Guest Post: Fisky – The Fisk Doctrine explained

We all know how the Gillard government and the Greens hate free speech. From seeking to ban ‘insults’, to proposing new media controls, to supporting the Bolt inquisition, this has been the most anti-free speech government for decades. What is not clear is how supporters of free speech should respond tactically and strategically to this development. I hope some of the ideas below help to clarify matters.

A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative. The status quo was pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserish on issues like pub opening hours and pornography. As late as the second half of the 1970s, the media were generally hostile to Labor governments. Even Fairfax editorials called Neville Wran a ‘socialist’ and warned of the dangers of electing ‘socialist’ governments like Gough Whitlam’s.

Social democrats were an anti-hegemonic movement, attacking the outdated strictures of the ‘reactionary establishment’; the calls for ‘social liberalism’ and reducing moral constraints were very appealing to the younger generation. As with most opposition movements, the Left were unequivocally pro-free speech, not just because it was in their interest to be so, but because the new permissive zeitgeist required it. Being offensive was not just a ‘right’, it was positively desirable and a useful way to shock the establishment.

Then something changed around the 1980s. As the graduates of the 1960s and 70s got promotions and wormed their way into positions of influence, the status quo gradually shifted. By the end of the 1990s, the establishment could be broadly identified as Leftist in nature. Now, it is the Liberals’ turn to be on the outer – they are the ones who have to govern within tight constraints imposed by the media and the bureaucracy, as Labor had to 40 years ago. Labor governments now face far fewer constraints. Consider that John Howard took 10 years to implement his IR agenda; it was repealed in two. Consider that nearly every item on the Left’s wish-list would get through a hung parliament, with fewer Labor than Coalition seats, speaks volumes.

Being the status quo now, the Left no longer have a compelling interest in supporting free speech, and virtually every piece of Leftist legislation in the last two decades relating to free speech has been an attempt to tighten the controls on free expression, not to loosen them. The sine non qua of the Left is equality. The arguments made against free speech by the Left do not begin with a requirement to avoid offence or licentiousness as with the old establishment – this is a secondary matter for Leftists – but rather a determination to create equality, as at least one Catallaxy contributor has said before.

The problem is that equality, or anything approaching equality, cannot possibly be achieved in an advanced technological civilization, and wouldn’t be a desirable goal even if it were achievable, thanks to the division of labour (less specialization, lower productivity and therefore less goods to go around). Working in total opposition to reality, the greater one strives to create equality, the more authoritarian the government becomes. The most extreme cases were the Communist movements that swept through East Asia last century, killing far more people than their European comrades did.

From anti-discrimination laws through to the recent Bolt case, the attempts to produce equality by placing ever greater constraints on behaviour have spawned an intricate hierarchy of victims, where the permissibility of an action or statement is determined not by its objective content, but by the social position of the speaker. If they are deemed to be ‘socially-oppressed’ in some way, then they should be allowed to say anything, even if it is defamatory in nature. On the other hand, if they are identified as being ‘powerful’, regardless of whether in fact they have any power or influence at all, then they can expect censorship.

What this means in terms of public discourse is that there is no way to reason the Left out of their authoritarian stance on free speech, despite its being based on a flawed first principle and on false secondary assumptions about who can be identified as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’. Conservative commentators, such as Janet Albrechtsen, have written some very eloquent defences of free speech in recent years, but in addressing themselves to the Left, by really pleading with the Leftist establishment not to restrict free speech, such exercises in eloquence are futile. They don’t care about Areopagitica – that’s stuff for dead white males.

Those of you who have children will know that the most effective means to get your way with someone is not to reason with them, but to impose a high cost on their behaviour should they act contrary to your wishes. Regardless of whether the other person is able to extract any moral principle from your act of deterrence, the constraints placed on them will establish patterns of behaviour that are not easily broken. This has been applied on a large scale, with a lot of the Latin American Left having been put in their box by the harsh discipline imposed on them in the 1980s, as Chomsky has argued. Danny Ortega looks like a broken man nowadays, and the post-Pinochet Chilean Left have remained within the neo-liberal paradigm.

Where am I going with this? I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear. Names of people who ought to have their right to free speech taken away should be casually dropped, focusing particularly on those who have been the loudest in opposing free speech for others. It should be intimated to the apparatchiks who work directly in the commissions and bodies that control free speech that they still have time left to update their CVs.

The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate, from a defensive discourse about rights that are steadily being eroded by the establishment, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on. Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible, and now we should take his example and give it some ideological steroids. Only when the opponents of liberty come to believe that they could risk their own freedoms and livelihoods if they continue on the current path, will they be stopped dead in their tracks. Repealing the authoritarian agenda would then be a matter of time.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

367 Responses to Guest Post: Fisky – The Fisk Doctrine explained

  1. Fisky

    No Rose, you are not allowed to play “look over there” after your being caught plagiarizing.

  2. WhaleHunt Fun

    CO2 is generally considered responsible, a little, along with water, a lot, to cause the average temperature of the Earth to be above zero instead of below.
    This does not mean that more results in. higher temp, but it does contribute. Infrared that would radiate directly to space is absorbed and converted to heat. in the atmosphere. Presumably there is some contribution by the glass in a glasshouse. The glass absorbs infrared emitted from inside and passes this as heat to the air inside and out. It may not be the dominant contributor to the temp, but it is a contribution.

  3. WhaleHunt Fun

    But putting a second glass house outside the first, and then a third and fourth will have less and ver less effect.
    So once all the infrared is being absorbed there is bollocks effect whn you add more glass…… or CO2

  4. Jim Rose

    Fisky, I was just pointing out the poor quality of your analysis. as you go on:

    Then something changed around the 1980s. As the graduates of the 1960s and 70s got promotions and wormed their way into positions of influence, the status quo gradually shifted.

    By the end of the 1990s, the establishment could be broadly identified as Leftist in nature

    You and the Left should spend time at the pub exchanging conspiracy theories. You have mutually exclusive explanations of the late 20th century.

    The Left also goes on about ‘how something changed around the 1980s’.

    This change was the rise of neoliberalism. The election of Reagan and Thatcher.
    • What happened to the fall of the Berlin wall!
    • China going capitalist just as Steven Cheung predicted in 1980.

    Blair, Clinton Hawke and Keating are denounced by the Left as neoliberals too.

    You missed all of these people in your analysis as well. Howard just rounded off the work of Hawke and Keating years. Labor is now firmly social democratic. Labor believes in capitalism, but with the benefits more broadly spread.

    What really happened around 1980? There was neither a resurgence of neoliberalism nor a resurgence of the Left over Left – to borrow from Ronald Radosh’s autobiography’s title – as suggested by you.

    Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, Hawke and Keating saved the welfare state from bankruptcy.

    The studies starting from Peltzman showed that governments grew in the mid-20th century in line with the growth in the size and homogeneity of the middle class that was organised and politically articulate enough to implement Director’s law.

    Peltzman pointed out that most of modern public spending is supported by the median voter. Most of this spending is income transfers.

    After the 1970s stagnation, the taxed, regulated and subsidised groups had an increasing incentive to converge on new lower cost modes of redistribution.

    Reforms ensued led by parties on the left and right, with some members of existing political groupings benefiting from joining new coalitions.

    Becker showed that government spending grew in the 20th century because of demographic shifts, more efficient taxes, more efficient spending, a shift in the political power from the taxed to the subsidized, shifts in political power among taxed groups, and shifts in political power among subsidised groups and in particular to the elderly.

    Becker showed that more efficient taxes, more efficient spending, more efficient regulation and a more efficient state sector reduced resistance by the taxed and regulated groups.

    The post-1980 economic and fiscal reforms are an example of a political system converging onto more efficient modes of income redistribution as the deadweight losses of taxes and regulation grew.

    Becker argued that improvements in the efficiency of taxes, regulation and spending reduced political pressure to suppress the growth of government and thus increased or prevented cuts to both total tax revenue and welfare state spending so loved by the Left. Economic regulation lessened after 1980 but social regulation grew unabated.

    The post-1980 reforms by neoliberal nemesis of the Left such as Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Clinton, Hawke and Keating saved the welfare state they so love.

    you missed the Left going from wanting to replace capitalism to wanting to run it better than the capitalsts can.

    as for all the PC stuff that upsets you, it is an example of meddlesome preferences discussed by James Buchanan. This is where high minded, self-important people want to control others why expecting their stash of dope/sexual preferences/religious & cultural practices to be left well alone.

    Much of the culture war is about resentment that the other side has had a chance to enact into law their meddlesome preferences when they were last in power. in time, most meddlesome preferences are enacted into law driving everyone crazy.

  5. Gab

    Have you no shame, Jim Rose? You’re caught plagurising a number of times and you have the hide to say Fisky has poor analytical skills.

    By the way, is what you have shown above your work. or stolen from another author?

  6. Jim Rose

    gab, Fisky does have poor analytical skills.

    He subscribes to what Popper called the conspiracy theory of society in which all bad things are by intentional design. Sinster forces must always be afoot.

    Fisky does not know that the main task of the social sciences for Popper and Hayek is to ‘trace out the unintended consequences of human action’.

    The search for purpose and design in everything is why he (and you) obsess with content scripting in a medium where time is short for the reader and poster.

  7. Gab

    And what about addressing your plagiarism, Jim? Or are you too much of a coward? Deflecting to others to avoid your stealing authors’ words doesn’t work here.

  8. Jim Rose

    gab, is a blog post a conversation or a publication?

  9. Gab

    Stealing words from authors and not attributing it to them and passing it off as your own work, as you have done here on many many occasions, Jim, is plagiarising not a “conversation”.

  10. JC

    Jim

    If you passed that stuff as your own in the way you have here even in conversation I would call that dishonest.

    Stop trying to excuse yourself as it’s wrong.

  11. Jim Rose

    JC, you must have stilted conversations with long asides tracing the history of every idea you use.

  12. Jim Rose

    the Left no longer have a compelling interest in supporting free speech, and virtually every piece of Leftist legislation in the last two decades relating to free speech has been an attempt to tighten the controls on free expression, not to loosen them

    The 2005 uniform defamation law established truth, fair opinion and fair reporting of public proceedings as unqualified defences nation-wide for the first time. Large corporations lost the right to sue. Non-economic damages were capped.

    mostly state labor governments organised these law reforms that freed up political speech from the chilling effect of defamation writs. A major reform.

  13. Fisky

    Jim, you have ensured that nobody from now on is going to pay any attention to what you write. You shouldn’t waste your own time.

  14. Jim Rose

    Fisky, which is worse? content scripting or you getting most of your facts wrong?

  15. Fisky

    Jim, again. We don’t care. Your credibility is blown.

  16. Jim Rose

    What is not clear is how supporters of free speech should respond tactically and strategically to this development.

    It is obvious. brute experience changes minds:

    Government policy about inflation and unemployment has been at the center of political controversy.

    Ideological war has raged over these matters.

    Yet the drastic change that has occurred in economic theory has not been the result of ideological warfare.

    It has not resulted from divergent political beliefs or aims.

    It has responded almost entirely to the force of events: brute experience proved far more potent than the strongest of political or ideological preferences

    Milton Friedman, Nobel Lecture 1976

    you overrate the role of ideas and democratic deliberation in social and political change. that cry for self-importance among intellectuals is a constructivist error.

    Stigler contended that economists exert a scarcely detectable influence on the societies where they live.

    He said that if Richard Cobden had spoken only Yiddish, and with a stammer, and Robert Peel had been a narrow, stupid man, England would have repealed the corn laws as its agricultural classes declined and its manufacturing and commercial classes grew in the 1840s.

    As Stigler noted, when their day comes, economists seem to be the leaders of public opinion. when the views of economists are not so congenial to the current requirements of special interest groups, economists are left to be the writers of letters to the editor in provincial newspapers.

    These days they would run an angry blog.

    people become more interested in free speech when hate speech laws and campus speech codes might backfire on them. no one enjoys being the subject of the meddlesome preferences of others.

  17. Fisky

    Jim the plagiarist, if you continue trolling this thread, I shall have to apply to have you banned from posting here.

  18. Fisky

    JC, you must have stilted conversations with long asides tracing the history of every idea you use.

    I’m sorry but that is not satisfactory at all. We are not talking about footnoting every single idea that pops into your head. We are in fact discussing the lifting of entire paragraphs and op-ed pieces and passing them off as your own work. That’s plagiarism.

  19. Jim Rose

    Fisky, has any part of your substantive post survived a fact check?

  20. Fisky

    I’m sorry Jim, but there is no point engaging you on any matters of substance until you confess and apologise for being a plagiarist.

  21. JC

    JC, you must have stilted conversations with long asides tracing the history of every idea you use.

    Interesting, so you don’t really know what lifting stuff and pretending it’s your own is about?

    Jim, stop the bullshitting.

  22. Jim Rose

    a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on.

    The destruction of a political neutral public service started under Hawke but gathered full speed under Howard when he sacked half a dozen department heads.

    The blue book in Washington lists 6,000 patronage appointments for a new president including several hundred requiring senate confirmation.

    Takes a year or more to make all of these appointments and that is despite a large cadre of trusted party workers of genuine ability who fill these spots over their careers at various seniorities

    Australia lacks a pool of talent to allow for mass sacking with every new government.

    See http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/7-8/the-degradation-of-the-public-service for the case for high quality public administration.

    p.s. I only once saw John Stone in action. He asked Michael Pusey where he went wrong: a first in physics and then PPE at oxford. He was not exposure to the dangerous ideas of economics until the graduate level as part of a wider major, as suggested by Pusey, but he still went off the rails.

  23. Jim Rose

    Working in total opposition to reality, the greater one strives to create equality, the more authoritarian the government becomes

    Fisky, Hayek made a similar prediction in the road to serfdom. Many enjoyed spenting much time reminding him how wrong he was. you repeated Hayek’s error

    Hayek did not anticipate eurosclerosis and Swedosclerosis. the EU is full of fully democratic countries with massive welfare states.

    Tullock in the cato journal used Sweden as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is

    that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms.

    Tullock wrote before the index of economic of freedom where in full flight.

    One feature of Nordic welfare states is high levels of economic freedom. Denmark is ahead of the USA and not far behind Australia.

    A commitment to flat marginal tax rate structures, high VAT rates, but light taxes on income from capital are common in the Nordic countries.

    The Nordic Left and, more importantly, the Nordic median voter are alive to the power of incentives and not killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

  24. JC

    Rose

    How can you have economic freedom when the tax rate is some of those ratholes is 65% for salaried people?

  25. Jim Rose

    take that up with the heritage foundation. I was a bit surprised too. index construction is a balancing act

    what is australa’s top marginal tax rate on labour incomes and on capital? are they higher than denmark?

  26. Jim Rose

    fisky, see http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2010/07/stopping-points-on-road-to-serfdom.html for a nice discussom of how you and Hayek were both wrong about socialism being an inevitable road to serfdom.

  27. Fisky

    Jim, you are not listening and our hospitality is being abused. We don’t care what you have to say on any matter of substance because you are an unapologetic plagiarist.

  28. JC

    I think the case for Sweden in particular is quite interesting.

    From what I recall there is a center right coalition there and they are in the process or at least continuing the process of economic reforms, which tends to favor liberal markets. They may not have got to the tax rates as yet. However to ignore the reforms they have been making is not to do full justice to what has been going on there.

    Sweden was at the top ranking of per cap income in the very early 70’s according to a Swedish free market think tank. And they progressively slipped to becoming economically sick until about a decade ago.

    So perhaps Sweden ought to be used an en example of what happens when there are liberal leaning economic reforms. This doesn’t support big government!

  29. JC

    And Jim… Fisk has a point. a fair point.

    It shows the level of respect you have for this blog by continuing to do that crap and offer no apology, which of course means you’ll be at it again.

  30. Jim Rose

    Fisky, none of your post survived a fact check.

    I know that it is controversial to show this is so for a guest poster but this blog “strives to maintain the most laissez faire comments policy on the web”. There are caveats but being controversial is no crime on this blog.

  31. Fisky

    Actually, Jim, everything you posted here has been factually out, totally wrong-headed and based on fantasy. But we’re not inclined to enter any dialogue with you on those matters because you are a plagiarist.

  32. Fisky

    JC, that’s interesting about Sweden, but I wouldn’t discuss it in the presence of Jim Rose as he is an unapologetic plagiarist. We have nothing to say to him.

  33. Jim Rose

    If they are deemed to be ‘socially-oppressed’ in some way, then they should be allowed to say anything, even if it is defamatory in nature.

    On the other hand, if they are identified as being ‘powerful’, regardless of whether in fact they have any power or influence at all, then they can expect censorship.

    being “‘socially-oppressed’ in some way” is not a defence to defamation under Australian law. The statutory and constitutional defences are
    • truth
    • fair comment
    • absolute privilege
    • qualified privilege
    • political debate
    • triviality
    • innocent dissemination

  34. Jim Rose

    JC, See http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-three-swedish-models
    1. Sweden moved toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was then about equal to that in the United States in size.

    2. Sweden could afford this at the end of the era that Lindbeck labelled ‘the period of decentralization and small government’.

    3. Sweden was one of the fastest growing countries between 1870 and 1960.

    Swedes had the third-highest OECD per capita income, almost equal to the USA in the late 1960s, but higher levels of income inequality.

    By the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP. Swedish marginal income tax rates hit 65-75% for most full-time employees as compared to about 40% in 1960.

    Swedish economists encountered a new phenomenon they named Swedosclerosis:
    1. Economic growth slowed to a crawl in the 1970s and 1980s.
    2. Sweden dropped from near the top spot in the OECD rankings to 18th by 1998 – a drop from 120% to 90% of the OECD average inside three decades.
    3. about 65 per cent of the electorate receive (nearly) all their income from the public sector—either as employees of government agencies or live off transfer payments.
    4. No net private sector job creation since the 1950s, by some estimates!

    In 1997, Lindbeck suggested that the Swedish Experiment was unravelling.

    Sweden is a classic example of Director’s Law. Once a country becomes rich because of capitalism, politicians look for ways to redistribute more of this new found wealth to the middle class.

    no need to refer to socialism or the road to serfdom. Director’s law explains all.

  35. Jim Rose

    see http://super-economy.blogspot.se/ for an excellent blog on sweden and the Eu from a classical liberal viewpoint.

    the blogger is a Kurdish Swed late of Economics and then Public Policy at the University of Chicago

  36. Gab

    Ah I see Jim has been here all day still plagiarizing. People who cannot write for themselves steal the work of others.

  37. Jim Rose

    Gab, now that is a false allegation.fact checking is not your strong suit

    I spent the day fact checking fisky for this tread anyway.

  38. Gab

    You have no credibility here, Jim. Fact check all you like but stop your plagiarizing.

  39. Fisky

    Actually, Jim, you’ve been cutting and pasting rubbish which no one is interested in reading. Elsewhere you have been plagiarizing freely.

  40. Jim Rose

    Where have i content scripted today?

  41. JC

    Jim

    Blogs aren’t formal places.. that’s of course true. However there is a form of blog etiquette that people follow.

    You don’t have to cite like it was an academic paper.. but you can make a reference that you picked this up or that from some place. I do that lots of times. I mostly forget where I got it from and say so without the need to link (which I can’t, if I’ve forgotten where it came from).

  42. Gab

    Many times I’d like to steal someone else’s words and pass them off as my own in order to sound smart. But I just can’t do it. It’s sleazy and pathetic.

  43. JC

    Heard a very funny story today from a friend.

    The family had a dog when he was growing up. It was a cross between a bulldog and some bull sort of terrier and the only thing that was ever on its mind was food… and then more food

    Anyways this dog was seriously hurt in a car accident but it still managed to get itself home go into the kitchen and attack all the food that was lying on the island until there was nothing left while no one was home.

    They knew it had been hit because it left a trail of blood from the road to the kitchen bench that was easily followed.

  44. Fisky

    No Jim you haven’t ‘content scripted’. The technical term is plagiarism.

  45. Alice

    Oh no – not Fisky here to explain the Fisk doctrine..
    as far as I could make out from previous readings it means you (secretly) kill all lefties once in power?

    Doesnt it Fisk?

    I dont think thats a good idea.

  46. Alice

    I take this as evidence all lefties should be exterminated according to Fisk

    “Where am I going with this? I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear.”

    So all discussion is over and we should kill any (openly useless) leftie who disagrees and they should be made to “disappear”.

    Be careful where your useless extremist doctrines take you fisk lest you move on to the mentally diabled, the homosexuals, the dissidents, the jews

    Your doctrine is nothing more than intolerant shite Fisk and Ill be the first to say so. (and people like you need to crawl back under the rock where you mormally inhabit.) God knows why the f***** Fisk doctrine ever got airplay in the first place.

  47. Jim Rose

    JC! I hat tip when i remember where i got material.

  48. Alice

    Sorry Jim but you are on Fisky’s hit list.

  49. Fisky

    So all discussion is over and we should kill any (openly useless) leftie who disagrees and they should be made to “disappear”.

    No it isn’t actually about that at all Alice. Try again.

  50. Fisky

    JC! I hat tip when i remember where i got material.

    No you don’t. You copied entire paragraphs from the National Review without attribution.

  51. Fisky

    I take this as evidence all lefties should be exterminated according to Fisk

    I’m not surprised that you would, given you’re not very bright and spend most of the day drinking.

  52. Alice

    And JC – of speech was really free and not biased let me give you an example..

    The papers hire Howes to speak about labor because he is an idiot and when he speaks about labor they know he is an idiot..

    If you want to push a view one way you hire morons and idiots to speak about the other side.

  53. Alice

    Fisk – the great Fisk – has to resort to a drinking insult directed at me.

    Sad but expected from a moron.

    Woeful fisk and I thought you were held in some esteem here.

    Truth is you cant answer me truthfully because you are a blind one sided extremist crackpot. We all know what your “how would they be missed’ comments mean.

    Mad, bad and dangero and so are you. Answer that.

  54. Fisky

    We all know what your “how would they be missed’ comments mean.

    No we don’t “all” know that actually Alice, probably because you are the only person who has seriously drawn that conclusion.

    That’s because you are not a normal person, but a crank who needs medical assistance in rehab.

  55. Alice

    Bullshit Fisky – you have been pushing the “when we get into power lets just exterminate the opposition” for some time now

    It aint no sectret.

    You are a ratbag.

    Nothing special in my books.

  56. Gab

    Hope you’ve got Alice in poll position #1 on your list, Fisk.

  57. Alice

    Fisky – its you that desperately needs some form of rehab. You have a major hate problem in your mind.

  58. Fisky

    Bullshit Fisky – you have been pushing the “when we get into power lets just exterminate the opposition” for some time now

    If I have been pushing that line “for some time now”, then it would be quite easy for you to produce a quote.

    Oh that’s right, you can’t, because you don’t reside in reality but rather in your own world of fabulism and delusion.

  59. Alice

    Yeah Gab – get ight behind Fisky’s doctrine. I can see you being the Eva Koch of the new millenium.
    A brainless “I belong to this tribe” wife, and no other ideas count.

    Yeah thats you Gag.

  60. Gab

    You’re still having trouble spelling my name, Alice. It’s only three letters but perhaps that’s just expecting too much from you to grasp.

  61. Alice

    Fisky – you think you are a star because others quote the “Fisk doctrine’ here.

    Why dont you put the words of the FIsk doctrine right here now so every can see and judge for themselves. You have made enough quotes on it before. Its your doctrine.

    So post it openly cretin or shut up.

  62. Alice

    I renamed you Gag, Gab for personal reasons.

  63. Fisky

    Why dont you put the words of the FIsk doctrine right here now so every can see and judge for themselves. You have made enough quotes on it before. Its your doctrine. So post it openly cretin or shut up.

    I already have. It’s compiled and expliciated in a Guest Post titled: “The Fisk Doctrine Explained”.

    Oh wait a minute, this is the Guest Post! Now let’s see if you can find where I called for the political opposition to be exterminated, Alice.

    GO!

  64. Fisky

    Sorry, “explicated”

  65. Gab

    Very petty of you, Alice.

  66. Jim Rose

    What this means in terms of public discourse is that there is no way to reason the Left out of their authoritarian stance on free speech, despite its being based on a flawed first principle and on false secondary assumptions about who can be identified as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’

    People do change their minds. Labor lost 1 million votes federally in the last few years. even more were lost at the recent state elections.

    For a review of how as people hit middle age their youthful radicalism is replaced by conservatism see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7887888/Champagne-socialists-not-as-left-wing-as-they-think-they-are.html

    The underlying paper is based on a study of 136,000 people in the World Values Survey. The data was from 48 different countries between 1981 and 2008.
    – Participants were asked to choose whether they saw themselves as left or right.
    – The results were then compared with their responses to more detailed questions about their views, to determine how closely the participants own perception matched their real position on the ideological spectrum.

    Well-educated individuals are more likely to wrongly characterise their political position, thinking that they are more left wing than they actually are.

    a career and raising a family leads them to adopt more conservative outlooks.

    One reason the left voters do not realise that they have shed their youthful liberalism is they socialise with people going through the same shift to the right.

  67. Aliice

    Yes Fisk

    I hear your little pasthetic agenda now as quopted directly from above

    ‘ I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear.”

    Lets start with the sackings and demotions and move on shall we

    “The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate, from a defensive discourse about rights that are steadily being eroded by the establishment, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on.”

    Fuck you Fisky. You put all this shite behind the words of freedom yet you want to start with sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet) if people dont agree exactly with you.

    Bugger off Fisk. You are just another control freak who thinks they have the only answer to liberty – as long as it is libertty according to Fisk (and if it isnt it will be sackings, demotions and possibly exterminations). Will there be a panel of three interview before people get sacked or demoted?

    Fucking hypocrite contol freak.

    Where is my liberty if I dont agree with you? Sacked or demoted? BS

  68. Aliice

    Gab – I had no other alternative but to rename you Gag. You agree with the far right far too much.

  69. Gab

    lol So becuase I have a different view to you, you decide to be nasty. Very childish of you, Alice.

  70. Aliice

    Gag,

    I dont mind you agreeing with the moderate conservatives (hail) or the nationals (hail) or the agrarian socislaists like Katter (I like him) but as for agreeing with Fisky – thats really stretching it.

  71. Fisky

    Bugger off Fisk. You are just another control freak who thinks they have the only answer to liberty – as long as it is libertty according to Fisk (and if it isnt it will be sackings, demotions and possibly exterminations). Will there be a panel of three interview before people get sacked or demoted?

    Alice, I shall take your qualification of “possibly” to mean that you don’t in fact have any evidence that the Fisk Doctrine calls for the extermination of political opponents. It took you a while, but you finally got there. Thanks.

  72. Gab

    I’ll try to give a fuck about what you do or don’t mind, one day, Alice. Just not today.

  73. Jim Rose

    Only when the opponents of liberty come to believe that they could risk their own freedoms and livelihoods if they continue on the current path, will they be stopped dead in their tracks

    People are more likely to vote to the Right as they gain more experience of the world, have responsibilities and children, and can reflect on personally living through different policies, governments, and types of political leaders.

    the before and afters of Thatcherism, Rogernomics, Reagan, the cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Rise of China are for them personal memories rather than books they just read last week at university.

  74. Fisky

    Fuck you Fisky. You put all this shite behind the words of freedom yet you want to start with sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet) if people dont agree exactly with you.

    Now, onto the next claim. Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me?

    GO!

  75. Gab

    And the broken Turing machine appears. Fantastic.

  76. Aliice

    Thats OK Gab. I can wait. I dont hold a grudge but I really dont like the Fisk doctrine explained, and I think Fisk has gotten carried away with, what is in fact, an anti libertarian doctrine (only, in his peronal pursuit of liberty according to Fisk, he cant see it).

  77. JC

    oh, the 7.03 comment should be on the open fred. Sorry.

  78. Fisky

    Alice, you are not a libertarian so please take your concern trolling elsewhere.

  79. Jim Rose

    The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate, from a defensive discourse about rights that are steadily being eroded by the establishment, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on.

    Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible, and now we should take his example and give it some ideological steroids.

  80. Aliice

    Fisy says

    “Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me? ”

    You called it right here cretin (in your post).

    , to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on. Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible, and now we should take his example and give it some ideological steroids.

    Steroids?

    Yes obviously your brain is on steroids not to recall where you suggested sackings or demotions.

  81. Fisky

    Alice, let’s go over this again.

    Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me?

    Note the bold tag? Now answer the question. Go!

  82. Aliice

    Take my trolling elsehwere you bastard.
    You come up with all this control freak stiff in the name of liberty and now you ask me? to take my trolling elsehwere.

    This is freedom of speech, right here and now Fisky.
    Who decides?

    Should I volunteer for a demotion or resign in case you and your mates deem me to have opposed your version of pure liberty?

  83. Fisky

    Hurry up and answer the question, Alice, I have important work to get onto. Please tell me:

    Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me?

    Go!

  84. Aliice

    or see Jim Rose’s post above mine.

  85. Aliice

    Answered Fisky – now three times anwered. This is getting boring.
    “Did you commit the crime/” “No’ “I repeat did you commit the crime?” “no’….”did you answer my question?” “Yes”
    “are you sure?”
    “yes”

    Fisky says
    “go” . Alice says – this is getting boring.

  86. Fisky

    Alice, you obviously don’t understand English. To answer my own question, there is nothing in this Guest Post or any other post of mine calling for legal sanctions against people who do not “agree exactly” (note the bolded adverb) with me. Nil.

  87. Aliice

    oh split hairs Fisky

    You know as well as I do to drop a suggestion doesnt require precision on details and you dropped the blatant suggestion that people should be sacked or demoted (for being anti liberty) and held Campbell neuam up as your guiding star….

    You sure all the people Campbell saked were anti liberty?

    You interviewed them all did you?

  88. Fisky

    No, not split hairs, a fundamental point of fact. There is nothing in this post or any other post advocating legal sanctions against people who do not “agree exactly” with me.

  89. Jim Rose

    Fisky, didn’t bill clinton at the paula jones deposition get into a debate about the meaning of what ‘is’ is? Clinton said:

    “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing.

    If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement

    his particular ‘is’ allowed him to truthfully deny he was a relationship with lewinsky because he had not relationship with her at the time of questioning.

    he later admitted that he planned to be truthful under oath but not be helpful.

    HT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

  90. Fisky

    I don’t know enough about the Paula Jones case, and I don’t care because it is not relevant to the present discussion.

  91. Aliice

    OK i will concede the minor point of agreeing “with you”.
    But your post advocates legal aanctions against people who are anti liberty.

    Now please tell me Fisky….who’s definition of being “anti liberty’ will invoke these sanctions of sackings and demotions against people

    and then we can move on…

  92. Jim Rose

    fisky, its relevance is tunneling in on a turn of words to escape accountability. you instead should be leading by example in blog manners.

  93. Aliice

    That was my point Jim.

    We are going round and round on who’s defintion of anti liberty will actually end up sacking people or demoting them and then of course we have not even drilled down to what being anti liberty means.

    Anything too vague like this is likely to result in the worst case scenario ie people being jailed for being ‘anti liberty” and that of course is well you know …anti liberty.

  94. Fisky

    Jim Rose, as you have not even admitted to being a plagiarist let alone apologised for it, I would kindly request that you abstain from using the word “accountability”. Thanks.

  95. Fisky

    Alice, now that you have dropped both of the false claims against me and conceded your error, I will be drawing this conversation to a close. I’m just not interested in entering a discussion with you about anything significant.

  96. Jim Rose

    sir humphrey was good at making Hacker think he had answered his questions. he did so by tunneling in on the words used.

  97. Jim Rose

    Fisky is the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice and the blogging way, but does not like to answer questions or respond to fact checking of his guest post?

  98. Jim, again. We don’t care. Your credibility is blown.

    And he resorts to ad hominem when he’s run out of ideas….

  99. Gab

    Oh great, so now the stupid git numbers comes along and inserts himself into the argument. Good insult, numbers, well done.

  100. Jim Rose

    numbers, Fisky does not like to respond to fact checking of his guest post.

    his statements are counter-productive to his own cause, for example,

    to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on

    that increase the numbers who oppose you. rather than divide and rule, the treat of mass sackings force your opponents into a corner where they will fight harder because they have nothing to gain from giving in.

  101. Gab

    Bit rich coming from you, Jim the Plagiariser. You’re quick to point out what you see as wrong in others and yet you won’t even admit and apologise for your blatant plagiarising. You weak person. You coward.

  102. Jim Rose

    Even Fairfax editorials called Neville Wran a ‘socialist’ and warned of the dangers of electing ‘socialist’ governments like Gough Whitlam’s.

    Fisky, fact check the wikis on the fairfax press.

    the SMH did not endorse Labor at any election until 1984 or at a state election until 2003! Bob Carr was a socialist? no one told him or the rest of the NSW Right.

    The Age was a key supporter of Whitlam, but also exposed the loans affair. The Age then supported Hawke in 1983. John Fairfax Media bought a majority of shares in the Age in 1972.

    newspaper slants and endorsements reflect their readers as predicted by economics and changes in media ownership do not change media slants.

  103. Gab

    You’re like Hitler pointing at Stalin and saying “He’s a bad man”.

  104. Fisky

    No, all he’s doing is stringing together non sequiturs and pretending they constitute a rebuttal. And he still hasn’t owned up to being a plagiarist.

  105. Jim Rose

    Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear

    Both parties chase the median voter. Elections are crucial to controlling political parties. Parties that do not connect with the median voter do not get elected.

    The Left provides a minimual competent replacement for when the Right gets tired and flabby in government and needs to be spelled, feed and rested.

  106. Infidel Tiger

    Jim, if we want your opinion we’ll google it.

    You are the karaoke machine of commenters.

  107. Jim Rose

    A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative. The status quo was pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserish on issues like pub opening hours and pornography

    Fisky, the Fraser years were not the golden era that you suggest.

    It was after 1980 that economic deregulation and privatisation started abroad and came to Australia in the late 1980s. growth in social regulation was unabated.

    The decline in the family started in the 1960s. Church going was already terminal.

    Wowserism on pornography is stronger now that is the 60s and 70s.

    Friedman wrote the tyranny of the status quo in 1984 out of pessimism. He thought that big government was still the face of the future.

    Peltzman wrote at the end of the 1980s about how the rapid economic deregulation in the 1980s caught the prevailing public choice theory short.

  108. Aliice

    Jim says,

    “Fisky is the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice and the blogging way, but does not like to answer questions or respond to fact checking of his guest post?”

    Nope – he doesnt respond to questions on his great Fisk Doctrine like

    a) who’s definition of being “anti liberty” will get people sacked or demoted (or jailed – or worse – come on Fisky you little cretin – fess up what you really mean by anti liberty)

    b) define “anti liberty”

    c) state clearly the criteria by which someone will be judged “anti liberty” with the deliberate intent of infringing the so named person’s liberty, by another person.

    As for being in the company of those logical enough to argue Fisks doctrine with the illogical Fisky my thanks go to….

    no not to “The Cheerleader” Gag, or to “The Word Fiddler” himself, Fisky, but to the esteemed “Plagiarist” Jim Rose.
    Sorry I missed you “Potato Peeler” Numbers.

    They didnt even leave us a cadbury’s chocolate in the fridge on easter sunday and they ate all the Lindors. They took serious liberties.

  109. Splatacrobat

    Malice, I am going to lobby to have you beatified as the Cat’s patron saint of trolls.

    Your constant intercession for the mentally deficient left wingers of this site is both heart warming and commendable.

  110. Jim Rose

    Fisky and John Quiggin both talk romantically of a good old days.

    For Fisky, it is the Fraser years and before.

    for John Q., his golden age is the Menzies era. Big Ming appears to be John’s hero.

    both recalcitrants look back at a similar period of time and see the opposite.

    Fisky sees a pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserist status quo.

    John Q. looks at the same era up to 1970 and see his social democratic ideal: a mixed economy, strong unions and the golden age of keynesianism.

    I must put John Q. well ahead of Fisky as an economic historian. Hands down.

  111. Aliice

    I think I must as well JR. Menzies didnt shy away from bigger government projects and these did create employment which is what we need now and will never get…. with the current mindset in conservatism that the government should not build anything and should privatise the lot.

    Why thankyou Splatocrat. I am honoured. Without what you call “the mentally deficient left wingers of this site” would you all be discussing SATPs bed hopping pub staff, or MK50s lobster catch or Lizzies fabulous dinner recipes?

    You love the trolls too, and we know it.

    (Note I do not include myself in your description and consider it always and everywhere a duty and an obligation to criticise both parties policies wherever inclined and wherever possible. Trust no-one!)

  112. Aliice

    That bloody troll looks like me Splat!

  113. Jim Rose

    it always and everywhere a duty and an obligation to criticise both parties policies wherever inclined and wherever possible

    I agree. many forget that Abbott is an old fashioned Tory. He will show those colours once elected and will have to be criticised for the same.

  114. Aliice

    Listen JR (the right honourable plagiarist). You may as well know… Splat was laughing the other night in the open thread, that they had you me and numbers corralled here in the Fisk Inquisition Doctrine thread….LOL
    We could make it our own hold…its very poorly defended…if we get any trouble, meet back here to plan the next sortie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *