Terje Petersen reports that the LDP has its first elected politicians.
In NSW local government elections, Jeff Pettet has been elected to Ku-Ring-Gai council and (subject to preference distributions) Clinton Mead has been elected to Campbelltown council.
Tomorrow the world!
The other good news is that Green support declined (but I don’t think those votes shifted to the LDP).
Interesting party, shame about the name.
south
10 Sep 12 at 8:13 am
Congratulations!
Martin
10 Sep 12 at 8:42 am
Ah, the LDP, those of the Australian International Brigade nutterism.
Your choice, cry or laugh …..
“28. A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers with Australian Officers (along the lines of the French Foreign Legion or Ghurkas) would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats…….
29. This Australian International Brigade would be fully self-funded by hiring its services to friendly countries………”
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 8:49 am
What exactly is wrong with that idea, or the LDP military policy at all, Alfonso?
Yep. A made up syndrome by a fanatic for Gillard.
.
10 Sep 12 at 8:55 am
I choose to laugh.
Try reading 28 & 29 again slowly…. Australia’s self funding mercenary army for hire and reward.
You’d want another army to control the mercenary army’s possible social / political ambitions.
Bwaaa…..
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 9:02 am
In fact, the only thing I find deficient in the LDP defence policy is the lack of an IAD/NMD system and a bit more extensive detail on cruse missiles and armour. Perhaps there should be a focus on getting the reserves/CMF rapidly deployable.
The LDP wants strategic bombers. Given the role that XM 607 played in the Falklands War – even with/without ALCMs – this is a very wise choice!
Only a left wing loony or extreme right wing militarist would find it offensive.
Since this post is about local government, it seems you are a malignant troll, Alfonso.
Well done to the LDP, Clinton and Jeff.
I’ve met Clint and he’s one of the good guys.
Hopefully they can reduce rates, cut useless spending and get rid of annoying, petty and wealth destroying regulation.
.
10 Sep 12 at 9:08 am
You trolling dickhead. Kuwait and Qatar outsource and the US basically hires out their marines, navy and airforce to Australia looking to financial and other gains in having joint ownership of JDF Pine Gap.
.
10 Sep 12 at 9:12 am
The problem with LDP policy is that it IS nutterism.
The one thng that the LDP can do perhaps in the next 20 years is contribute a couple of seats to balance of power. Its a potential minor party, not an alternative for Government.
The policies are like religious working out the order of parade for the Final Judgement – onanistic fantasies.
Why dont the Liberals publish 1200 page policy documents? Because they just provide targets.
If the LDP just made statements of principle and undertook to mostly adhere to those in their actions they could come across as people of integrity; but as it is they over-expose a marginal character.
Chris1
10 Sep 12 at 9:20 am
Congrats to the LDP but I’m sorry dot, that international brigade proposal does look ridiculous. Is that some way of placating the hippies in the party who don’t want an army at all?
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 9:24 am
“Since this post is about local government….”
Bwaaa…it’s a post about the LDP. It pays to be observant.
Tiny bit sensitive re the reprinting of the LDP’s policy that the Aust Army be mainly populated by foreign mercenaries that can be rented to other countries aren’t you possum?
Still, stopped clocks and all….LDP is correct re lusting for B1′s.
The Israeli’s can’t do more than delay Iran without the GBU 57 and a delivery system they don’t have, B1 or B2.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 9:29 am
Why do you think it is ridiculous, Jason?
The problem I see it has is that it looks politically incorrect. I don’t think they’d get much business, anyways.
Must be why they want strategic bombers, unlike the hippies in the ALP and LNP. We had ex career officers help us write the policy.
Let’s see Alfonso apply the same line-item rigour to the ALP, LNP, let alone the bloody Australian Greens.
.
10 Sep 12 at 9:33 am
That’s not actually the policy, you lying fuckhead. You are a dishonest, mendacious prick. You are in the same mold as David Axelrod.
[Moderator - can we put an end to outright lying by ALP activists like Alfonso?]
Well done again to Clint and Jeff, in getting the LDP elected to local Government in NSW.
We sure as hell know the Liberal Party in NSW is too scared to commit to lower levels of Government – save for picking on Catholic schools.
.
10 Sep 12 at 9:52 am
“Tiny bit sensitive re the reprinting of the LDP’s policy that the Aust Army be mainly populated by foreign mercenaries that can be rented to other countries aren’t you possum?
That’s not actually the policy, you lying fuckhead”
Really? Let’s see…..
Me “LDP’s policy that the Aust Army be mainly populated by foreign mercenaries…..”
LDP says “of mainly foreign volunteers with Australian Officers (along the lines of the French Foreign Legion” or Ghurkas).
Seems I’m accurate on that one.
Me “that can be rented to other countries….”
LDP says “would be fully self-funded by hiring its services to friendly countries”
I nailed it again.
Whose a lying possum then?
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 10:02 am
The LDP getting some councillors up is not the most amazing result in these elections.
What is astonishing is Jeff McCloy has been elected in a landslide as mayor of Newcastle, a dyed in the wool ALP town.
Mr McCloy is a high profile climate sceptic who recently had Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and David Archibald here to answer questions from the public on sea level rise. He has been taking on the Lake Mac council over their adoption of Combet’s mad sea level policy. The story has been running for months in the Newcastle Herald and most of his voters would have known very well what his views are.
Mr Combet in the adjacent Federal seat has some thinking to do. He’s only on a 15% margin. Now wouldn’t it be nice if McCloy stood in Charlton?
Bruce of Newcastle
10 Sep 12 at 10:13 am
Alfonso, the French have the Foreign Legion. What’s so odd about getting foreigners to fight for Australia overseas? You haven’t actually said anything sensible about it yet.
Domestic defence would be all volunteer reservists. Do you think that’s odd too? Or is it that you are the weird one?
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 10:17 am
Oh come on, what a lying, dishonest, quote doctoring fuckwit you are.
No reference to the airforce, navy or most of the full time or the reserve component of the army, only one brigade that doesn’t even exist yet. This offends your sensibilities – as you seem to think Malcolm Fraser was a great PM with brilliant policies.
[Moderator - can we put a stop to outright lies?]
The only thing you’ve ever nailed is yourself.
.
10 Sep 12 at 10:19 am
Although the policy Number 28 is certainly a bit nutty, it is unfair to describe it as LDP’s defence policy. The main policy would be
16. The LDP supports a military based on a core of full-time professionals complemented by an extensive voluntary reserve, with men and women viewing part time military service as beneficial to both themselves and the country.
Which is pretty sensible and quite close to standing government policy for many decades.
SteveC
10 Sep 12 at 10:24 am
So the French Foreign Legion is nutty?
We think it’s a good way of funding a military, in both blood and treasure.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 10:30 am
I’m confused.
according to stevec, the policy says the army would comprise full time professionals and reservists (which is of course what we have) but david says domestically it’s all reservists?
Sorry but if it’s the latter it’s a sign that the LDP has caved in to peaceniks and hippies.
Also can we clarify the Foreign Legion idea (imagine taking lessons from the French surrender monkeys) – is the idea that Australia’s representation for international missions (say if Adolf Hitler 2 were to launch the 4th Reich) would be *solely* comprised of the Foreign legion *and* self funding? if so it is a nutty idea. So basically during WW2 Australia would have sent a bunch of mercenaries who are self funded to fight the Japanese?
Again if this is the *only* representation of Australia’s forces then yes it is a cave in to the Sukrit peaceniks and hippies.
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 10:33 am
I just don’t agree with their stance on euthanisia. Since both Labor and Liberal seems to have embraced the big government agenda, it would be refreshing to see a real libertarian party emerge. This bipartisanship is not allow for clear distinctions to be drawn between Left and Right. In no way am I advocating any ultra Left or Right views.
Malcolm Turnbull is a clear example. Political ambition and expedience drove him to the Liberals, not ideological conviction. So if you vote for Turnbull the Liberal, are you voting for Labor Lite?
Time will tell on the LDP.
Abraham
10 Sep 12 at 10:33 am
David
Having a Foreign Legion set up supplementing your international presence would be Ok.
Relying solely on a self funded Foreign Legion for your international projection of force is nutty.
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 10:35 am
Well done to the LDP, Clinton and Jeff.
Now, can you put a candidate up in the City of yarra elections please? Currently the choice is between 3 or 4 ALP people, 4 or 5 Greens and a Socialist Alliance member.
LDP would make a real point of difference, even if it would take a bit of work to convince the Brunswick and North Fitzroy lot.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 10:37 am
Currently our reserves are made up of lawyers and doctors whose primary reason for enlisting is to earn tax free dollars to put them through university.
When push comes to shove, do you want this country defended by conscientious objectors?
A good army should be full of the raving mad murders, rapists and degenerates found in our penal system. A well trained team of mercenaries for hire is better than our current system.
Dan
10 Sep 12 at 10:40 am
We need more members in Victoria to do that, Papa. There are far too many libertarians who carp on about minor points and do nothing positive. It’s like they enjoy being impotent.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 10:42 am
The local council results are very interesting. In Kuringai, LDP got 25% of the vote in one ward. In the neighboring ward in Hornsby shire they got 5%. In Kuringai there was no liberal candidate, only indepenedents. Could the LDP be the default position for conservatives with noone else to vote for?
In Hornsby the Greens got a large vote (14-17%), but there was no Labor candidate. Possibly same story?
SteveC
10 Sep 12 at 10:46 am
The LDP got a lot of ex Liberal members in the Hills district.
This wouldn’t happen if, the Liberal party, were Liberal. The ALP and Greens signed an Alliance document.
No one says to do that – re the subs and bombers.
Their commanders would have probably done a better job than Percival or Bennet, who were bottle merchants.
…and you are not going to fight a general war with a single battalion.
.
10 Sep 12 at 11:15 am
Neurosurgical care under the LDP will need to be funded big time….all those free spirits helmetless on the Harley.
Now if they were forced to insure their own potentially easily avoidable head trauma medical costs when going helmetless and not involve my wallet, they’d have something. But the LDP isn’t serious, applying person money responsibility to its personal choice mantra doesn’t seem to get a mention. Though I might have missed it.
Helmetless, mercenary ‘Legionnaires’…..warms the heart doesn’t it.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 11:23 am
Seriously Alfonso, we don’t need your vote. Now fuck off.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 11:27 am
Seriously Dave, you’re struggling.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 11:33 am
Don’t let Sinclair re-write the defence policy, or you’ll end up with orbiting nuclear bombs.
steve from brisbane
10 Sep 12 at 11:36 am
Thanks to those of you who have offered helpful insights.
This post is about the LDP getting elected to council which involves arguments over whether some one should have an extension on their garage. Not whether or not the Israeli’s were right in their choice of artillary or whether the French Foreign legion would be effective in a world war.
Martin
10 Sep 12 at 11:40 am
Kudos, steve, that is actually funny
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 11:41 am
Other Dan, it is absurd to claim that the doctors in the Reserves are all conscientious objectors. My colleagues have served several times in Afghanistan, Timor, and Iraq. Are you a reservist Dan?
Dan
10 Sep 12 at 11:46 am
Parkos/Alfonso:
You are struggling to be functionally literate.
.
10 Sep 12 at 11:54 am
Other Dan,
My point was that many people enlist just to earn money whilst attending Uni. I don’t believe those particular participants would be of much use in the infantry on the frontline if called up. It’s a rather big problem in the US military.
No offense was mean’t toward those doctors who have enlisted and served overseas. Kudos to them.
Dan
10 Sep 12 at 11:56 am
You’ll get over it, Null.
Voluntary euthanasia for helmetless, dope smoking (by personal choice), foreign mercenaries on loan to PNG, anyone?
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 12:00 pm
fair enough. I reckon you could convert a few Greens voters down here. Seriously, I’ve heard a few say they vote Green because they’re ‘libertarian’.
That to me would indicate that the LDP’s got some work to do to market itself.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 12:01 pm
If Rudolph O’Hitler started WWIII tomorrow, we’d all get nuked so it would be completely irrelevant.
I’m no military expert but it seems to me there’s very little point in keeping a defense force large enough to fight some theoretical WWIII if we have no nuclear capability.
Personally I have a lot of respect for soldiers but I think the entire concept of a standing army is an anachronism that died in Hiroshima. If we’re going to waste a shitload of money for no reason, I’d rather spend it building spaceships or training the next Shane Warne.
Yobbo
10 Sep 12 at 12:26 pm
Great result David!
First steps…
Many people haven’t heard of the LDP, this will help spread the good word!
I find people are genuinely surprised with how close LDP policies are to their own or how different our policies are to the other parties.
Forester
10 Sep 12 at 12:35 pm
Unlike LabLib the LDP are big on personal choice.
Yet in eerie similarity to LibLab the LDP have decided that other people’s money should pay for the consequences of those choices.
That’s what I call integrity.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 12:39 pm
Hilarious. The LDP get two councilors in office and this Alfonso character has a melt down. Is he always like this?
Gab
10 Sep 12 at 12:41 pm
What are you talking about, fuckwit?
Actually, you are lying. You ought to be banned.
People are going to hear about freedom through the LDP and fascist little pricks such as yourself who belong in the Australian Protectionist party can fuck off back to their mum’s basement in Woronora.
.
10 Sep 12 at 12:42 pm
DavidL
It’s a volunteer army. Why the need to hire foreigners who most likely have difficulty with the English language.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 12:49 pm
I just think this is remarkably naive, dense and freakishly stupid after even after a mere cursory second stage analysis.
If you want a smaller government party you do it by infiltrating the Liberal Party and perforce of internal voting support new candidates bringing it back to its classical liberal roots.
Precisely what the Tea Party has been doing in fact.
They are infiltrating and using the cored out husk of the GOP after replacing dead wood.
Third parties spell ruination and effective surrender to statist progressives at precisely the time when these misanthropes can be destroyed politically.
‘Stupid’ doesn’t quite capture the insanity of the third party idea.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 12:52 pm
Compulsory extra personally paid insurance for the helmetless appears where in the LDP policy doc, possum?
Nowhere. You can stop pretending anytime now.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 12:52 pm
I mean FFS davidL, I’ve only had experience riding trains in the NYC subway and the dude over the microphone always sounded like he was talking in some obscure African or Indian dialect providing information on the next stop. Dunno if it’s the same here.
Imagine having that sort of thing happening in a battlefield and you can’t understand what the fucker is saying.
Or imagine a whole bunch of people trying to communicate in broken English in a hot war. Good luck
JC
10 Sep 12 at 12:53 pm
Um dude we have preferential voting and PR in the Senate.
We don’t have primaries.
.
10 Sep 12 at 12:54 pm
JC
You think the French Foreign Legion for example is run like City Rail?
.
10 Sep 12 at 12:56 pm
Alfonse…
So what you’re saying is that our personal liberties need to fit with the government programs offered. Really? In other words if I don’t want to wear a helmet I should be taken off medicare.
Fuck off. Privatize all of it then.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 12:56 pm
The LDP stance on euthanasia seems entirely consistent with their ideology. Eg support of voluntary euthanasia.
Chris
10 Sep 12 at 12:57 pm
Do people who don’t wear helmets NOW become ineligible for third party insurance?
Start from there, douchebag.
Fixing The Insurance System
The LDP will deregulate the health insurance market to facilitate a wider range of innovative policy options. This will enable the introduction of policies based on recognition that good insurance should not attempt to cover for low-cost events that are a threat to nobody’s security, but must cover the high-cost events that can cause financial ruin.
Insurers will be at liberty to offer incentives for preventive healthcare such as weight control, solar protection, diagnostic screening and ceasing smoking. Consumers will be able choose for themselves whether to take advantage of these.
These changes will make insurance policies cheaper and enable consumers to insulate themselves from the costs of expensive medical interventions. The financial strains on government (and taxpayers) will be alleviated.
Instead of limiting the availability of screening tests, diagnostic and treatment facilities to what can be made available to everyone – whether people want them or not – an increased range of options would then become available to those who want them. The result would be a more diverse and responsive health care system catering to a wider variety of needs, at lower overall cost.
There is no need for it. People who choose to wear helmets will get cheaper disability/income protection, health, and life insurance.
.
10 Sep 12 at 1:00 pm
Dot
We have a volunteer army. That’s choice as far as I’m concerned.
And if we ended up with an army filled with foreigners it would invariably turn into another “boat industry”.
We don’t need to “sukritize” the military when we have a volunteer force.
Next thing we know the department of Defense is run out of Byron Bay.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:09 pm
So what on both counts?
Nothing you said negates the stupidity of it, dot.
Do Liberal Party MPs get elected by their local branches or not?
If you seriously want policies that support a smaller government you do it in the Libs which already supports a smaller role for government than the Left.
Within the Liberal Party a federal government at 20% of GDP could be argued for with proper intellectual and financial support and necessary publicity to advance that agenda.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 1:10 pm
Happy to discuss the rationale for our policies at a division meeting.
We take a lot more notice of active members though.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 1:11 pm
Opposition to euthanasia is also entirely consistent with a libertarian agenda.
Why does ‘libertarian’ more and more translate as ‘loon’ much to leftist delight?
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 1:13 pm
Bwaaaa….hospitals treat anyone who arrives, what’s 3rd party insurance got to do with it?
Take your seat belts off LDP clowns……for some “innovative” but apparently non compulsory insurance options, unless hospitals refuse treatment to the non insured non seat belt wearers that policy won’t hunt.
The LDP can only have its cake if treatment is refused to the seat beltless who do not “extra” insure or the hospital sues for the $100k neuro op. Never happen possum.
The LDP are pure BS.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 1:23 pm
James
The Libs require hand holding as they tend to fall into vortex of statism.
The idea of a great senate would be with the LPD holding the balance of power. Having said that though, you really need to look at the candidates because as we all know the LDP has a large number of lefties pretending they’re libertarians. We know the culprits and there’s no way in hell any of those miscreants should be in the senate.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:26 pm
Um yeah sure. If you believe in (the decriminalisation) of euthenasia, you’re a loony?
You’re on your own here pal.
The Greens have so much power the State Liberal parties have taken on their policies with respect to energy.
As a third party, the hard left have wielded an extraordinary amount of power with a small amount of votes.
Your strategy works in America. Forming a third party works in Australia.
Under Menzies we had 17-22% of GDP.
So if I join the Liberals, they are going to get rid of the baby bonus? A likely story.
JC,
One combined arms brigade, max (so about 3000 all up). Remember the air, naval and all officer components will be Australian citizens, basically. The Soviets spoke 20 or so languages in the Red Army of WWII.
You might have 2000 or so foreigners in such a foreign legion.
.
10 Sep 12 at 1:26 pm
Third party personal injury insurance covers Medicare now, does it, fuckwit?
Alfonso is a serial liar and pest. He ought to be banned.
He seems to be phil after all.
.
10 Sep 12 at 1:29 pm
Alfonse:
You think females have a right to privacy over their womb, but that right doesn’t extend to someone not wanting to wear a seat belt?
How the fuck do you leftwing fuckers compartmentalize all these contradictions? How do you look in the mirror?
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:31 pm
I challenge you to name one, JC. Not a large number, just one.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 1:33 pm
Not convinced by this. Policical parties, as well as individual politicians all chase power, so pushing for less power from within will always be difficult, if not futile.
I used to think that the LDP as a political party was pointless, and that they’d be better off using the GetUp! model to be a libertarian lobby/activist group – sort of like The Tea Party, but using GetUp’s marketing and operating model. They coupld be cheeky and tackle GetUp head-on, though on some issues, such as opposing Internet censorship they might actually agree.
I still think there’s room for an outfit like that, but I also thing that DavidL and others have a worthy goal of getting a Senator elected. That would give a lot of exposure to libertarianism.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 1:36 pm
if you actually mean ‘opposition to voluntary euthanaisa’, you’re full of shit.
The best test to distinguish a true libertarian from a right wing / conservative is where they stand on voluntary euthanasia, and the priniple of self ownership of your own life extending to the right to decide to end it if you choose. If you don’t support that you cannot be called a libertarian.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 1:40 pm
I know you argue using the same techniques and dishonesty of leftists but I very clearly didn’t say that.
That has nothing to do with the Liberal party except weakness.
It has nothing to do with the Greens per se.
It has everything to do with the Left being synonymous with the MSM and university teaching and research.
No it doesn’t unless you mean for the Left.
It won’t happen if you argue as irrationally as you do here.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 1:44 pm
What papa said. Assisted suicide is a fundamental aspect of self-ownership.
James K, you remind me of a gay who refuses to admit it. You are not a libertarian, you’re a conservative. Stop pretending.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 1:45 pm
Utter bollox.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 1:45 pm
David,
Off the top of my head I could give you perhaps 20.
This is my opinion of course…
Terje is basically a leftwinger posting as a libertarian. In fact if by some stroke of bad luck, if he ever bumbled his way into the senate while no one in the party was watching I think he could easily fit into an Oakeshott/Windsor. He supports stuff like the EU and forcing people to hold gold instead of currency by locking in a rate.
Sukrit is another one in my opinion. He once mentioned he had 16 followers in his brand of Libertarianism so I would stick those shysters in this group too.
There are others… one in particular who is quite noxious.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:46 pm
I disagree with you about Terje. He’s a genuine libertarian. Maybe not perfect, but who is?
Sukrit left the party years ago.
That it?
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 1:50 pm
Possum seems not to be keen to confront the inevitable taxpayer medical subsidy of his choice making.
The LDP… more welfare statists with a twist, while pretending they’re not.
JC…. unworn seat belts have the same financial consequences as abortion? Please. Abortions are cheapish.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 1:51 pm
I do in principle, but let me curl this around a little. Would you support it with a government run medical system knowing that each time they sign a cheque for a docs bill it impacts the budget? You really want the fuckers signing the medical cheques and writing the laws possessing this potential conflict?. Think Fatty Roxon and Shane Wand with that power needing to reduce the deficit.
One other thing…suicide is basically a private issue now anyways. This argument is pretty stale In fact it’s a far more libertarian position than having da government getting involved. I’m sure I could find a website telling me the easiest way I can end my life if I wanted to with little pain. Hell, even Hammygar could help anyone if the needed that sort of assistance.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:55 pm
Doofus, so it is about insurance then, right? This despite your numerous denials. Liar.
Keep you fucking seat belt off my chest and mind your own fucking business.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 1:57 pm
The danger with euthanasia remains dehumanisation.
Assisted suicide shouldn’t occur without an account having to be given to the community.
It’s a hairs breadth from murder, and that needs to be recognised.
If it is that important to assist, those assisting must be prepared to give an account of what they have done.
That is what a jury is for.
DriftForge
10 Sep 12 at 1:57 pm
David
Well you asked for one.
I didn’t know sukrit left. That’s a good thing, no?
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:00 pm
JC – if you’d asked a couple years back, I’d have said that libertarians were near as bad as the Greens. The unstudied impression is a group who believe that there is no right or wrong, and that nothing and no one should suggest otherwise.
The jump to understanding that it is more a position that in most cases, government should not determine ‘rightness’, nor enforce it, is pretty big.
It doesn’t help that there are people calling themselves ‘Libertarians’ who do believe the first.
DriftForge
10 Sep 12 at 2:06 pm
It didn’t make a lot of difference. His influence was negligible. The pacifist element among Australian libertarians is limited to about six people and none of them have influence in the LDP.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 2:07 pm
According to papachango, Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian.
With clowns like Terje P and papachango dictatorially defining what is a libertarian there’ll be lotsa people who won’t want to be identified as such.
Even though many could be taught to realise that is exactly what they are and how to argue for classical liberal/ libertarian principles on moral as well as a practical reasons and how to defend those principles.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 2:07 pm
We don’t have a choice to opt out of the nationalized health insurance scheme, Alfonse, you dick. There is no provision to purchase primary health insurance in Australia as a substitute.
I actually had private medical insurance up until 3 years ago when I had a family policy with Chubb for any doctor or hospital in the world. They never asked me if I wore a seat belt or used a helmet to ride a bike. Insurers build this sort of risk into the policy you moron.
You’re spiking all this like a drama queen.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:10 pm
Yes that’s true. However as you know it’s a huge mistake. Ron Paul for instance is appalled by abortion but he wouldn’t make it illegal.
Libertarism is basically the relationship between the individual and the state. It’s not a set of morals.
True.
Yep. Like those that preach in support of da carbon tax and cap&trade.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:14 pm
I thought libertarians believed that life and liberty were inalienable; if you do think that you cannot also support voluntary euthanasia.
dover_beach
10 Sep 12 at 2:18 pm
Yawn….. you want your easily avoided high risk choice behaviour re seat belts and helmets subsidised by other non-clown taxpayers.
Simple as that.
Zero integrity LDP.
Don’t feel bad, wanting to live on other people’s money is a near universal Australian trait.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 2:22 pm
The usually rubbish from JC. Why would I want anybody to hold gold? Where have I ever said anybody should hold gold? I’ve had plenty to say on the history and virtues of the the gold standard but I’ve never advocated anybody owning it. Although obviously somebody will own it.
As for the EU I have merely pointed out where it is institutionally better and where it is worse than other federalist schemes. On balance I would rather we didn’t have an EU. That has always been my position. But some of us can walk and chew gum.
Am I left wing? On drugs and euthanasia and abortion many would say yes. On guns and tax and privatisation the left wouldn’t have a bar of me.
TerjeP
10 Sep 12 at 2:25 pm
That’s not accurate.
He believes its outside the scope of the federal government based on the Constitution.
He’d vote to oppose abortion at the state level.
He’d certainly champion opposition against and oppose euthanasia and incidentally whether ‘voluntary’ is in fact voluntary in this patient population is a point of dispute.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 2:28 pm
I doubt it.
You may support leftist policies but not for the real leftist reasons.
To them you’re a useful idiot.
To me, you’re just an idiot.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 2:31 pm
Terje,
Stop playing word games, by holding gold you know I meant a return to the Gold Standard in the way Wanniski advocated which is for the government to run target zones.
You’ve been peddling the EU well before the crisis as the ants pants when it was obvious to any libertarian that the edifice is as potentially statist as the Soviet Union. You’ve been pushing for that for years like demon on heat.
Yea, some of us can. You can’t.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:31 pm
‘so it is about insurance then, right? This despite your numerous denials”
Are you a bit slow?
What denials?
Of course it’s about who pays / insurance / money. That’s all it’s about.
Comprehensively insure for the extra cost of 40 years of paralysis and you can go for your life with no helmets or belts.
Easy peecy.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 2:36 pm
What an outrageous left wing loon.
Proven wrong, it has been demonstrated repeatedly the LDP has a sensible and consistent policy that people should be free and take responsibility for their actions.
After this humiliation, he continues with a lie (CTP funds medicare) and begins another one (we can opt out of medicare on the mainland).
Somehow this justifies that the LDP are really “statists” and the way to increase liberty is to….vote for the ALP left and the Greens!
This is as stupid and nutty as the public good theory of banking that Kwiggen has or the 100% banking argument that Bird has – only that Alfonso is dedicatidely dishonest.
People like this would sell their own mother to get more money out of the Government. besmirching the good name of the LDP is nothing to him, he is a moral vacuum.
I dunno…this Alfonso loser is tracing back towards to being our old loopy friend, parkos.
.
10 Sep 12 at 2:36 pm
No, you’re lying.
.
10 Sep 12 at 2:37 pm
Dot
Only jason has the forensic ability to sniff parkos. He’s great at it. Ask him to do a CSI.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:38 pm
Yep. Just like Charles Murray. LOL.
Soon you’ll be calling DD “left wing”. Actually you’ve pretty much said that only conservatives are liberal and actual libertarians are left wing but are dishonest.
Once again, you are on your own, James.
.
10 Sep 12 at 2:39 pm
What a load of shit. Go write an essay to prove you’re right though.
.
10 Sep 12 at 2:40 pm
Alfonse:
Insurance carriers do not ask such questions, you moron. They build these sort of risk in their premiums and offer it to all.
Dickhead, if you a para as a result of a crash, it’s most likely you’ve broken your back in which case a helmet offers little protection.
But again you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Australians don’t have the choice to insure privately with a medicare substitute. Now Fuck off.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 2:43 pm
Yes you’re correct to bring up the practicalities, but they’re just arguments against socialised medicine, not against voluntary euthanasia. Its in-principle support that the real test of a libertarian. I’m not familiar with Ron Paul’s position here; care to enlighten me?
There are some leftwing libertarians – types that lean towards anarcho-socialism in that they’re anti- government and anti-capitalist. Not sure whether the LDP includes these types as they’d probably disagree with their economic policies.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 2:46 pm
Characteristically no rational argument to my earlier substantive and argued point further up the thread fron dot and now this dross.
Characteristically dot uses leftist techniques in lieu of rebuttal.
Does dot believe that leftists and Tjere subscribe to the same policies for the same reasons?
If dot does, I have a profitable landmark bridge to see him.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 2:47 pm
dot, so you believe that life and liberty are alienable? OK, some libertarians are now against the Declaration of Independence. A disappointing development.
dover_beach
10 Sep 12 at 2:48 pm
sell
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 2:49 pm
DavidL.
We got a few local members elected and the statists at The Cat’ are all in a lather!
In the end of the day the Australian public won’t elect an extreme party to government, but they’ll vote for one which will actually stop pissing their hard earned up against the wall like the TUP, Libs(sic) and New-Communists.
Forester
10 Sep 12 at 2:51 pm
Freedom to contract (including into euthanasia) trumps some metaphysical inalienability bullshit cooked up in a century when euthanasia wouldn’t have been a relevant concern, dover.
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 2:55 pm
The declaration of ownership is against self ownership? Fuck me dead. This is just intolerable bullshit.
The loony right are sure out in force today.
Why are the toadying fools like dover, James and Alfonso so afraid of freedom?
You’re like children.
Libertarians consistently argue against drug laws on moral, rights based and utilitarian grounds and they get ignored and anti drugs conservatives go on ‘feel’, just like how Obama marketed himself.
You got the level of answer you requested.
.
10 Sep 12 at 2:57 pm
dot
dover is arguing that ‘inalienable’ means you can’t enter into a contract for someone to kill you if you’re incapable of doing it yourself.
So his argument is these founding fathers, as intelligent as they are, would somehow be able to anticipate all the future dilemmas of a technologically advanced society where it’s hard enough even getting a court order for someone to turn off some machine that is keeping you alive against your wishes
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 2:59 pm
We got a few local members elected and the statists at The Cat’ are all in a lather!
Would appear to be a pissing contest of who is the true libertarian
Dan
10 Sep 12 at 3:00 pm
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
In- or un- alienable doesn’t mean that deceitful dross Jason, you clown.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 3:05 pm
Alfonso,
From Wikipedia;
“For instance, the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas of the British and Indian armies are not mercenaries under the laws of war, since although they may meet many of the requirements of Article 47 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, they are exempt under clauses 47(a)(c)(d)(e)&(f); some journalists describe them as mercenaries nevertheless.[4][5]”
Under this definition, they would not be mercenaries. Still, I believe it is in Australia’s interests to use our own highly professional soldiers rather than morally-ambiguous blow-ins, but the policy is sound from a legal perspective.
The only benefit I see is financially, and politically it is likely to confine the LDP to the fringe – a counterweight to the Greens, but they are so looney as to be left alone white-anting Labor.
Twodogs
10 Sep 12 at 3:12 pm
You’d be wrong.
Apparently dot, papa, Terje etc, jason etc after silly etc seem to know what a libertarian is.
It’s what they say it is and not what the American founding fathers, Ron Paul and pretty well any one else who disagrees with these assorted clowns say.
That’s not a pissing contest.
It’s dictatorial bullying ala leftists
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 3:15 pm
Exactly correct. Low taxes and economic frugality are winners in their own right.
But you can’t entirely detach them from the social consequences. That’s usually where the disagreement starts.
I must be a masochist I should stay away from people who claim to be libertarians but never lift a finger to help us because we don’t suit their perfect world.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:18 pm
you’re the one distorting, JamesK
The point is what some gentleman-farmers-lawyers wrote a few centuries ago in a constitutional document about ‘inalienability’ which doesn’t even apply to Australia shouldn’t dictate the boundaries of freedom of contract in light of changing technological/medical circumstances.
jtfsoon
10 Sep 12 at 3:18 pm
Could the really-truly libertarians (by their own definition) explain to me their position on euthanasia please? Are they just speaking of suicide or assisted suicide? And if they believe that the person ‘owns himself/herself’ then are they happy for someone to assist that person to die for any reason that person deems adequate for themselves?
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 3:19 pm
No, because I am a bottle merchant.
The fact of the matter is the Government has no right to decide for adults with their faculties what is right.
.
10 Sep 12 at 3:21 pm
No. I’m not.
Hey Jase you could gain Obummer’s nomination for SCOTUS with drivel like that.
Virgil Goode in Virginia and Gary Johnson in New Mexico may hand the presidency to Obama.
Virgil and Gary are Jason Soons and Terje P’s of America.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 3:23 pm
Ellen, read the LDP’s policy: http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1142-assisted-suicide
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:28 pm
That would be the argument for the two party system not yours.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 3:28 pm
Ah James, you’re a confused puppy. Why not come out of the closet? You’ve got liberal views on economics and conservative views on social issues. That makes you a large L Liberal, otherwise known as a conservative.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:30 pm
They should feel free to knock themselves off, but should remain ineligible for life insurance etc.
I’m not having my premiums inflated by either your disregard for your own life or your greedy kids who find you a burden.
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 12 at 3:33 pm
What a lot of rubbish Champ.
Go and tell IAG you have a dispensation from both seat belt and helmet wearing on your drivers licence and see what sort of comp ins premium they come up with in a world with no taxpayer risk spread green slip.
LDP “sovereign individual” public teat suckers.
Frauds.
Anfonso
10 Sep 12 at 3:34 pm
JC – There are those that argue the LDP should have a policy in favour of a gold standard. I have always argued against the LDP having such a policy position. However even if I wanted the LDP to adopt a gold standard policy position it is hard to see how this fits the tag of “left wing”.
TerjeP
10 Sep 12 at 3:35 pm
Are you changing the subject IT? Nobody has suggested changing insurance eligibility for suicide.
In any case, it’s a matter for insurance companies to decide.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:37 pm
Get fucked.
I declared what I believed myself to be lotsa times on these threads.
I’ve said I’m a conservative libertarian and I’m well to the right of the Liberal party on fiscal matters and only some ‘social issues’.
If it supports a civil society I’m for it; if it’s destructive of the ‘civil society’ I’m against it.
I abhor the take-over of the libertarian brand by fools who are destroying it.
And you have not bothered to answer my critiques I notice David.
Too difficult for you?
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 3:39 pm
David L, as a true libertarian do you still believe that it should be illegal for Coles and Woolworths to sell $1 milk?
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 12 at 3:39 pm
America does not have preferential voting nor does it have Senatorial proportional representation. Nor do we have primaries.
What works in America will not work here and vice versa.
You guys should join da Liberals because I’m arguing against the two party system in America by calling third parties wreckers!
Wow, that made a whole lot of sense!
.
10 Sep 12 at 3:44 pm
I read the page you linked to – thanks David. Are you just able to clarify for me whether or not this means that assisted suicide should be legally available for anyone who wants to end their life, at any point, regardless of the reason? Thanks.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 3:45 pm
The LDP doesn’t want to pay the market cost of its choices.
It wants to pretend that the massive injury risk from choosing an easily avoided no seat belt option is somehow philosophically comparable to a hip replacement the rest of the taxed should be happy to pay.
Sorry boys, you’re too dumb to prosper.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 3:48 pm
What are you on about Alfonso? The LDP is against the state providing “free” health care. Why would they care if people wore helmets or not? It’s nobodies business.
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 12 at 3:51 pm
The rights to life and liberty are inalieable. Right to life includes the right to voluntarily end it (even to voluntarily enter into a contract with someone to help you end it under particular circumstances) if you so choose.
You can do better than that pissweak argument d_b
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 3:56 pm
What do you mean ‘still’. I’ve never said that.
I don’t think it’s good that milk is so low because the supply chain is not something that can be easily turned on and off. Also, in the long run consumers will not benefit. But that doesn’t mean it’s any business of the government. I am, and always have been, in favour of free markets.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:56 pm
You can commit suicide for any reason currently. There is no justification for changing that merely because you are too feeble to do it for yourself and require assistance.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 3:58 pm
“if people wore helmets or not? It’s nobodies business.”
Correct, the only condition being I don’t pick up the massive cost of 40 years of caring for easily avoided, no seat belt option choice, para’s.
Carry your own costs, go for your life…but the plebs don’t have that sort of money….now what?
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 4:01 pm
We can argue the toss with JamesK the soial conservative about what is and asn’t libertarian, but there’s not much of a libertarian ‘brand’ in this country. Most people haven’t heard of the word, and many that have think we’re survivalist gun nuts.
Others confuse it with ‘libertine’ and think we’re morally loose.
LDP you have some work to do here
Getting a couple of elected councillors is a start I guess.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 4:11 pm
Long time reader/luker, first time poster here.
Congratulations LDP, this is great news. I have voted LDP on every occasion that the option was open to me and look forward to that option becoming more available as you grow from this success.
tgs
10 Sep 12 at 4:12 pm
Then is it correct for me to understand that the position is for assisted suicide ONLY when the person is too feeble to take their own life in some way? Would it otherwise be illegal? And, if so, who makes the ‘too feeble’ call? Thanks again.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 4:15 pm
Good point Ellen and we don’t have a position on it. The assumption is you would do it yourself if you could.
A purist libertarian might argue that it shouldn’t matter either way. I’m not a purist and neither is the LDP, but others might be.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 4:18 pm
Those of you who believe in liberty should have an opinion on the resurrection of the divine right of kings in Europe. Have a look at this debacle. The tyrants are making their move. Serious totalitarian shit, if you ask me.
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-esms-articles-todays-must-read/
“Draghi reinvents the Divine Right of Kings
Hitler’s 1933 Post-Reichstag Fire Emergency Decree had nothing on the newly drafted ESM Charter. You can read it here in full at the EU website: the mad folks are getting more brazen by the day, but they’re still leaving the nasties until the contemporary MSM journalists get bored: so the really startling stuff doesn’t appear until Article 32. These are the extracts that matter, quoted verbatim except for the usual deliberately baffling legalese:
Article 32, para 3: The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process. (There is one exception – entirely in the ESM’s favour)
para 4: The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action
para 8: To the extent necessary to carry out the activities provided for in this Treaty, all property, funding and assets of the ESM shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature
Article 35, para 1: In the interest of the ESM, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.
There are other worms in this charity tin, but trust me, these two articles are the ones that ensure it really isn’t the standard contract. The Sun headline is this: the ESM can steal your granny’s favourite sherry decanter, and there’s nothing you can do about it; any media hacks investigating grand larceny, murder and mass rape can whistle Dixie; no matter who they subordinate, cheat, or screw over, they’re allowed to, so there; and if I Mario Draghi deems it in the public good to stuff 46,000 gold bars in a Gnome’s private bank, it’s none of your business.
But there is one astonishing phrase in there which I feel duty bound to lift and separate from even this stuff above:
‘The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable. The premises of the ESM shall be inviolable.’
The International Law Society definition of ‘inviolable’ is ‘unassailable and impregnable’. Or in one word, untouchable. Or an yet another word, supreme.
Or in a final word, Sovereign.
You have been warned.”
Imagine Gillard, Rudd or Swan with these powers…
Twodogs
10 Sep 12 at 4:19 pm
The Cat has turned into a strange place.
The victory of two LDP candidates is a great day for libertarian (or “classical liberal”) politics in Australia. Clinton, DavidL, Peter, Terje, and all the others should be congratulated for all the work they have done.
I expect libertarians to argue. That’s our nature, and god knows I’ve argued with many people here before. But there is a strange amount of angst on this blog now that doesn’t make much sense to me.
If there are people out there working for a smaller government, civil society and free markets then I think they deserve our support and thanks. That applies to the LDP army, but also to the various think-tanks and groups like the taxpayers alliance, freedom fighters in either of the major parties, libertarian academics & journos, and it also includes the radical elements like Liberty Australia and the Mises mob.
I don’t know the other guy who got elected, but I think Clinton Mead makes a great libertarian and LDP ambassador. Good luck for the years ahead!
John Humphreys
10 Sep 12 at 4:29 pm
A nonsensical non-argument from dot.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 4:31 pm
And apple pie is nice too.
What if those supposedly ‘working’ for smaller government actually empower statist by dividing the centre-right opposition and feeding into the fear-mongering of the Left-MSM complex?
Then they shouldn’t deserve our support should they?
In fact they ‘should’ deserve our opprobrium
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 4:37 pm
Their system is fundamentally different from ours. How is that a non-argument or nonsensical? I don’t necessarily agree with him but he made that point earlier. Such differences need to be taken into account and adjusted accordingly.
Twodogs
10 Sep 12 at 4:40 pm
Humphreys, the Cat is libertarian AND centre right, so some of the argument is between libertarians and centre-right social conservatives (including some who think they are libertarian) That’s where the ‘angst’ comes from – especially when you add in a couple of statist trolls like this Alfonso character.
But yes libertarians will also differ in their levels of purism and pragmatism, specific areas of focus etc.
I had another question – what PR did you get from this election victory? Any write-ups in local or state media with an introduction to this ‘new’ political party? the Socialist Alliance has only one guy elected (unfortunately here in Yarra council) but generally gets some write-ups.
Even negative publicity from the left would be good – I read a student unionists’ guide to the micro parties once, and he’d gone through all of them except the LDP. For some reason he chose to be silent, even though he bagged out the ones like Shooters and Fishers or Family First, and spoke reverently of the Socialist Alliance, Alternative etc.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 4:41 pm
“Don’t let Sinclair re-write the defence policy, or you’ll end up with orbiting nuclear bombs.”
What’s wrong with that? Sounds like a very good idea to me. Nukes are the ultimate deterrent, and space is a pretty good place to keep them. But it’s easier to stick them on submarines.
“Then is it correct for me to understand that the position is for assisted suicide ONLY when the person is too feeble to take their own life in some way? Would it otherwise be illegal? And, if so, who makes the ‘too feeble’ call?”
The LDP includes no details like this because the aim is to liberalise policy from its current position, rather than picking a particular regime. It’s more about the political discussion than the endpoint. The LDP, generally speaking, starts from the premise of giving people more control over their own lives (in all areas), and moving society in that direction. No false panacea is offered, rather a promise of improvement if personal freedom is given higher priority.
Specifically for voluntary euthanasia, any shift towards removing restrictions will be welcomed by the LDP, and things like who is eligible or what safeguards are in place are secondary (and best shaped by democratic processes).
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 4:43 pm
Thanks for answering all my questions. I wonder if the ‘non-purest’ position might not leave room for others to call themselves libertarians, even if their lack of purity reveals itself in contrary views? Perhaps ‘libertarian’ is not quite water-tight.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 4:45 pm
It’s not, but neither is it all encompassing.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 4:52 pm
Fair point Ellen. There’s been lots of arguments about where the boundaries and definition of ‘libertarian’ lie.
I even copped a furious bollocking from an anarcho-capitalist once because I dared suggest that, as an anarchist, he was outside the bounds of libertarian as he was ardently for zero government. I suggested that the lower end of libertarianism would be a minimalist ‘nightwatchman’ type government (just police and courts) – he thought that was the upper end. Fun times.
others have said that, as long as you’re for less government than currently then, even if you’re not consistent about it, you’re a libertarian.
I think that’s a bit too broad personally – you should have some belief in the general principle of smaller government, but appreciate there’s a range of views.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 4:55 pm
Because instead of the ‘primary’ we have the electorate’s Liberal Party members deciding who is their candidate.
The only problem is that liberal party membership is no where near the membership of of the GOP or Dems in the USA.
Which really only means supposed libertarians who really wanted to effect smaller government policy would do that most easily and most effectively within the Liberal Party.
But dicks prefer to grandstand.
Community organising statist types loves these useful so-called/self-exclusively-labelled libertarian self-important idiots.
Secondly even in our PR system third parties bleed primary votes away from the main parties.
Just ask the ALP.
Thirdly the best intellectual, financial and publicity resources to advance the smaller gov debate is within the Liberal Party not this amateur loon third party.
Fourthly the more libertarian/classical liberal members of the Liberal party the greater the influence on candidates for Senate selection and the greater the national and state policy influence.
Lastly the Liberal Party has a smaller government agenda so the difference with libertarianism is just degree. The ALP/Greens are unequivocally statist.
I’ve said pretty well most of this further up the thread and mostly in response to dot.
So what’s wrong Twodogs?
Are you incapable of reading posts from people who are irritating your sensibilities?
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 5:01 pm
Actually that’s true. It’s so easy o get into a scrap around here and lose sight of good things happening such as that result. Congrats LDP.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:03 pm
I think this is generally recognised, leaving aside the resident trolls and Junior.
The thing that surprised me the most regarding this is that the LDP a) was running in council elections and b) had never achieved election to a council before. Is this one of the first times they have run for council elections?
As to the angst.. the issue is that ‘Libertarian’ is a very broad grouping. The concept that one element of that grouping now has a degree of ‘authority’ causes some angst given that the way they act will begin to establish what the LDP represents to the wider community; it may not be entirely what they wanted.
You see it above in the bipolar views on euthanasia. Some think that euthanasia is a freedom that must be respected. Others see that it is inalienably causing harm to another; a license to murder. The LDP has a position on this; it differs to what some believe.
Even in the Libertarian world, access to government authority at any level distorts argument.
DriftForge
10 Sep 12 at 5:05 pm
Like you, James.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Abbot is referred to tongue in cheek as the first DLP Prime Minister. it isn’t entirely because he is a Catholic, either.
.
10 Sep 12 at 5:06 pm
James K
The Libs need and deserve a through kick up the arse for their statism. The LDP is the party that’s perfectly able and willing to do so.
Working on the inside isn’t possible as the insiders have the party by the balls and call the shots.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:06 pm
Very good.
Run a candidate in Warringah and I’d number them even above TA.
Alex Pundit
10 Sep 12 at 5:06 pm
???
Ah yes, that’s right, that Kroger arsewipe. He’s about as genuine about liberalism as Fraser was. Quote Rand, implement and extend socialism. What a dick.
.
10 Sep 12 at 5:08 pm
There are many people who think the Greens are ‘libertarian’ because of their stance on ‘marriage equality’, drug laws and euthanasia.
They completely ignore their stances on outdoor recreation, the economy, eating, drinking, smoking, world parliaments and just about everything else.
It’s even been said that ‘libertarians should vote Green because at least they support social freedoms’
FFS. We shouldn’t let them get away with this crap.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 5:09 pm
Both are needed. Dissenting voices are ignored in Australia, unless they have a platform of their own.
Even those in the Liberal party would like to have a stalking horse to make the statements that they cannot make (and remain elecatable to the center) but that must be made, the way the Greens do for Labor.
DriftForge
10 Sep 12 at 5:09 pm
Their party manifesto is. But honestly , you really think anyone in the party has even bothered to read the party manifesto.
What part of the manifesto did Abbott’s have-a-kid-on-us-with $75,000 a year derive from?
Look how fatty O’Barrell is going all Finkelstein now.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:10 pm
None of these positions could even be remotely thought of libertarian. Gay marriage is not libertarian. IT’s laughable to even think that it is when it’s a bunch of people demanding the state recognize their right to marriage.
Their drug law policy is one huge statist wankfest and would all be administered through bureaucracy. It’s basically a bigger version of the injecting room.
Would you really want that creep Tubbsie Milne and Soviet money bags Lee Rhiannon having control of state based health insurance and enacting laws on suicide? Good luck. By the time their done, Pol Pot would look like a Catholic saint.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:16 pm
The term ‘libertarian’ must have boundaries somewhere, for sure.
I describe myself as a Christian libertarian, because I am at odds with secular humanism, which seems to be assumed in much of the debate. Some here would say that makes me a conservative, and I’d be happy to wear that tag if the conservatives weren’t such big government folk.
Samuel warned the Israelites that if they had a king he would probably end up taxing them as much as 10% – shocking indeed. (1 Sam. 8:15) Find me a conservative who wants a lower tax rate than that, and I’d be prepared to listen.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 5:21 pm
JamesK, since you are arguing with slightly less abuse for a change I will respond to your points in turn.
We are constantly approached by Liberal Party members who either want to join us or want us to run against them in order to force the party to move towards our position. This would not occur if we joined, where we would be buried in factional disputes.
Not in federal elections where preferences are obligatory. Labor has benefited enormously from Greens preferences in the HoR.
Minor party preferences (including ours) were also instrumental in preventing the Greens from grabbing a Senate seat in 2007.
There is some validity to your point in state elections where preferences are optional, but even then preference deals are possible.
The Liberal Party has ample opportunity to do that now, and with a few exceptions (George Brandis on freedom of speech, for example) they mostly fail. It does not lack for intellectual, financial or publicity resources. The IPA is increasingly critical of the Liberals for not standing up for individual rights.
True, but that’s long been the case and nothing seems to change. It’s always the left versus right factions beating each other to death and statist government when in power.
Except it does not implement its agenda. Witness Howard’s bribery of the electorate and his gun laws. Fraser was one of the biggest disappointments of all time. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality is vast.
History shows the Liberal Party reacts when it it challenged externally, not internally. The example of Pauline Hanson shows how. We are similarly challenging the Liberals and having much greater influence than if we all joined the party. There are already examples where our policies have been nicked.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 5:24 pm
Here, here John.
This is great news. I can’t believe the amount of negativity about the election of LDP candidates that most regularly Catallaxy readers should agree with on 90% of issues. The LDP may not match your preferences exactly, but then which other party does?
If you find yourself drawn more to the Liberal or Labor brands then that’s fine, but let’s call a spade a spade: that makes you either a statist or a conservative, or in some cases, both of these things.
I’m glad to see some friends of freedom elected and I hope these guys stay strong. Don’t make friends with the other side, especially the Green loons. Criticise ruinous policy at every turn, regardless of who suggests it. Remember that your duty is to ratepayers, not other councilors.
If I have one suggestion it is this: the LDP name sucks. I’d get a much bigger kick out of being able to vote for the Freedom Party or the Libertarian Party, or even the Small Government Party. I know there are rules on party names and the LDP name is gaining some traction, but I have no affinity for the moniker. But I will still vote LDP.
rebel with cauae
10 Sep 12 at 5:27 pm
They’re not ideolgues.
They’re interested in power.
That’s not all bad.
You have to be hard-headed but they are often wrong in their reckonings.
Abbott suddenly realised one day that a big chunk of people would vote for him if he opposed the carbon tax and ran against Malcolm.
6 months earlier he wrote an editorial that the ETS was inevitable and the Liberal’s role was to see that it was made better and the leader should be supported.
Voices and numbers count JC.
And the Coalition are considerably pro smaller government than ALP/Greens in reality as well as rhetorically. Just not small enough.
But it’s not close between the two major parties.
A libertarians’s first priority is to ensure ALP/Greens/Dems/Obummer/Da Slapper are booted out.
Then to minimize statism and secondly promote a smaller more efficient government.
Both goals are best accomplished within the Coalition tent.
The reasoning here isn’t even difficult.
The LDP are a joke and they actually hinder rather than help the libertarian cause.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 5:31 pm
Examples please David?
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:32 pm
Yes I agree 100% with you JC, but the fact is that many people think the Greens are libertarian based on their huffing and puffing about marriage equality.
Elllen there’s no reason why you can’t be Christian and libertarian. Libertarians are for freedom of religion, so as long as you’re not one of these ‘worship no other god but mine’ types it’s all cool. Though the two aren’t necessarily linked, just as secularism and libertarianism aren’t either.
I had a mate once who actually called himself ‘libertarian’, then one or two sentences later said he thought all religion should be banned. He also votes Green. This is what I mean about people appropriating the word.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 5:35 pm
Bwaaa papa……’statist trolls’…… this from the statist Liberts who want the taxpayers to pick up the bill for their choices.
Priceless, Champ.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 5:39 pm
Alfonse
You’ve repeated the same thing in every one one of your comments. You’ve made your point. Now unless you can make another one fuck off. Trolling the same comment is eventually considered spam, you dipshit.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 5:42 pm
Spoken like a true libertarian!
SteveC
10 Sep 12 at 5:44 pm
“I describe myself as a Christian libertarian, because I am at odds with secular humanism, which seems to be assumed in much of the debate.”
Do you mean that, for you, some Christian values trump traditional libertarian ones, but where there’s no conflict you opt for libertarianism?
“There are many people who think the Greens are ‘libertarian’ because of their stance on ‘marriage equality’, drug laws and euthanasia.”
Really? I don’t know anyone who does that. The Greens are explicitly left-wing, but what that means is that there is some overlap in preferred outcomes with libertarians (due to the neither-left-nor-right aspect), although mostly from a very different starting point and methodology.
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 5:45 pm
“The LDP are a joke and they actually hinder rather than help the libertarian cause.”
How so?
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 5:46 pm
Anyway these are local government elections. Candidates shouldn’t have policy positions on defence or euthanasia that they want to give effect to. That is a typical leftist ploy to extend the role of the state. What pisses me off about Marickville council is what their Israel policy is, but that they have one at all.
If the LDP is for reducing rates and keeping the streets cleaned and the roads well maintained (I’m not a pure libertarian either) and ending all other forms of council intervention, then what’s not to like?
rebel with cauae
10 Sep 12 at 5:46 pm
I can only assume by your repeated idiocy that you were the victim of a helmetless accident.
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 12 at 5:48 pm
Spare me the self-righteousness David.
That’s not an argument but if you say it is then it’s woeful.
The Liberal Party membership is low.
If there was a concerted effort by libertarians to join their influence would be relatively large.
It’s actually an easier job here than for the Tea Party in the US.
So what? Where did the Greens vote come from?
The Hawke ALP experiment has failed disastrously for the ALP.
And libertarians and conservatives have much more in common than workers and progressives.
It’s the mod libs who lurve big government. Howard just wanted to be elected.
That’s just not true. They don’t go far enough.
Brandis on free speech is an example rather than an exception.
They don’t want to make waves.
They’re frightened of the MSM and are always trying to appease.
Again – just not true.
Abbott came to power from internal pressure not the MSM.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 5:54 pm
Not in an open blog, JC. Renew your membership and get involved.
DavidLeyonhjelm
10 Sep 12 at 5:55 pm
stevec I don’t know how many more times this needs to be explained to you, let’s try it again, shall we?
This is a private blog. As such it is private property and anyone can be ejected by the owner of this private property. people are free to call for banning of dense trolls at any time.
Gab
10 Sep 12 at 5:55 pm
Read the thread, idiot.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 5:56 pm
LDPers want to carry the consequences of their choices?…..errr, no….still just a mob of collectivists looking for me to share the pain they can’t afford..
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 6:00 pm
The idiot Alf is basing his meme on three discredited, confected lies.
Lie 1: CTP pays for Medicare.
Lie 2: Uninsured people somehow now can pay for their liabilities, because it is theoretically compulsory.
Lie 3: People in America get denied medical care.
STFU you clown.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:03 pm
Especially when they lie to advance a position.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:04 pm
“Read the thread”
I have. That’s why I asked – you haven’t given any examples. Idiot.
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 6:05 pm
James
How many times do we have to explain this to you?
We weren’t welcome in the Liberal Party. Then the socialist insiders took control and diddled the Victorians etc. Now in NW Sydney, a lot of LDP membership comes from a Liberal party exodus.
If we all joined the Liberal party in the first place, the insiders would still have control and the LDP wouldn’t exist.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:07 pm
Jarrah,
I guess I’m not sure what you mean by ‘traditional libertarian’ but I would argue that my Christian values define my libertarian views, just as others here have their libertarian views defined by secular humanism.
I don’t think anyone here believes in unlimited individual liberty. So then we all ask – liberty to do what, and by what standard? Even if you decide that individual liberty should be your highest political value, you are going to have to explain why, and as soon as you do that you are entering the world of religion/worldview/belief system.
I believe the Christian worldview best defines the individual and corporate nature of man, that’s all.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Sep 12 at 6:16 pm
It’s virtual LDP heaven time, where there are no green slips or communal risk sharing, each is insured on his unique risk profile.
Now, lets try and insure our helmetless, seat belt rejecting lifestyle choice for its real market value risk.
First, don’t let the laughter put you off possums……..
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 6:17 pm
/Devil’s advocate.
No, JamesK, your resorted to belittling your opponent without supporting evidence. I get enough mouth-frothing from the leftists elsewhere to put up with it here.
Only once I had defended dot or period or whatever he’s calling himself did you provide any semblance of an argument. I actually agree with you on those points but you pretended there was no difference which is demonstrably untrue.
You made an accusation of a non-argument through your own non-argument. Argument fail, buddy!
Twodogs
10 Sep 12 at 6:17 pm
SteveC
How many times does it have to be explained to leftwing morons such as yourself that banning someone from a private blog does not impair their right to freedom of speech.
How many fucking times you thickwad? Don’t any of you understand the differences, you unmitigated dullard?
Don’t go all beta silent on me now. Answer the fucking questions..that is unless you’re indisposed taking care of Kimberly’s needs.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 6:21 pm
Aww…. poor dot and TerjeP weren’t made welcome.
Presumably the Tea Party were?
It’s an internal democracy dot.
This supports my suspicion that the LDP powerbrokers are self-important dicks rather than genuinely interested in advancing a more libertarian policy agenda at the state and national level.
Grow up.
You’re now a liar as well as dense as well as stupid Jarrah.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 6:21 pm
Jarrah – go to a few lefty blogs and try to understand the mindset of your average Greens voter.
Of course there are the statist freaks who get off on eco-socialism, but that doesn’t fully explain their 12-15% of the vote. The others are naïve and have been sucked in by their ‘trendy’ stances. I swear you’ll read comments like ‘the Greens are the only ones standing up for the little guy and our rights’ (often confusing minority rights with individual rights). Or they’ll think that both Liberal and Labor are in thrall to Big Corporate, and that the Greens, by opposing big companies, are somehow pro-freedom.
I agree. But the Greens actually don’t admit to being leftwing – they use terms like ‘progressive’ and ‘caring’ instead. And people take this to mean standing up fro freedom, which of course they don’t. Plus where the Greens do overlap with libertarians, many think it for libertarian reasons. I agree with you it’s not, but I’ve heard many cite this as a reason why the vote Green.
papachango
10 Sep 12 at 6:24 pm
“communal risk sharing…real market value”
Ah yes…because “communal” economics often leads to efficiency…bloody fool.
Different risk profiles still go into the same pool a lot of the time. It happens in aggregate because of hedging and risk management through portfolio management.
No mention of the fact that every driver on the road, if they have purchased CTP or not, is covered for their liability. You don’t even consider this moral hazard.
Idiot. Fail.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:25 pm
Because it was an argument made and rebutted that did not negate my original point on any rational reading.
I’m sorry if you feel aggrieved.
I’m getting it left, right and centre, here.
It’s hard to keep up.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 6:27 pm
But we should go and join the Liberal party and preach truth?
Right.
Your argument is really fucking stupid.
“You are outrageous fools who are demonstratably wrong but you should go and join the Liberal party and infiltrate it, but it serves you right that you weren’t welcome”
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Idiot.
Self important dicks?
Mick Kroger. Ted Baillieu. Malcolm Fraser.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:29 pm
You let the laughter put you off possum.
Non wealthy Liberts can’t function.
So they have to pretend that pools of exclusive helmetless seat belt rejectors is somehow a broad spreader of insurance risk.
You don’t make much trading, do you.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 6:35 pm
“Even if you decide that individual liberty should be your highest political value, you are going to have to explain why, and as soon as you do that you are entering the world of religion/worldview/belief system.”
An important point.
And thanks for satisfying my curiosity about being a Christian libertarian, it was just the first time I’d heard the phrase and was curious.
“You’re now a liar as well as dense as well as stupid Jarrah.”
You’re never going to break the habit of calling someone stupid when you can’t back up your claims, are you? You have my pity.
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 6:40 pm
Um, so why do we have generational poverty with a welfare state? We’ve kept people down. We’ve conditioned them not to function right now.
Err, idiot, I didn’t pretend that at all. Firms can price any way they like. How they manage their risk is up to them. Clients spread their risk for their underwriters? You fucking halfwit.
The only reason why you refer to risk as a public good is because, let me guess, you think insurance and banking ought to be nationalised?
Australia banned the Government from doing that in the late 1940s.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:45 pm
Just to be crystal….I can get much cheaper insurance by not being involved in pools containing helmetless non seat belt wearers, possum.
You seem to be suggesting that a ‘compulsory’ spreading of your risk will make such insurance affordable for you, stuff me?
You sound like a Lloyds colonial bunny…..ah, the Piper Alpha suckers pool.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 6:46 pm
I ‘have’ Jarrah’s pity.
RATFLMAO
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 6:49 pm
No it fucking isn’t.
It’s the only intelligent and rational assessment.
Libertarian principles would be best advanced within the Liberal Party which already has such a platform than as a divisive and amateur third party.
It’s not difficult.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 6:55 pm
Alfonse:
You’re an idiot. Private insurance firms understand there is risk, but they overlook some of it and just build it into a cushion.
Chubb never asked me if I road a bike without a helmet nor did they ask if I wore a seat belt. Life insurance firms don’t ask those things either yet they too carry risk.
You’re a first rate fucking goose.. fuck off and stop spamming the site you retarded mental midget.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 6:56 pm
The LDP needs to ignore the critics – who, if they’re from the right, are simply jealous – and move on with getting the message out there.
Well done to the LDP! This is just the beginning.
John Mc
10 Sep 12 at 6:56 pm
“RATFLMAO”
Heh. Here’s a hint – when you’re 70 years old, you’re going to fuck up young people’s lingo even if you’re not years out of date, so don’t bother trying. It makes you look like an idiot.
Jarrah
10 Sep 12 at 6:56 pm
They are not, and we have demonstrated this many times. You don’t even seem to understand how we vote in Australia.
Sometimes I wonder if you’re a Republican stateside trolling the forum when you get sick of losing arguments to US libertarians on the free republic boards.
.
10 Sep 12 at 6:57 pm
Libertarian principles would be best advanced within the Liberal Party which already has such a platform than as a divisive and amateur third party.
I’m sorry James but the only way libertarian principles will be advanced in the Liberal Party is when the Libs are forced to adopt them because another party is selling them successfully to the wider public and taking their votes. While they perceive they can take the libertarian vote for granted they’ll do nothing with a libertarian bent.
John Mc
10 Sep 12 at 7:01 pm
James
The Liberal Party is a closed shop. The executive runs things and there is no room for grassroots opinion. You may get a show in if you’re a big donor like the dude in Qld. Otherwise forget it.
They don’t need grassroots because most of their funding comes from the public purse.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 7:06 pm
You risible fwit.
Insurance didn’t ask you whether you wear a seat belt or a helmet because it’s legally COMPULSORY and they assume you do.
Feeling embarrassed yet, Champ?
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 7:07 pm
John Mc is correct.
The Liberals are like a fat girlfriend who is gaining weight fast, won’t give you any time with the boys and has stopped using Clinique….and then has the temerity to blackmail you sex.
Like the Liberals, she needs a younger, better looking neighbour to move in next door to give the guy an option on the side…if she doesn’t improve her act.
.
10 Sep 12 at 7:08 pm
No alfonso, YOU are the risible fuckwit.
They didn’t ask if he was a smoker either etc.
.
10 Sep 12 at 7:09 pm
I can get much cheaper risk insurance by isolating myself from the helmetless, non seat belt pools……why do you claim I should not be able to do that?
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 7:09 pm
Theoretically possible but most unlikely.
The ALP went progressive and bled their heartland.
Libertarian public policy is more likely to retarded than advanced with a third party.
Liberal heartland is the best place to try and win fiscal libertarianism in a battle of ideas.
The problem is that so few with ability champion and defend them.
You need the leadership to believe it can be argued without losing by default to leftism.
On the other hand if you win election after winning hearts and minds then you have the mandate to seriously wind back government over the caterwauling of the leftist MSM.
Be real you so-called real libertarians
LOL
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 7:10 pm
Terje
You have argued with me a number of times that you support Wanniski’s idea of a gold target. Have you not? You’ve also been willfully blind to the fact that that is a statist position. Is it not?
I’m not arguing if you’re a member of the LDP as clearly you are. I’m arguing whether your positions are really all that libertarian.
You’re moving the goal posts. There was never an argument about your position in the LDP.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 7:11 pm
Yeah, idiot Null…but they COULD have and none smoking pools will have low cost premiums that I want if I am allowed to select them
You seek to spread the risk still…you little collectivist you.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 7:12 pm
How come everyone seems to get it except you then?
The Liberals are pinned to the centre until there is a fourth party. Even if Libertarians were to take over the Liberal party, all changing the platform would do is lose elections for the Liberal party.
DriftForge
10 Sep 12 at 7:14 pm
Not at all, dickhead. I lived in the US and plenty of states at the time didn’t have a seat belt law nor wearing one for wearing a helmet. In fact NY state only started the seat belt law in the late 90′s i think. They never asked before and they never asked after. They also never made it a condition of having insurance, fuckface. Neither do they make it a conditional here.
Now piss off and stop spamming. You lost the argument. Go have a good cry and deal with it.
(and change your screen too as Alfonse sounds stupid).
JC
10 Sep 12 at 7:17 pm
Hmmm…choice is collectivism.
To avoid collectivism and be free, you must choose collectivism.
Slavery is freedom.
What a moronic turd Alfonso is.
.
10 Sep 12 at 7:18 pm
So do I, as part of NGDP targeting, but I want free banking.
.
10 Sep 12 at 7:24 pm
You iriot, a US state with helmetless seatbelt-less rules assumes everyone doesn’t, your word is no good for their insurance.
Talk about slow.
So Null “must” spread his helmetless / no seat belt risk or he can’t insure in an Australia that’s truly Libertarian. He must have collectivist insurance because he can’t be a Libertarian / LDPer at market prices. LOL
Ironic.
So many Libert poseurs….so little time.
Alfonso
10 Sep 12 at 7:35 pm
A secondary modus operandi of the major parties is to absorb the minor policy platforms with mild variation then choke out the minor party (which is not a bad thing, it’s part of democracy).
Which is why I’m not surprised the Green vote is declining. It’s not about their declining influence to the degree that some people believe. It’s because Labor has adopted their policies and provided a more viable alternative. Or in the case of the local elections, other councillors have adopted Green policies (look at the Rocky Horror gargoyle that rules Sydney).
This happened with One Nation with both major parties. As much as they destroyed themselves, both major parties now want to ‘stop the boats’ at least in a large part due to prior efforts to choke out One Nation.
John Mc
10 Sep 12 at 7:36 pm
So because you are offended by a private insurance firm having blanket pricing, it is a better option to have compulsory insurance and OH&S procedures?
Do you think national prices at chain stores are collectivists as well? You chucklehead.
.
10 Sep 12 at 7:40 pm
Why would firms adopt blanket pricing? Some might, but others will adopt contractual clauses for the wearing of seat belts, helmets, smoking, drugs, rock climbing, cycling, horse riding etc and undercut the current market.
I’d personally pay the money for the policy that covers everything but suicide and get on with living my life. But that doesn’t mean everyone else would have to share some of my risk.
John Mc
10 Sep 12 at 7:43 pm
Quite apart from being a woefully poor analysis that assessment is just plain wrong John Mc.
Progressivism cost the ALP and now that progressive policy extremism is in full view and it’s costing the Greens.
The Greens suffered when the ALP moved back towards The Liberal party on illegal boats arrivals
Labor will improve when they are less progressive not more
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 7:56 pm
You are right now James. Not in 2007 and 2010.
.
10 Sep 12 at 8:03 pm
Labor will improve when they are less progressive not more
But so will the Greens, and that’s what Labor was trying to counter. (But I agree with your statement.)
John Mc
10 Sep 12 at 8:04 pm
John MC
Firms should price risk as they choose. However alfonse’s argument seems to be that Libertarians supporting no helmet/seat belt laws are getting a free ride from the current health system ignoring the fact they have no choice. The moron argues that in itself is proof that we’re just statists.
He’s basically a fucking moron made worse by that truly stoopid screen name he’s chosen. He’s offensive in so many ways.
Alfonse:
No I’m not. I’m explaining to to you what the lay of the land is and that some risk is simply acknowledged through blanket cover.
No they don’t you fucking innumerate. The analyst working on pricing risk through probability etc only has to look out the window of his office to see that not all people ride a motor bike and even the few that do ride them without a helmet. They would never price this sort of risk for all customers. You’re a fucking moron son. you have no business being here.
Another fucking stupid leftwing troll. How many more are there.
JC
10 Sep 12 at 8:06 pm
Why JamesK isn’t banned for his continual abuse and astounding stupidity is beyond me.
Yobbo
10 Sep 12 at 9:47 pm
LOL.
Yet another Stupid party voter who has no rebuttal of my critiques and no case to make his favour.
Yobbo votes for the likes of Gaz Johnson, Virgil or the LDP.
Probably so Yobbo can then grandstand as Da Slapper or Obummer wreak havoc after the Left triumph.
But hey Tonee Yabboot or Mittens would “be just as bad”, as Yobbo would likely exclaim.
Because he’s not that bright he hasn’t noticed that my more robust comments are in response to offensive and condescending drivel regularly dished up here by the obnoxiously sanctimonious.
Like Yobbo for instance.
But unlike the similarly obnoxiously condescending David Marr, Yobbo doesn’t have the wit to match.
Keep tryin’ champ.
JamesK
10 Sep 12 at 11:33 pm
This blog does seem to have become nearly all trolls or feeding of trolls.
I find the debate about the “best” way to promote libertarianism strange. The best way is to do whatever you enjoy doing and keeps you active. That can be big-party or small-party politics… or contributing to think-tanks, academia, clubs, journalism or more radical ventures like seasteading.
Trying to get all libertarians to do the same thing is both impossible, and also potentially counter-productive. Our first priority is to enjoy our own lives, and if people feel steam-rolled into following a certain strategy then they may just stop contributing.
So to the people in the LDP — congratulations.
To the libertarians in the Liberals (and this includes me at the moment) or Labor — good luck
To the libertarians outside of politics — keep fighting.
Ideally there would be a strong libertarian party in the Senate, forcing a libertarian-influenced Liberal party (or Labor Party) into stronger policies, being cheered on by influential academics and journalists who supported the freedom agenda.
John Humphreys
11 Sep 12 at 1:17 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZuktUfF0nE
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 1:17 am
^^^ JamesK congratulating himself on another tour de force Catallaxy comment.
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 1:24 am
Yobbo, this makes no sense. If the sad new Hitler emerges in Germany or Indonesia or whatever, the odds are that he won’t have nuclear capability either.
It is like saying since some expert robbers can open virtually any lock, you should keep your doors open.
Boris
11 Sep 12 at 3:16 am
If he doesn’t then he’s no threat, Boris.
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 3:27 am
Yobbo, if we have no army, he is.
Boris
11 Sep 12 at 3:30 am
Yobbo,
Keep in mind that the Argentines invaded a piece of British sovereign territory, in the certain knowledge that whatever happened, they weren’t going to get nuked by Britain. The Poms had to rely on conventional forces to get the Falklands back.
There are huge constraints on the use of nuclear weapons. Nukes haven’t made war obsolete since 1945, and I strongly doubt they will do so in the future.
P.S. Congrats to the LDP candidate, and I sincerely hope this is the beginning of a fourth force in Australian politics.
Piett
11 Sep 12 at 3:47 am
Boris, how would this theoretical South East Asian dictator get his forces past the US pacific fleet?
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 5:20 am
The sagely John Humphreys is correct as usual.
.
11 Sep 12 at 6:47 am
Anyway, it dawned on me how wrong this misguided Alfonso is.
Failing to wear safety equipment would either be chalked up to contributory negligence or the thin skull rule.
Cutting payouts in half is a way of dealing with risk. The problem is now that CTP pays to a common fund that pays out liabilities irregardless if they were wearing a seatbelt or not.
The private sector would either apply pay as you drive third party insurance with blanket pricing (more efficient anyway) or just cut payouts to those with contributory negligence.
What Alfonso is complaining about is being pooled with people with a lower contingent liability than he has, which is a very odd thing to complain about.
What he should complain about is paying premiums with people who drive much further than him, have bad driving records, people who drive at night a lot and the moral hazard of compulsory third party personal injury insurance.
If CTP went, all that would happen would be owners of vehicles would be offered personal injury insurance for themselves, drivers, their passengers and other third parties. We’ve already noted that pay as you drive would be cheaper than a regulated oligopoly selling the same Government run pool.
Basically what we do now is pay an extra tax and a fee to private tax collectors to pay into a public pool to deal with catastrophic injury or to deal with suing deadbeats that cause damage.
If we removed CTP in the worst case scenario, all that we’d do would be to cross subsidise. Speaking of cross subsidisation, Alfonso wants lower third party personal injury insurance by forcing third parties to act in a certain way and be fully covered by his insurance. He actually wants cross subsidisation and more moral hazard.
Really, this is a problem beset on us because of the way health and life insurance is administered.
If health insurance was cheaper (it too, like the CTP scam, is a regulated oligopoly) then more people would take it up, including top level hospital cover.
To the extent that an accident is just random or unavoidable, then we should cover ourselves with the income protection and permanent disability options under life insurance.
The idea that the Government isn’t liable on some very poorly maintained roads is a legal travesty and a fiction concocted by draconian traffic management acts. Privately owned roads would have to be maintained better and mitigate risk for pedestrians etc. They’d insure users with pay as you go tolls.
.
11 Sep 12 at 7:18 am
No.
No he he isn’t.
He’s saying he likes to see libertarian policy never eventuate but we’re all individuals, eh?
Or somesuch.
He is in fact laughably wrong.
I’m sorry but his comment despite being filled as it is with apple-pie motherhoods is actually more negative than meaningless dross.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 7:46 am
Andrew Breitbart:
“When I travel around the United States meeting people in the Tea Party who care — black, white, gay, straight — anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker ’cause you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you — you’re on the other side!”
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 8:30 am
James, you seem to be completely missing the fact that you aren’t a libertarian, and libertarians don’t want the same things you do. They want different things, so they support different candidates. Would you like me to use smaller words?
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 9:04 am
James,
Do you want me to explain to why being a third party works in Australia but it is just a spolier in the US and the main parties are actually a good paltform if you have the grassroots support?
Hint: Preferential voting, proportional representation and a lack of primary elections here in Australia.
.
11 Sep 12 at 9:05 am
Why Yobbs?
Do you think it might suddenly help you think clearly?
LOL
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:07 am
You’re repeating yourself dot.
In fact you didn’t hint further up the thread.
I decimated your nonsensical arguments then.
Are you plaintively hoping for a different result?
Or are you just out of ideas?
Hint: it’s the latter
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:10 am
Do you have any idea of what has happened to the NSW Liberals in the last decade?
They took on a wet agenda along with a socially conservative agenda. They also tied up control of the party.
You may as well join the Greens and try to get them to become free market liberals.
If you don’t know history and don’t understand how we vote in Australia, now wonder you come up with such nonsense.
.
11 Sep 12 at 9:26 am
So the Tea Party on that ‘rationale’ should have started a third party.
Interesting.
Do you actually have an argument to put forward that hasn’t been already comprehensively rebutted on this thread dot?
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:29 am
The Tea Party are not in Australia.
Please do not pretend you are a toothless bludger living off welfare with no education. We know you are a doctor. Please drop the facade of imbecility.
The Tea Party are not in Australia.
Actually they are. They formed a political party.
http://austeaparty.com.au/web/
The ALS, Liberty Australia, the LDP, Tea Party of Australia (Taxed Enough Already) and liberal elements in the L/NP are all working for a pro freedom goal.
I don’t begrudge any of them.
.
11 Sep 12 at 9:38 am
James still doesn’t understand the difference between the political systems of Australia and the US. He thinks voting for the LDP helps Labor win.
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 9:40 am
JamesK: The Liberal Party is a private organisation. It is not legally required to be democratic, and can legally be made more undemocratic through its current processes.
It is wishful thinking to believe that those who currently control the executive of the Liberal Party would just stand by and watch stand by and watch a group of people with principles they oppose (namely free markets and small government) take over their party. There is no incentive for them to do so. Small government is not yet a popular idea, so it won’t help them electorally. Members of the party are increasingly irrelevant, as most of the cost of campaigning is TV ads, not footwork. Public funding means there’s little need for membership fees. So why exactly would they allow such a power change?
You may say there are small government elements in the Liberal Party, and there are, but this number is the amount that attracts the few small government supporters in Australia without handing them power in the party, or detracting from their electoral support. The Liberal Party has an incentive to do this. They don’t have the incentive to allow people who support free markets and small government to take over their party, and as a result I doubt it would be allowed to happen.
The only incentive for the Liberal Party to adopt small government and free market principles is for it to be electorally popular. And the only way for that to happen is media attention. A minority group bound by Liberal caucus (or not even allowed to win a preselection) is not going to get as much attention as a third party with the balance of power in the Senate.
Clinton
11 Sep 12 at 9:46 am
I do and I’ve explained why.
Not that you’ve bothered to deal with any of my arguments thus far.
Lazy condescension is your calling card Yobbs.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:53 am
Fascinating if irrelevant.
Oh wait….. you don’t actually think you just made a rebuttal, do you dot?
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:55 am
This all being said, if people have no desire to be candidates or a public face of the party, the Liberal Democrats have no issue with members maintaining membership with other parties (as long as they’re not passing information, for example).
My belief is that the Liberal Party will only change from outside, not from within, but when it is pushed to changed from a change in popular opinion, we do need people on the inside to carry that change.
There are people doing a good job promoting free markets and small government in the Liberal Party, but in the end, there needs to be an external electoral force to give the organisation as a whole the incentive to change.
This is what the Liberal Democrats will do.
Clinton
11 Sep 12 at 9:59 am
You have to give SfB Jr some credit. He’s trying hard to provide a right troll to balance his idol on the other side. But he’s still got some time before he reaches that level of competence.
Actually having a coherent argument isn’t the point, and would in fact be counterproductive for him.
At least Alfonse proivides an argument, even if no one particularly wants to address it in a non-oblique manner.
This is quite evidently true.
Driftforge
11 Sep 12 at 10:18 am
Hey, I know I’m late, but I would like to join Alfonso in scoffing at the Ghurkas and the French Foreign Legion. I am also dismissive of any small military force with continual combat experience.
wreckage
11 Sep 12 at 10:26 am
lol
If you actually believe that Drifty then you are an even bigger fool than I’ve credited you for.
I’m not sure what you understand of our system but I know more than enough.
You’ve certainly never given any cause to think you’re an expert
And I’m 100% certain I know more about the US system than you.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 10:29 am
dot – I actually know David Goodridge (spokesman for Aussie TEA Party) quite well (I’ve been to his house). They are not a political party and never intend on being one. Although they are certainly political. They are more like GetUp although obviously they have a different agenda and are more genuinely grass roots in nature.
TerjeP
11 Sep 12 at 11:41 am
“I decimated your nonsensical arguments then.”
You executed one in ten? But seriously, I had a look for how you showed that preferential voting isn’t an answer to your concerns, and couldn’t find one. Perhaps you could restate your argument addressing preferential voting directly.
Jarrah
11 Sep 12 at 11:58 am
Well actually it has Yobbo as the LDP has distributed preferences towards labor in both seats and in the senate. That’s despicable.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 12:08 pm
John ,
Forget the Liars Party. Get that idea completely out of your head. The Hawke/Keating period was a total aberration. What you have now is what you’re going to get unless there’s another fluke in the next 100 years.
The real function of the LDP is to prevent the libs from wondering into the statist reservation. Attempting to influence miscreants and thieves like Shane Wand or Fatty von Roxon is a complete waste of time. It’s like speaking reason to the CMFEU. Please.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 12:15 pm
JC, if we gave our preferences to the Libs automatically, what reason would they have to court us? If they need us and we aren’t guaranteed to support them, they’ll try harder.
Labor occasionally has better policies than the Libs too. Think foreign investment currently.
DavidLeyonhjelm
11 Sep 12 at 12:55 pm
JC, there’s some horrible people in the Liberal Party and some moderately okay people in the Labor Party (give me Kate Lundy over Julie Bishop any day).
But none of that matters so long as both parties have such strict party discipline and everything is done along party lines.
Libertarian MPs or Senators are useless, because unlike Ron Paul in the USA they refuse to vote down bad policy from their “side”.
Australia not only can support a libertarian third party, but due to party discipline it REQUIRES a libertarian third party.
Shem Bennett
11 Sep 12 at 12:59 pm
Shem
I don’t disagree with your comments. In fact I’ve mentioned a few times how I would be supportive of the LDP holding the balance of power in the senate. Hell I’d give my left nut for that to happen… provided it was a healthy balance and not the odd scrubber.
Despite what DavidL says, I have very serious doubts on a few of the people angling for candidacy as I am concerned we’d end up with an Oakeshott or Windsor squared.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 1:13 pm
Shem
Of course there are horrible people in the Liberal Party. However no one comes close in the horror stakes to the least horror on the front bench of the Liars Party.
Plibersek, Fatty Von Roxon, Benito Conroy, Shane Wand, Angry Combet, Shortened, Lying Slapper… I can’t go on. This is a fucking house of horrors this is. It’s like the contents of Dante’s 9th Circle of hell.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 1:18 pm
We are very much aware of that risk JC. But remember, we have to choose our candidates from those we have available. You don’t know any strong candidates in Victoria, by chance?
DavidLeyonhjelm
11 Sep 12 at 1:21 pm
Yeah, my comment was more directed towards the LDP preferencing Labor.
There’s no point preferencing individual candidates from the Liberal Party that are libertarian leaning, so far as they toe the party line, IMO.
There’s an argument for preferencing the Liberals over Labor on a policy basis, but depending on the candidates in question even that’s shakey ground.
So the LDP should take the advantageous preference deals. So far they have frequently been with Labor. The Libs never seem as willing to play ball with the LDP, prefering to deal with the Christian Democrats, etc.
The LDP making preference deals with Labor WILL hurt the Libs. There’s a small group of people that will vote out of name confusion alone. If the Libs want to stop that bleed away from them they need to be willing to cooperate.
Shem Bennett
11 Sep 12 at 1:24 pm
Fiona Patten and hope you can engineer preference flows in NSW in return.
For some reason things in Victoria just never seem to be able to get started. I think part of the reason is most of us that have been down there have been too young and inexperienced. We haven’t had business owners or people with some kind of executive experience. Most of us that have been active have been <30.
Graeme Klass IMO would have been a good lead candidate for Vic, until he moved.
Shem Bennett
11 Sep 12 at 1:29 pm
Hi David.
I know a couple of people. I’ll ask them and let you know.
The ideal candidate ought to be one who is able to finance his own campaign and may have some name recognition. It would be good to also find a candidate that wouldn’t take the salary- only expenses.
I’ll hunt around.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 1:32 pm
Good. And consider putting your own hand up.
DavidLeyonhjelm
11 Sep 12 at 1:36 pm
You ought to run, you’re basically semi retired other than running the Fair Pay and Global Warming Institute.
.
11 Sep 12 at 1:40 pm
lol.. yea I forgot, the Fair Pay and Global Warming Institute takes a huge amount of my time.
Dot,
if there’s anyone that ought to run it’s you. Seriously. Stick your name on the ballot for the senate. You’d make a great senator.
Me? How I couldn’t trust myself anywhere near idiots like Benito Conroy or the beta males from the Greenslime. I’d end up in jail and wifey divorcing me out of sheer embarrassment. I’d get into too many fights.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 1:49 pm
Not to mention Bird would try to assassinate you to stop banksters from infiltrating Parliament
jtfsoon
11 Sep 12 at 1:58 pm
That would be the first political assassination for the country I think.
I think you’re right. Birdie would attempt to kill me
JC
11 Sep 12 at 2:07 pm
Are you saying you’re not willing to die for the cause, JC? I thought you were dedicated.
DavidLeyonhjelm
11 Sep 12 at 2:12 pm
Yea, but what a way to be killed off politically, David. If it was someone like a well known leftwing activist assassinating me.. well that’s okay in the scheme of things… But Birdie killing me? What a come down. I’d never be able to live that down.. so to speak.
JC
11 Sep 12 at 2:21 pm
LOL
DavidLeyonhjelm
11 Sep 12 at 2:28 pm
I suspect you’d get tacit support from the Libs down here to run a fourth party that gave them some breathing room.
No one is making the case, and so things keep drifting greenward.
Driftforge
11 Sep 12 at 4:27 pm
Exactly.
You need able politicians to make the case.
Tony Abbott made the case for opposition to the CPRS only when he realised how powerful the rejection of the CPRS was among the grassroots.
Prior to that he had believed the MSM propaganda and “polls showing showing overwhelming support for action on climate change”.
If that energy was in the Liberal Party that would be where the politicians are with the ability to make the case.
Not in the LDP ffs.
Can’t you clowns see how the world works?
A third party will not just making a Labor win more likely but a Coalition government less libertarian and more ‘moderate’
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 5:08 pm
No.
.
11 Sep 12 at 5:11 pm
Altogether more likely than the LDP making the Coalition more libertarian fool.
You know it makes sense as I have completely destroyed any honest raison d’être for the joke that is the LDP here.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 5:23 pm
“You know it makes sense as I have completely destroyed any honest raison d’être for the joke that is the LDP here.”
I’m still waiting for your response re preferential voting.
Jarrah
11 Sep 12 at 5:34 pm
No need to wait.
Reading and comprehension is all that is necessary.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 5:37 pm
Ooops!
Sorry.
I forgot it was you Jarrah.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 5:38 pm
I’m trying to be nice here, JamesK, because it just might be possible to have a conversation.
If you can’t restate your earlier arguments to address preferential voting directly, that’s fine, but it means you haven’t “completely destroyed” anything at all.
Jarrah
11 Sep 12 at 6:01 pm
Funny, ‘cos I think you’re a drop-kick Jarrah
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 6:26 pm
Yeah, and I think you’re a moron. It doesn’t mean we can’t talk about interesting things like the effect on political parties of different voting formats.
If you still refuse to demonstrate how preferential voting doesn’t mitigate the spoiler aspect of minor parties, then you’re effectively showing us that you have no argument. It’s up to you.
Jarrah
11 Sep 12 at 6:38 pm
SfB Jr doesn’t have arguments to restate.
You need able politicians who have the freedom to present ideas that are not yet accepted to make the case.
Barnaby Joyce is the classic example of this in the Liberals. Sure, he’s not exactly ‘Libertarian’, but he’s the best maverick the Coalition has.
And he’s not in the Liberal party. He’s able to make his case, have it rebuffed by the Liberals, and move the discussion, only because he isn’t not part of the Liberals.
DriftForge
11 Sep 12 at 6:43 pm
You showed me a couple of weeks ago that you’re a piece of scum Jarrah.
Now fuck off.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 7:11 pm
Only because he’s confidant of his own voting base and his ability to make the case.
None of you have an answer to the radical change in policy on climate change because of Abbott realising he had public and base support to do it.
And he won by only 1 vote.
Abbott belatedly followed Barnaby to more effectively make the case and now we likely will see a reversal of the carbon tax
Think about that and try arguing that a LDP third force would have improved things.
The Nationals were more classically liberal than the Liberals until Abbott finally responded to grassroots numbers and not the usual MSM pressure.
And so-called libertarians outside of the Libs played absolutely no part.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 7:23 pm
It was the Nationals that sunk the MDBA plan and the ETS Mk 1.
Do you trust Greg Hunt?
Read the policy and work it out for yourself.
http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1147-energy
.
11 Sep 12 at 7:40 pm
Honest question James,
Do you ACTUALLY understand how compulsory voting with compulsory preferencing works?
.
11 Sep 12 at 7:43 pm
Thank you for for your latest ‘honesty’ dot
LOL
Oh wait…here’s more dot ‘honesty’:
RATFLMAO
You obviously didn’t think about it dot.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 7:59 pm
James has been asked dozens of times now to explain his theory with reference to preferential voting. His only response to date has been “fuck off”.
James is the dumbest Catallaxy commentator in over a decade.
Yobbo
11 Sep 12 at 8:21 pm
Here’s nasty leftist (and ironically the true reactionary) pining for true liberalism in Australia and making the case for dot and Yobbo and their ilk published on ‘their’ ABC’s Drum website:
Wanted: genuine liberal party for political scene
Beware the company you keep boys!
LOL
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 8:21 pm
A ‘critique’ from the Cat’s resident nasty and stupid radical secularist is something I always wear with pride
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 8:25 pm
Beware the company you keep boys!
Indeed. On both the ‘progressive liberal’ and the conservative side of the fence. They both have a tendency to betray their underpinning values from time to time and need to be watched like hawks.
John Mc
11 Sep 12 at 8:29 pm
Beware the company you keep boys!
Indeed. On both the ‘progressive liberal’ and the conservative side of the fence. They both have a tendency to betray their underpinning values from time to time and need to be watched like hawks.
John Mc
11 Sep 12 at 8:30 pm
At every opportunity so-called libertarians like Yobbo, dot and Jarrah prefer to look good (in their own minds) than do good.
It’s the triumph of ego over substance; of the pretentious over the profound
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 8:39 pm
So Tony Abbott’s direct action is a classical liberal solution?
If the LDP has an elected Senator they would oppose both the Carbon Tax AND Tony’s direct action (not to mention his paid maternity leave scheme).
I’m not drinking the kool-aid you’re peddling, JamesK.
Your entire argument amounts to “leadership in the Liberal Party can change in response to populism so libertarians should join the Liberal Party”. No idea how that makes sense in your mind. Populism rarely aligns with libertarianism and it’s not worth pursuing it for the few times it does.
Shem Bennett
11 Sep 12 at 8:55 pm
First of all I’m not drinking the kool-aid.
I actually agree the direct action plan is a waste of money.
Luckily it seems pretty obvious the Libs think it is as well.
Which is why their main defense is that the land/soil tree planting and soil carbon are independently good in their own right.
Purists don’t win elections.
The optimal is to win a mandate to reduce government spending to ~20% of GDP.
That’s a tall enough order.
With loons like Yobbo, dot and Jarrah we’ll have no hope.
And the Left MSM will be caterwauling and suffering mendicants will be found with sob stories to plague the government with how cruel the Libs are under Yabbott.
Luckily Fat Sloppy Joe is in the wings
Give the purity drivel a rest Shem.
Get real.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 9:18 pm
Okay James. This might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#Preferential_voting
Now, you’re a bright boy, work it out.
.
11 Sep 12 at 9:20 pm
No shit.
More like 15%. Menzies had 17-22%.
Shut up boxhead. You argue with every single person on this blog, you cannot and will not engage in disagreement civily.
I’m more worried about nutters like Greg Hunt than I am Yobbo.
.
11 Sep 12 at 9:26 pm
You’re an inane tosser dot.
I’ve re-read my comments on this thread twice.
They read well.
They are consistent.
And they belittle your proportional voting crapology as a meaningful apology for a third party.
And even if I accept your drivel on that particular score it changes nothing substantially to my argument.
I’m happy to have my comments read on this blog and then compared to yours.
You unrealistic libertarian-outcome-defeating self-important dick.
And a reetitive recital of “preferential voting, proportional representation and a lack of primary elections here in Australia” no matter how frequent, still doesn’t constitute an argument and even if we pretend it was an argument (for the sake of argument) what it is supposed to be an argument against exactly?
That the LDP as third party hinders libertarian public policy not advances it?
Fat chance you oaf.
Presumably also on that pathetic reckoning you’d be a critic of Johnson and Goode?
I mean that’s America not Australia and the most votes there wins.
Eh?
You hypocrite.
And the same nonsense non-argument argument you advanced today was advanced repeatedly yesterday and answered at 1:10pm and 5:01pm yesterday
I’ll repeat my earlier summary of your pathetic efforts as an LDP apologist:
At every opportunity so-called libertarians like Yobbo, dot and Jarrah prefer to look good (in their own minds) than do good.
It’s the triumph of ego over substance; of the pretentious over the profound
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 10:34 pm
Why limit yourself to 15%?
Why not try 10% or 5% of GDP.
Actually they’d be the figures for inflation
I’m sure you’d win on primary vote alone.
You fuckin’ moron.
JamesK
11 Sep 12 at 10:38 pm
Why limit yourself to 15%?
Because we don’t need a cold war era size military with aircraft carriers etc.
It’s actually pretty logical.
LOL
Calling someone else an insane tosser because they can’t understand how elections work in Australia.
Get some help for your personality disorder.
.
12 Sep 12 at 1:28 pm
Oh my god JamesK is even stupider than ever.
Fisky
14 Sep 12 at 3:26 am
Coming from perennial clown Fisky, that’s meaningless.
I wonder if fisky is capable of being precise or of identifying and then formulating a rebuttal?
LOL!….. Of course not.
He’s a clown.
JamesK
14 Sep 12 at 7:52 am
Even based on your last comment alone dot, no it isn’t.
You’re just too stupid to appreciate that or anything much else about your emotional nonsensical attachment to the third party loons like your hero Terje.
LOL
JamesK
14 Sep 12 at 7:56 am
Um no 15% is logical because Menzies had 17% spending to GDP ratio during the late 1950s whilst we had a much larger military and some inefficient taxes like really high income taxes and high tariffs.
Prove it wrong James, don’t just go off. Prove me wrong.
Look at spending to GDP now. We could wipe out 100 bn of spending or 6.5% merely be ending welfare churn. Gillard could get down to 22.5% with this one reform alone!
Then think of duplication of services. Why do we even have the Federal department of education for example? They deliver next to zero services, they are a cost centre only.
Try to be civil.
.
14 Sep 12 at 9:33 am
You are proving my point.
Why limit it to 15%?
Make it 10%.
You’d agree with Yobbo, wouldn’t you?
We don’t need a military at all.
But let’s be generous and award Defense a massive increase to $30 billion/ year.
That only ~2% of GDP
I mean if we could convince the electorate that 20% of GDP is good then 10% is better , right?
Or better still why doncha just admit the truth?
You are in fact a space cadet, aren’t you dot?
JamesK
14 Sep 12 at 9:50 am
15% is easily achievable off the Menzies baseline. You are surrendering to the left because Whitlam was so far left he made the centre look far right.
Don’t be scared.
The level of Government ultimately should be determined on utilitarian grounds.
15% however is a good cap on spending. It is based on history and good economics.
.
14 Sep 12 at 10:18 am
I’d like nothing better than to see a Fed gov at 10% of GDP but I’d prefer to achieve the achievable first and not prevent it.
JamesK
14 Sep 12 at 10:28 am
A return to the original remit of the federal government would see a budget of around $100 Billion, about 6% of GDP.
The situation we are in is simple. Only the federal government can cut spending appreciably, and yet it is the states that are being forced to do so. The federal government could cut 30% of its budget as easily as the states can cut 10%.
Dot, don’t expend too much energy debating with SfB Jr. He doesn’t have the level of understanding required to offer a logical response.
Just because he is a conservative doesn’t mean he isn’t a troll.
DriftForge
14 Sep 12 at 10:37 am
Drift,
That in the context of the constitution is an achievable and desirable goal for both libertarians and conservatives.
What proportion of GDP do you put down to the States and local Government?
.
14 Sep 12 at 10:44 am