how much this government is spending: namely that it shows up that claims (repeated endlessly in threads here, if not posts) that the government has been an economic vandal and has ruined the country are simply wrong.

  19. JC

    Does that include the “off the books” projects like the NBN?

    She’s lying. They’re fucking around with the way they’re accounting for expenditure. They’re backing up shit in the previous year which shows the new year less encumbered than it ought to be. Everything they do is bullshit and trickery.

  20. jtfsoon

    Is it just that libertarians will never be happy until government spending is only on defence, police, and perhaps a few gangs of road workers to fill in pot holes.

    Wow, you’ve picked up fast. Props to your tutor, IT.

  21. Australians don’t want a libertarian government, that’s why at every election you contest voters give you a resounding fuck off. The only purpose you are serving is as straw men for the left to attack and discredit free markets.

    You should all go sea-steading, it would do a great deal to support the cause of liberty in this country.

  22. JC

    Stepford

    Every single left chook was gobbling around about HoWARd’s high spending levels.

    The spending levels have increased but aren’t as apparent as they’re lying and fiddling around with the presentation. IT’s at much higher levels that HoWARd’s. You can see that by the number of new taxes they have raised.

  23. JC

    NGD

    You’re worse than the lefties here… even monster in some ways and that’s saying something. You derail every thread with your stupid rant against libertarians.

    You aren’t going to ever change hearts and souls so fuck off then

  24. Adam Kane

    actually changing the name of the LDP is not such a stupid idea.

    It’s an appalling name. For one thing it’s got the word “liberal” in it, causing confusion. We already have a liberal party.

    And guys, a party name is a banner. It doesn’t have to be a precise description of your politico-philosophical orientation.

  25. Adam Kane

    Australians don’t want a libertarian government, that’s why at every election you contest voters give you a resounding fuck off.

    Most people haven’t heard of the LDP, and fewer still know their policies in detail. With good marketing they could possibly rival the Greens. They have better policies after all.

  26. JC

    It was the LP but the Liberal party caused a stink with the AEC and it had to be changed as the initializing cause confusion.

  27. few gangs of road workers to fill in pot holes.

    no, thats private enterprise, even now its mostly outsourced

  28. JC

    On that thread Homer is on at Troppo, Sanchez the pool cleaner and now professor of neuroscience at MIT comes up with his own diagnosis.

    Sancho

    There’s emerging evidence that a lack of empathy can simply be neurological, but it’s fraught because then you get into the possibility of labeling children psychopaths before they’re fully developed.

    He does a great deal of his research sucking up leaves during his pool run.

  29. It helps me to know where your arguments don’t stack up and it makes me more conservative. We may have some common ground but your crank economic policies are retarded and in many respects everything else borders on nihilism.

  30. JC

    It helps me to know where your arguments don’t stack up and it makes me more conservative.

    Really. And here I was thinking your hostility is all to do with the fact that Libertarian gal booted you.

    We may have some common ground but your crank economic policies are retarded and in many respects everything else borders on nihilism.

    Of course Tubbsie.

  31. If the liberal party had any guts it would have put a stake through the heart of creeping progressive socialism during the howard years, by making australia a low income tax country. Instead howard spent like a drunken cock, and costello fiddled with the levels slightly.

    By capping the rate of growth of government, slash and burning pointless welfare, minimising government waste they could have completely eliminated income tax in the time they were in office.

  32. Just to be clear, the view here is that the Liberal Party are a moronic party and they should back away from the Institute of Public Affairs and other libertarian think tanks because they don’t share its values?

  33. jtfsoon

    NGD you are either a moron or a worse troll than mOnty or both

    1) *you* are the one who constantly adopts the strawman of identifying the progress of the libertarian cause with the LDP. Where do you place the CIS and IPA in all of this? The CIS and IPA are not as hardline as most LDP members yet clearly the Gillard allusion to ‘lunchtime libertarian seminar’ is partly an allusion to these think tanks. The CIS literally does run such lunchtime seminars. Are you completely discounting progress in terms of the impact that the CIS and IPA have had on elite opinion, including within the Liberal party

    2) There are Liberals who actually self identify as libertarian, including as dot has mentioned, Peter Phelps.

    There are also libertarian leaning people such as myself and Andrew Norton who self identify as classical liberal. I tend to use the terms synoymously. You are dismissing a wide range of opinion here just because it’s not subject to conventional party loyalties. Of course you also tend to ascribe the most extreme interpretations of libertarians to all self identified libertarians. For instance I’d bet less than 5% of self identified libertarians are for ‘open borders’ immigration

    3) One of the reasons for the low primary vote of the LDP is that they don’t run candidates everywhere. For instance, there was no LDP candidate for the House of Reps in my seat at the last election.

    4) Perhaps instead of referring to our ‘crank’ economic theories you specify them?

  34. Peter Patton

    Ironically, I think that while Catallaxy gives libertarianism a much huger profile than it ever had (and much huger than the number of actual libertarians, which even on Catallaxy is tiny), a lot of the profile boost comes from the screeching leftists channeling US culture wars to Australia. All these twits obsessing about Hayek and Pinochet, blah, blah, blah.

  35. Infidel Tiger

    NGD is not very bright.

  36. The LDP is your flagship political party, you’re disowning them now?

    I’m not how libertarians can think it’s reasonable to spit in the face of the “moronic” Liberal Party and then expect them to continue supporting their friends at the IPA.

  37. Nothing scares the ALP like libertarians, because they know that socialist values are antithetical to freedom.

    The fact gillard has to mention libertarians shows just how shitscared they are of free society and free markets and how much they are in love with BIG government and central planning and control.

  38. jtfsoon

    The LDP is your flagship political party, you’re disowning them now?

    Winning elections is the only means of promoting political ideas?

    So you’re disowning/discounting any impact played by think tanks?

    I have been involved in think tanks (CIS in particular whether as someone who attends their events or previously been employed by them or used to contribute articles to them) a lot more than I have been involved in popular politics. Why do you think I would share the same weights you seem to place on popular politics? I actually view most popular politics with disgust,

    The think tanks which are libertarian inclined have done a lot to change thinking by policy elites. Even the ALP now accepts economic policies which were heresy 10 years ago.

  39. Infidel Tiger

    There are certainly morons in the Liberal Party and I suspect NGD is one. There are also classical liberal types who must chunder having to listen to his stupidity.

  40. jtfsoon

    It’s a waste of time engaging with NGD.

    The omega male is still bitter over that breakup with the libertarian chick.

  41. Adam Kane

    I’m not how libertarians can think it’s reasonable to spit in the face of the “moronic” Liberal Party

    NGD, I don’t think JC (earlier in the thread) was intentionally calling the Liberals “moronic.” That’s how it sounded but it’s likely that he merely didn’t express himself well and was actually talking about One Nation. Perhaps JC can clarify?

  42. The think tanks which are libertarian inclined have done a lot to change thinking by policy elites.

    Would you care to nominate an example? I think economists have been far more influential than libertarians.

  43. jtfsoon

    The CIS and IPA are libertarian leaning think tanks which employ economists.

  44. Tom

    Nailed it, Irving. Ordinary non-political Australians have had a gutful of the nanny state. It’s a huge sleeping issue. Talk to kids about why they want to ride around Thailand on a bike without a helmet on, in spite of the risks. It’s a reaction to the shitful Australia invented mainly by Labor. Libertarianism will be a major force in Australia in the next decades, provided the focus is on simple, achievable objectives, i.e. a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

  45. jtfsoon

    For the record there are a lot of LDP policies which I don’t agree with.

    However this seems to be your constant strawman for charting libertarian progress, a party which wasn’t around until recently and doesn’t field candidates in every seat.

    Which economists have been influential in changing elite opinion, NGD?

    A clue – they’ve mostly been libertarian economists.

  46. The liberal party should start acting like a Liberal party and not labor lite.

    That whole conservative slow change thing is going to work well when Abbott gets in, he has several dozen laws to repeal, departments to dismantle, compensation to eliminate, fake property rights to terminate, construction contracts to renegotiate, militant union corruption to deal with and debt to reduce that makes whitlam/hawke/keating look like misers. should take about 12 liberal years to get that going in time for the next wave of socialist filth to arrive.

  47. A clue – they’ve mostly been libertarian economists.

    This will be good, you’re probably going to say Hayek.

    Hayek doesn’t work for the IPA or the CIS.

  48. Infidel Tiger

    There’s no point talking to NGD. He’s a real dummy. A thicko. The material is beyond him.

  49. Winston SMITH

    Defence, Police, and Justice, Steve.
    The government doesn’t need to have road workers. Cheaper to run that one out to the private sector.

  50. Sinclair Davidson

    Hayek doesn’t work for the IPA or the CIS.

    You do know that Hayek passed away 20 years ago?

  51. .

    I think Jason bitchslapped NGD into the 1990s.

    NGD you are either a moron or a worse troll than mOnty or both

    Ouch.

  52. .

    That’s not a concession, it’s an insult. Gillard is pointing out how little responsibility is given by electors to libertarians, because no one trusts them to make the right decisions. Unlike the major parties, neither of whom implement purely libertarian policies when it comes down to it.

    Christ you’re a fuckwit monty.

    Libertarians would let the electors make the choices…you are inferring the electors don’t trust themselves, and so trust Craig Thomson et al. You’re like a deer stuck in front of AA searchlights with an armoured Russian military train about to hit you at 300 km/hr. Election night 2013 for you will be like Don’s party but sadly probably ending in self harm.

    Props to Adrien

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b8YEGpP76k&feature=related

  53. no one trusts them to make the right decisions

    Socialism. The whole point is to devolve decision making down to the best people to make it. The current uk Tories talk about it, what they are actually doing, who knows. Major party politics gets bogged down in endless corruption scandals, a sign of the creeping cancerous state.

    Joining Liberals and reforming the squandocracy from within is a good option, finding backers for the ldp is essential.

  54. papachango

    With good marketing they could possibly rival the Greens. They have better policies after all.

    Adam Kane is onto something – I’ve been saying the same thing for years on libertarian blogs.

    If you talk to the average ‘man in the street’ in Australia, a lot of them do resent the nanny state and other forms of government intrusion in their lives, would prefer to pay less tax, and be responsible for their own circumstances. This is very different from a country like France, where there’s a widespread cultural expectation that the State will provide from cradle to crave.

    The libertarian message should resonate strongly, yet most people have never even heard of the word – instead it’s left or right wing. The one thing the Greens are good at is marketing – ironically that such an anti-capitalist party is so adept at using one of the main tools of capitalism.

    You’ll find that most people don’t consider the Greens ‘left-wing’ at all, and because of their high-profile support for trendy issues like gay rights, euthanasia and abortion, people actually think that the Greens are the only group that stands up for the rights of individuals. The latter drives me mad whenever I hear it, as nothing could be further from the truth, but the fact that the perception is there, is down to both the Greens’ clever but deceptive marketing, and the libertarian community’s failure to market itself well.

  55. jtfsoon

    This will be good, you’re probably going to say Hayek.

    so what’s your point you idiot?

    You’re trying to diss the influence of libertarians but acknowledge the ideas of libertarian economists outside Australia have filtered through to Australia? how is that consistent with your thesis that we have failed? who did the filtering through of these ideas?

    Take Andrew Norton. 20 yrs ago his ideas about higher education would have been regarded as ‘fringe’ by idiots like yourself. Now anyone who wants to talk about higher ed seriously has to acknowledge the relevance of market forces and pricing.

  56. Adam Kane

    because of their high-profile support for trendy issues like gay rights, euthanasia and abortion, people actually think that the Greens are the only group that stands up for the rights of individuals.

    bingo.

    There’s room for a grown-up party to champion the rights of individuals. There’s a real anti-government, pro-market, pro-liberty streak running through a lot of mainstream Australia, but those people have never heard of the LDP.

  57. Tom

    the Greens’ clever but deceptive marketing

    The Greens’ “clever but deceptive marketing” was done for them over the past 40 years by the entire corps of leftwing Australian secondary teachers, who have fed kids a relentless barrage of misanthropic bullshit since the Whitlam years. The air tax is the best possible demonstration of the Greens’ myopic, anti-human platform in action and has finished them as a political force.

  58. If libertarians are so brilliant about stuff, Jason, why are they at the forefront (generally speaking) of stupidity on AGW?

  59. m0nty

    Libertarians would let the electors make the choices…you are inferring the electors don’t trust themselves, and so trust Craig Thomson et al.

    So how would the DLP have handled the GFC if it had been in office at the time, Dot? A plebiscite on economic stimulus? Or more likely, done nothing at all and allowed Australia to descend into recession? Electors elect parliamentarians to make decisions on their behalf, it’s called the Westminster system.

  60. papachango

    The Greens’ “clever but deceptive marketing” was done for them over the past 40 years by the entire corps of leftwing Australian secondary teachers, who have fed kids a relentless barrage of misanthropic bullshit since the Whitlam years.

    True, and I’d add to that favourable coverage by leftwing media such as the Age and the ABC.

    That’s actually the cleverness of it. In marketing terms it’s called ‘unearned media’ – basically advertising and promotion you don’t have to pay for, and big companies employ PR staff on $200k to try to get this sort of favourable coverage and cultivate advocates in the community.

    The Greens have simply tapped into the lefties who aren’t seen by the mainstream as too radical to spread their message for them.

    As much as I hate the message, in marketing terms it’s brilliant, and libertarians should do something similar.

  61. JC

    Monster

    The spending did nothing to “saive” the country from depression. It basically just created debt for little reward and some people made out.

    What did save the country was fast moving monetary easing by the RBA causing an exchange rate shock and the eventual improvement in the terms of trade.

    I can appreciate this is hard for you to get your head around it because you failed first year Monash economics.

  62. papachango

    the other thing that lets some libertarian outfits like the LDP down is not picking the best issues to support.

    I admire the consistency of their principles and agree with their stance on say, the right of a commercial property owner to decide whether to permit smoking in their establishment, but I’d pick other libertarian battles to fight – there’s no votes in ‘smokers rights’

  63. Tom

    Papa, You forgot Hollywood, which has turned 80 years of technical excellence into a formidable propaganda machine for Green causes. Did you see that poll in the Age this week? FIFTEEN PER CENT of Age readers think the world will end THIS YEAR. FMD. There’s your brainwashed constituency which any old fascist can manipulate with the help of laws banning free speech.

  64. m0nty

    there’s no votes in ‘smokers rights’

    There is money in it, though.

  65. Gab

    There is money in it, though.

    Absolutely. Just how much does the Labor government happily receive in baccy taxes?

  66. Sinclair Davidson

    Not to mention how much the Future Fund earns from tobacco.

  67. papachango

    FIFTEEN PER CENT of Age readers think the world will end THIS YEAR. FMD.

    Lol… and they look down their noses on Herald Sun readers as the dumb bogans…

  68. the other thing that lets some libertarian outfits like the LDP down is not picking the best issues to support

    This is a very good point. There are the issues du jour and the idealistic issues no one cares about and can even make you sound “extremists” and too far from mainstream. Most of these need to quietly disappear into the philosophy section.

    Liberals are not going to be happy to be flanked by a more right wing party the way labor got mashed by the greens. Need to work with Libs and negotiate mutual support.

  69. .

    monty,

    Maybe you want to look at AEC funding figures of all parties before you shoot your mouth off, you monumental idiot.

  70. Hayek’s practically irrelevant in this country, that’s why they don’t teach him outside of economic history courses, which is barely taught any more. Remind me what Hayek’s position is on counter-cyclical fiscal policy again and how it accords with recent history.

    I must have missed it when Andrew Norton single-handedly transformed the education system in this country. He’s an arts graduate, works for a former OECD economist and was an adviser to a liberal conservative government.

    Liberal conservative governments are magnificent, they make a lot more sense than you creepy obsessives.

  71. jtfsoon

    He’s an arts graduate, works for a former OECD economist and was an adviser to a liberal conservative government.

    Most of his working life was with the CIS you idiot. He even briefly returned to it after his stint with Kemp was up.

    Are you saying his higher education work isn’t based in economics btw? what an insult

    Remind me what Hayek’s position is on counter-cyclical fiscal policy again and how it accords with recent history.

    And what about Friedman? Who says I support Hayek’s counter cyclical policy?

    It’s one strawman after another with you.

  72. jtfsoon

    You can prefer ‘liberal conservative’ parties without putting them on a pedestal.

    The only creepy obsessive is you, harbouring an age old vendetta against the word ‘libertarian’ (which simply means a contemporary classical liberal) because some chick dumped you.

  73. Libertarian does not equate to contemporary classical liberal. That is just complete bullshit.

  74. jtfsoon

    You’re an ignoramus and an abuser of strawmen.

    So you’re now telling me what I can call myself or what I believe?

    I suppose that’s no different from your previous tactic of assuming anyone who spoke up for libertarianism was for open borders.

  75. Peter Patton

    NGD

    I don’t think it does your cause any favors by crapping on Andrew Norton. I’ve followed his stuff over the years, and he is a very thoughtful, considered, balanced and SANE social scientist. He has a heap of integrity, is transparent, public about his changes of position, and thorough. Even the most ardent Trot or papist would be grateful that among ‘public intellectuals’ in Australia, AN is a vocal leader.

  76. Peter Patton

    Unfortunately, I cannot think of any equivalent among the statists.

  77. JC

    You really are an idiot, NGD. A first class wanker, or as Patton would say, a papist.

  78. jtfsoon

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

    Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke[4], Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law[5], utilitarianism[6], and progress.[7]

    There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[8] Some call the modern development of classical liberalism “neo-classical liberalism,” which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[9]

    The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[10]

    Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[1

    http://www.cis.org.au/about-cis/overview

    The CIS aims to promote:

    Individual liberty and choice, including freedom of association, religion, speech and the right to property
    An economy based on free markets
    Democratic government under the rule of law
    An autonomous and free civil society

    http://www.cato.org/about.php

    The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.

  79. papachango
    there’s no votes in ‘smokers rights’

    There is money in it, though.

    That’s the thing. The only people actively and explicitly campaigning against the nanny state is Big Tobacco. The cigarette companies FFS. We should own that space.

  80. I don’t mind Norton, can’t say I read him much, but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t had the influence you are subscribing to him. Why is it crapping on him to point out his background?

    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism/ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/Noun: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

    Why don’t you just say you aren’t a libertarian?

  81. Infidel Tiger

    We get it NGD. You believe the state has the answer for every problem and get angry when people say otherwise.

    Maybe someone from the government bureau can help you with your lady problems.

  82. jtfsoon

    ib·er·tar·i·an·ism/ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/Noun: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

    Why don’t you just say you aren’t a libertarian?

    What ‘minimal’ means is an open question. Hayek’s and Friedman’s idea of minimal is very different from Mises, Rothbard and the US LP. Some people have claimed Hayek isn’t one but some say he is. Some extreme libertarians are prepared to excommunicate Milton but most think he belongs in the libertarian grouping.

    Milton F was someone who supported libertarian policies but on utilitarian grounds so his mind could be swayed with sufficient evidence. I belong in that tradition.

    ‘Extreme laissez faire’ is a strawman since most of Milton Friedman’s proposals are actually not ‘extreme laissez faire’.

    If I’m not a libertarian but I support and agree with most of the output of, say, the Cato Institute, what does that make me?

    I support rethinking the drug laws on utilitarian grounds, not ‘rights’ based grounds. I would consider legalising pot, cocaine and ‘e’ but be more cautious about heroin. If a drug circulated which turned its consumers into the Incredible Hulk I would consider banning it. What does that make me?

  83. dan

    it’s “ascribing” NGD

  84. .

    Not to mention how much the _ _ _ earns from tobacco. But I’m not allowed to mention that.

    You’re a fucking lying idiot.

  85. Peter Patton

    NGD

    Whenever I hear the word ‘extreme’, I reach for my revolver – with two exceptions: describing a hotel I have booked for my skiing holiday that does not have open fireplaces; when my air conditioners breaks down in February.

  86. What does that make me?

    An uncomfortable third way leftwing progressive?

  87. dan

    Drug should be legalised

  88. Wikipedia:

    The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

  89. jtfsoon

    So Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute are third way leftwing progressives?

    As are William F Buckley and George Schultz (both supporters of drug legalisation).

    You’re demented.

  90. Peter Patton

    left-wing social policies

    WTF?

  91. jtfsoon

    it’s perfectly fine to be unconvinced by the case for drug law reform, btw and still be otherwise committed to free market economics.

    The problem is you seem to think assessments of current drug policy transcend any notions of evidence and it should be supported as an article of faith, thereby transforming any sceptic of the current approach which includes the intellectual father of US conservatism and former Reagan advisers into ‘left wing’.

  92. Les Majesty

    Benji Marks is Australia’s only bona fide libertarian, and he is as mad as a two bob watch.

    The rest of you are pseuds, phonies and wanna-bes.

    Yes, I am looking at you, mark hill and Jason soon.

  93. JC

    Benji Marks?

    Now that’s a blast from the past.

  94. jtfsoon

    fair enough les.

    but don’t forget Sukrit.

  95. ella

    “What does that make me?”

    It may mean that you believe that freedom of choice is not made in a social vacuum.

    John Roskam and the IPA seem to believe this because they are in the process of educating people about the importance of free speech.

  96. .

    Anyone who says “choices are not made in a vacuum” has an agenda and is probably a fascist.

  97. jtfsoon

    On what Les is referring to:
    http://catallaxyfiles.info/2011/06/09/catallaxy-files-com-wrong-on-constitutional-government/

    The economics organisation of Australia, Economics.org.au, established this site to correct CatallaxyFiles.com, who falsely claim they are principled and realistic advocates of freedom, capitalism, law and economics

  98. steve

    Australians don’t want a libertarian government, that’s why at every election you contest voters give you a resounding fuck off.

    hahahaha

  99. JC

    ha Sukrit.. the teenager in charge of the 16 man libertarian team. Idiot he is.

    Anyone who says “choices are not made in a vacuum” has an agenda and is probably a fascist.

    No holding back punches not Dot. Tell Mr Jilted what you really think.

  100. JC

    Here’s steve.. the man certain to add at least 50 points of IQ to any discussion.

  101. .

    It will take a lifetime for tobacco funding of the IPA to match what they have given to the ALP.

    What the IPA or CIS have received is fucking piddling compared to what the ALP have accepted as protection monies.

  102. Gab

    Remember when Roxon got caught out sending letters to those nasty tobacco companies, asking for donations?

    Good times.

  103. .

    Australians don’t want a libertarian government, that’s why at every election you contest voters give you a resounding fuck off.

    Funny how we got 230 000 votes and didn’t even advertise…we came sixth, and it can be safely assumed half of the ALP voters are comatose lifers – this after we had to compete with the SEX party who no doubt got a lot of non serious voters and some of our protest vote,

    Please outline the well received anti LDP campaigns, you shit scared lying bastard.

  104. .

    Remember when Roxon got caught out sending letters to those nasty tobacco companies, asking for donations?

    Good times.

    How much did she ask for? Was it a lot more than the $10 000 that the IPA received off BAT in 1993, or the $0 they have given to the LDP?

  105. Infidel Tiger

    If Roxon smoked she wouldn’t be so dangerously fat.

  106. ella

    Dot,

    Do you think that in western society women shave every part of their body because they want to or do you think that they do it because they live in a society that regards hairy women as obscene.

    Freedom of choice is not made in a social vacuum.

  107. ella

    Dot,

    Do you think that Chinese women abort girl children because they want to or do it because they live in a society where males are considered paramount.

    Freedom of choice is not made in a social vacuum.

  108. JC

    Which hair type follicles are you referring to eggsactly, ella?

    And isn’t it personal choice in both examples you offered. However, you never know with fatty Von Roxon, but at this stage she hasn’t yet legislated mandatory shaving of female body parts.

  109. JC

    Do you think that Chinese women abort girl children because they want to or do it because they live in a society where males are considered paramount.

    That’s pretty easy. Males are considered higher worth because the the way dowries move money around, but it would happen much less if there wasn’t a one child policy.

    And the point?

  110. Peter Patton

    ella

    Do you think that in western society women shave every part of their body because they want to or do you think that they do it because they live in a society that regards hairy women as obscene.

    If you are interested in what women think about this issue, why don’t you ask them? Let me give you a couple of ‘heads up’

    1. Women are members of this society before they choose whether or not to shave. A choice me and fellow cock and ball danglers also have to make.

    2. Women make up the majority of this ‘society’.

    I hope this helps.

  111. .

    Do you think that in western society women shave every part of their body because they want to or do you think that they do it because they live in a society that regards hairy women as obscene.

    If you are a free and you choose to do this…then you want to do it.

    Idiot.

    Women make up the majority of this ‘society’.

    I hope this helps.

    lulz

  112. .

    Do you think that Chinese women abort girl children because they want to or do it because they live in a society where males are considered paramount.

    They do it or the Government punishes the whole family.

    You are comparing this to a free society? You are like some brainwashed victim of a Communist regime with a severe case of the Stockholm syndrome. Get help.

  113. Infidel Tiger

    I thought women removed their body hair to reduce their drag co-efficent in order to bring down lap times?

  114. .

    A good book for the freaks here whinging about “too much freedom”.

    http://www.amazon.com/Grow-Up-America-Michael-Hurd/dp/0967421802

    Read it you fucking dweebs.

  115. .

    No IT in China, which we must follow as an example of a free nation for some reason, they use performance enhancing orthodontics.

  116. Peter Patton

    Actually, in 2012, new born Chinese babies are 50% boys, 50% girls.

    I hope this helps,

  117. I support rethinking the drug laws on utilitarian grounds, not ‘rights’ based grounds.

    Utilitarianism is a core element of social democracy and conservativism. You’re not a conservative but you’re broadly pro-market without being a libertarian.

    You’re some variety of Third Way adherent, anarcho-New Labour perhaps?

  118. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    If Roxon smoked she wouldn’t be so dangerously fat.

    If Roxon smoked, presumably she would be hot.

  119. jtfsoon

    It is a rather odd interpretation of utilitarianism or, as I prefer to call it, consequentialism, to reduce it to a choice between ‘conservatism’ and ‘social democracy’.

    Firstly utilitarianism broadly defined is the language of social science. All economists including free market economists are fundamentally utilitarians. The alternative is some form of ‘natural law’ or ‘natural rights’ which is in effect preaching to the converted and a waste of time. I do have my gripes with ‘rights based’ libertarians because of that.

    Secondly utilitarianism in the narrower sense was conceived by James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill, who was a Classical economist. In other words, a Liberal (or if you prefer a classical liberal). He would not have fitted into either the ‘social democrat’ or ‘conservative’ category. Nor for that matter would have Bentham who supported homosexual law reform but had a sound grasp of economics. The younger Mill, before he was converted to socialism because of the influence of his wife (Hayek has documented this) was also a classical liberal. Utilitarianism and liberalism in the generic sense which overlaps with what is called libertarianism are intimately connected.

  120. Libertarianism is not liberalism. Utilitarianism is completely alien to libertarianism, which at its core is a fundamentalist belief in the primacy of individual rights to the exclusion of other considerations. That’s why the economics ends up being so bad.

    If you’re driven more by utilitarian considerations when it comes to legalising drugs, rather than the rights of the individual, that’s not a liberal approach. If you became convinced the utilitarian case ran in the other direction it sounds as though you would have no trouble supporting it irrespective of a person’s right to choose.

    Your utilitarianism makes you interventionist but you’re not a conservative, which leaves you in the Third Way bucket in my opinion given you’re not anti-market.

  121. .

    Bullshit. Now just fuck off you retard.

  122. Infidel Tiger

    NGD is the blind lesbian in the fish shop licking the counter. Very embarrassing but highly amusing.

  123. Token

    Libertarianism is not liberalism. Utilitarianism is completely alien to libertarianism, which at its core is a fundamentalist belief in the primacy of individual rights to the exclusion of other considerations.

    Where did that come from? How did you make that leap of logic?

  124. Token

    Libertarianism is not liberalism. Utilitarianism is completely alien to libertarianism, which at its core is a fundamentalist belief in the primacy of individual rights to the exclusion of other considerations.

    How did you come up with this viewpoint? What was the basis of the statement and logic that underpins it?

  125. How did you come up with this viewpoint? What was the basis of the statement and logic that underpins it?

    Sounds like you’ve been sold a pup. Like a lot of people you’re walking around calling yourself a libertarian when you’re actually something else entirely.

    Justify abolishing intellectual property or removing price regulation from natural monopolies if utilitarianism is so fundamental to libertarianism.

  126. .

    Justify abolishing intellectual property or removing price regulation from natural monopolies if utilitarianism is so fundamental to libertarianism.

    Because either of those would be utilitarian.

    The end.

  127. henry 3rd

    You guys are dickheads….with all due respect

    I have a relative that works for a think tank in Europe and they say the same thing sadly

    Glad you can sleep at night if and when Thomson tops himself and your narcissism will probably make you guys laugh won”t it?

    Sicko some of you really… cmon

    Grow up and get a life!!

  128. Tom

    I share your pain, Henry. It’s so hard being an adult. It’s so noble you think it’s important to stand up for the human dregs who’ve behaved unforgiveably. And, if he is a gutless little creep and decides to attempt to top himself, it’s somehow our fault. Enjoy the rest of your experience in the temporary ruling class before you’re run out of town.

  129. Driftforge

    If Roxon smoked, presumably she would be hot.

    No one who smokes is hot.

  130. Infidel Tiger

    Thompson is not competent enough to top himself, henry. It’s another broken ALP promise.

  131. Glad you can sleep at night if and when Thomson tops himself

    ALP HQ has sent a recon droid. If he needs any help we have a good stock pile of kero here, I think he should aim to do the 50m dash into gillards office

  132. Token

    Interesting how NGD can blow and bluster, but is light on facts and references.

    Until we get some links its all just piss and wind, as someone once said.

  133. Jarrah

    “Utilitarianism is completely alien to libertarianism, which at its core is a fundamentalist belief in the primacy of individual rights to the exclusion of other considerations.”

    The distinctions aren’t so clear-cut. If utilitarianism is the seeking of the greatest good for the greatest number, then it’s reasonable to ask why that should be the goal, and that leads you towards the inherent worth of human beings, ie the basis of individual human rights.

    Equally, those who value having individual human rights as a social starting point can plausibly argue that it leads to a society where the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved.

  134. Cato the Elder

    Never happen. The ALP has him by the nuts financially, so he won’t quit; and he’s too narcissistic himself to ever consider doing away with the most important person in his world. He’s even having fun, voting with the opposition on unimportant votes, just to fuck with their minds. Worry about the people he ripped off, not him.

    And the Greens must be destroyed.

  135. John Mc

    Utilitarianism and liberalism in the generic sense which overlaps with what is called libertarianism are intimately connected.

    And the prize goes to the guy who nails it in one sentence!

  136. steve

    Not to mention how much the Future Fund IPA earns from tobacco.
    There. fixed it for you.
    Sinclair, why did you delete tha above comment before?
    Which of your published guidelines did it transgress?
    Derailment – hah!. You made the stupid comment in the first place and were asking for a comeback. What are you frightedned of?

  137. Gab

    Doomlord will squish you like a bug, Steve. It’s his right. His social right, no less.

  138. steve

    These are the published rules:

    Robust debate is tolerated here. We will strive to maintain the most laissez faire comments policy on the web but this is subject to the following caveats:

    Comments which may jeopardise the legal interests of the blog or its editor in chief by being defamatory or in breach of other laws will be promptly deleted.
    We reserve the right to delete comments when they no longer contain any reference to arguments and ideas discussed in the originating blogpost and run the risk of diverting a thread completely away from discussion of ideas and arguments in the originating blogpost. We will use this tool reluctantly and rely on moral suasion as a first resort but if this is ignored, the culling knife will come out.

    No argument or point of view, no matter how controversial, will be censored subject to the conditions listed above.

  139. Gab

    Sinclair, why did you delete tha above comment before?

    Steve, do you know for a fact your comment was deleted?

  140. steve

    Because it was there 8 hours ago when I posted it, and this was dots reply:

    It will take a lifetime for tobacco funding of the IPA to match what they have given to the ALP.

    What the IPA or CIS have received is fucking piddling compared to what the ALP have accepted as protection monies.

    Unlikely he was replying to nothing.
    mOnty’s realted comment was also deleted.
    Great PR for a libertarian blog

  141. Gab

    Okay, Then you can assume it has been deleted and have the right to ask why.
    Although bear in mind, sometimes comments are deleted accidentally and occasionally the f***up fairy interferes with the ‘net.

  142. steve

    I love Google. Here’s the cached view of teh page , around 6.30pm

  143. steve

    MY comment was at 4.08. mOnty’s was at 3.45. Interesting, dot’s reply at 3.49 actaully quotes m0nty’s deleted post.
    As I say, pretty sad on a libertarian blog.

  144. JamesK

    Maybe he doesn’t want to be sued on account of a fvckwit steve.

  145. steve

    Sued for suggesting IPA gets funding from Tobacco companies? Sued by whom? You know Sinclair works for the IPA, right?

  146. JamesK

    Listen fvckwit: you didn’t ‘suggest’ anything.

  147. steve

    OK, sued for stating that IPA gets funding from Tobacco companies? Is that better?

  148. JC

    As I say, pretty sad on a libertarian blog.

    Not all. In fact throwing you off his site can demonstrate a strong libertarian streak of voluntary association. Perhaps he just doesn’t like you. There’s nothing in the libertarian bible which says a lib must like everyone and is forced to associate with them. In fact it suggests quite the opposite.

  149. steve

    BTW JamesK you won’t get into trouble on this blog for spelling “fuckwit” correctly

  150. Jarrah

    “Sued for suggesting IPA gets funding from Tobacco companies? Sued by whom? You know Sinclair works for the IPA, right?”

    Tobacco companies are fighting to keep their product legal, as they should. The only way to do that, short of buying a delay or reversal of the anti-smoking legislative trend through political ‘donations’, is to promote freedom of choice, in order to lessen the political pressure on government to interfere in people’s lives “for their own good”. Funding think tanks is an important way of doing that. It’s a non-issue.

  151. steve

    JC, I just quoted the published rules above.
    No argument or point of view, no matter how controversial, will be censored subject to the conditions listed above.

    Now if you want a right-wing circle jerk, go ahead, but don’t pretend it’s an open forum where alternative views are debated.

    Remember:
    Catallaxy Files

    Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog
    Why we do this?

    leave a comment

    Because it is fun.
    Because it allows us to refine our thoughts and thinking.
    Because it helps pass the time.
    Because it allows us to share knowledge and information.
    Because it is dangerous to have unchallenged consensus opinions.

  152. Gab

    oh my stars! Steve, your comment wasn’t that noteworthy, nor serious.

    You’ve asked Sinclair the question already. The poor man is probably in bed fast asleep.

    Stop going on and on about it like it’s a Greek tragedy.

    He’ll answer you tomorrow.

    Talk about nagging…

  153. steve

    Jarrah, absolutely correct. So why does the IPA need to be so coy about their assocaition with tobacco. What would require my comment (and m0nty’s) to be deleted?

  154. steve

    Sorry Gab, arguing with JC again. and JamesK
    Must remember “Do not respond to JC, do not respond to JC, do not respond to JC” !
    Tucked up in bed – good plan :)

  155. JC

    Course you will you idiot. You can’t help yourself. You have no self discipline.

  156. JamesK

    OK, sued for stating that IPA gets funding from Tobacco companies? Is that better?

    Good fvckwit.

    Now provide the evidence for your assertion of how much IPA “earns from tobacco”

  157. .

    Jarrah has defended freedom and reason.

    Well done sir.

    These trolls are nasty little shits and hypocrites that make me want to wretch.

    ——————————————–

    “You can’t ban me, this is a libertarian blog!”

    The same childish mentality of OWS demonstrators. What a child and incompetent. A fucking fairy. Unfit to work with other adults.

  158. .

    Steve – the IPA got 10k from BAT in 1993.

    The ALP used to get double that annually.

    Just. Fuck. Off.

  159. Cory Olsen

    Its not just government control that causes Chinese women to value boy babies more. It always amuses me when I visit our chinese suburb to see chinese families with 4 girls and 1 boy. Their culture reinforces this even without state control.

  160. Because either of those would be utilitarian.

    The end.

    Retarded, turn in your badge.

Comments are closed.