Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

From The Financial Review.

Most of the people attempting to come to Australia on fishing boats are economic refugees seeking a better life. Moreover, they are from families with the means to pay for passage. They are neither the poorest nor the most vulnerable from the societies they leave behind.

The Government’s current approach to stopping them is expensive, vulnerable to developments in partner countries outside our control, and distracts the Navy from its primary purpose. Moreover, it lacks compassion and treats foreigners as something to be feared rather than as potential contributors to our society. There is a huge opportunity for mutual benefit for economic refugees and incumbent Australians.

The solution is to open the front door and allow them legal entry upon payment of a fee.

This idea originates from the recently deceased Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK.

What he proposed is for the government to set a price according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists.

In the Australian context the fee should be set at a level that makes it more attractive than paying a smuggler after taking into account the risk of drowning at sea, detention upon arrival and being deported. While an auction may be the best way to discover the right price, around $50,000 seems about right.

Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.

He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting “a free ride”. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for. Indeed, at the current level of immigration, a fee of $50,000 would generate about $10-15 billion annually.

Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees. Under this approach, rather than lose your voice at a rally in support of refugees, you could put your money where your mouth is and solve the problem yourself.

Businesses that are looking for specialist skills could also cover entry fees to ensure the supply of highly-skilled workers.

However, the system would only work if payment of the fee entitled people to permanent residence, not welfare payments (unemployment, etc). Such payments should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.

The system would ensure intending migrants were well aware of the need to gain employment on arrival. The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.

Those unable to find work may have their permanent residence cancelled and be subject to deportation. Short term assistance could be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.

Allowing immigration subject to payment of a fee would also provide a more moral basis for detaining and deporting illegal and unauthorised arrivals, should they still occur. For economic refugees, the obvious message is to stay home and save until you have the money to come legally.

This proposal would not disrupt our relationship with New Zealand, which allows Australians to live and work in New Zealand and vice versa. Indeed, there is a good case for establishing similar agreements with other countries that share our values, such as the UK, Canada and Japan.

It also need not disrupt working holiday agreements or temporary residency for skilled workers and tourists. The only people affected would be those who seek to live in Australia permanently.

It is time Australians recognised the significant contribution that immigrants make to our country and the prosperity that accompanies free trade and the free movement of people. It’s time to open the front door.

David Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrats’ Senator-elect for NSW.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,495 Responses to Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

  1. tomix

    Ghurkhas, you say? Asymmetric military threats? What does that mean?

    These threats wouldn’t involve recalcitrant Aussies, by any chance?

    You know, those bigoted, racist ones.

  2. Matthew

    There is a lot objectionable in the LDP ‘defense’ policy. It as if they got together and everyone at the meeting was allowed to include one oddball idea each.

    To the extent that the LDP is unlikely to form a government it isn’t a threat to the Australian people.

  3. Matthew

    The part about mostly disbanding the Navy and preparing Australia for a land war was the funniest part.

    LDP = defense policy lunacy.

  4. tomix

    It will be interesting to see how Senator David Leyonhjelm votes in the new Senate.

    Hoping it won’t be a rerun of Bob Katter [MHR]‘s performance in the House during the 2010- 2013
    Federal Gov’t where he turned up and voted along ALP lines every single time it mattered and only supported the Coalition when it didn’t matter.

    But going on their left wing, hopelessly utopian and somewhat sinister policies, i’m not confident.

  5. .

    Gentle readers,

    Matthew doesn’t know what he is talking about. Our defence policy was formulated with input of Australian Defence Force officers who joined the LDP who were either at the time currently serving or whom were recently retired, each with with decades of experience. One was on the party’s Federal executive from memory.

    Matthew is a liar. The LDP would prefer more submarines with long range strike capability over more surface vessels. Note that Matthew has no military expertise.

    The relevant policy extract is here:

    Military Capability

    14. The LDP believes Australia can achieve a far greater degree of defence preparedness than at present, at a significantly reduced cost to taxpayers.

    15. The focus of the full-time military should be on the three strategic capabilities able to achieve long distance force projection. These comprise a strategic strike capability, an effective submarine fleet, and a rapid reaction, air-mobile expeditionary force including Special Forces.

    16. Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard while hospital, supply and amphibious capability may be retained for humanitarian disaster relief.

    Refer to my comment at 3.05 today which outlines how asinine this ‘debate’ has become.

    I have no more to say other than you ought to question why someone would be so utterly dishonest.

    Enough.

  6. A Lurker

    It will be interesting to see how Senator David Leyonhjelm votes in the new Senate.

    I agree – actions always speak louder than words (we’ve witnessed that first hand during the last seven years of the R/G/R & A parliaments.)

  7. tomix

    The part about mostly disbanding the Navy and preparing Australia for a land war was the funniest part

    Yes. presumably they’ll either sink the ships as dive wrecks or sell them to Bangladeshi scrap merchants.

    Oh hang on. Sell . So it’s Bangladesh. Surely even the Greens would regard this policy as insane?

  8. tomix

    Point 16 of the policy extract:

    16. Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard while hospital, supply and amphibious capability may be retained for humanitarian disaster relief.

    Humanitarian disaster relief?

    Will they be running a water taxi service to ensure every “genuine refugee” gets safely to LDP-Land?

  9. Matthew

    The LDP wants to spend an enormous amount of money on long distance force projection while denying that they are looking for fights overseas. The LDP says that they do not support combating terrorism in foreign lands but want to form a foreign mercenary force for that purpose (and yes, perhaps the foreign mercenaries could be used against Australians. It would not be the first government to have done so).

    Separate out the rhetoric from the actual plans the LDP has in place and it is wad and more war, and more refugees. All the free trade to promote peace is just boilerplate unless the LDP plans to break with the US and conduct free trade with nations under sanctions, such as Iran.

  10. Bruce of Newcastle

    The focus of the full-time military should be on the three strategic capabilities able to achieve long distance force projection

    Garbage. Ask the Swiss.

    These comprise a strategic strike capability

    Not ridiculous as it does have a deterrent effect on the minds of opposing strategic planners.

    an effective submarine fleet

    Unfortunately the devil is in the details. Big dollars for limited strategic effect in this day of technology. An expanded RAR would be much better value for money based on the Swiss model. Porcupines have few enemies. Unless you can buy off the shelf nuclear hunter-killers forget it.

    a rapid reaction, air-mobile expeditionary force including Special Forces

    Good. That makes sense.

    Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard

    No. Naval strategy is about heavy lift capacity. In the current strategic environment the RAN is a taxi service for RAR units needed in our neighbourhood, which is necessary for defense in depth. The RAN to suppy heavy lift need sufficient force to support to it in defense.

    The bottom line is you need spines in your porcupine, which the Swiss know quite well and we have forgotten. We need 5 divisions plus air support at call. Otherwise we are pissing in the wind in this hemisphere.

  11. tomix

    Try to imagine living next door to a Ghurkha:

    Norm [talking over back fence: O.K. if I trim your tree branches hanging over my fence?

    Ghurkha: [Removes dagger from waistband and plants it in Norm's chest]

    That’s how minor personal disputes are handled in Nepalese culture.

    Why would anyone want that here?

  12. Matthew

    The more I read the less I like what I see.

    I had thought that it was one ill-conceived policy. It seems that there are a whole raft of them.

    Oh, and these ‘libertarians ‘ support bombing foreign countries and support the idea of positive rights.

  13. Matthew

    By the way, for the edification of non libertarian readers, the Non-aggression Principle is axiomatic for libertarians. That means you must not initiate force against a person or their property. It isn’t pacifism – self defense of yourself or your property is also axiomatic.

    For some here to claim to be libertarians and also reject the NAP… well that is a fringe view not supported by any mainstream libertarians. Neoconservative is a better descriptor for this type of person.

  14. DrBeauGan

    Discussing the defence policies or indeed most of the other policies of the LDP is totally dotty. They aren’t going to be implemented anyway. If you think the LDP shows any promise at all, and in my view they do, the thing to do is to join them and tell them why you think some policies are wrong.

    Nor should we be worried about the muslims taking over our culture. The bloody lefties are well on the way to doing that. Some might say they’ve already done it.

    Since both labor & lab-lie are totally useless, the LDP is about the only hope we have. You should all join up and put your position. And may the best arguments win.

  15. .

    Matthew
    #1333280, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    By the way, for the edification of non libertarian readers, the Non-aggression Principle is axiomatic for libertarians. That means you must not initiate force against a person or their property. It isn’t pacifism – self defense of yourself or your property is also axiomatic.

    For some here to claim to be libertarians and also reject the NAP… well that is a fringe view not supported by any mainstream libertarians. Neoconservative is a better descriptor for this type of person.

    Gentle readers,

    Evolution of this mind-numbing stupidity:

    1. Tweedledum asks if Rudd should be charged with incitement as our FM when he thought Gadaffi should have been attacked. This is asked as the concept of Australian courts upholding incitement laws is viewed as “supporting affirmative action” and “the racial orthodoxy of government”.
    2. Tweedledee interprets my disgust at such stupidity (non-response) as tacit approval of Rudd and this is proof that the LDP’s immigration policy is racist. Tweedledee then proceeds to say that Nepalese regularly murder people they have neighbourly disputes with.
    3. Tweedledum then believes I think we ought to bomb foreigners indiscriminately or otherwise invade other countries without cause, which is always racist. Tweedledum has noted previously that asylum seekers were “retards”. Both of these blowhards offer dishonest and selective scoffing critiques of policy whereas the policy was written by and with the assistance from experienced professional officers from the ADF.
    4. Tweedledum then stupidly and dishonestly concludes this goes against the principle of non aggression and surmises that myself and all other members of the LDP are in fact not libertarians but neoconservatives.

    NB: Tweedledum is a rabid “anarchist libertarian” we’ve never seen here before but he really likes Operation Sovereign Borders and the creation of a large surface fleet, which cannot be used in a racist land war, unless it is fought in Australia.

    Therefore, the LDP immigration policy is a shambles.

    —————————————————————————————————————-

    I have never come across such a cognitively impaired degeneration of a discussion on this blog site before. Not in 13 years of the CatallaxyFiles have I ever seen a more stupid, childish, hare brained, so called “argument” put forward by these two wholly unqualified blowhards.

    I’m disgusted to be associated with this brain dead, imbecilic bilge.

  16. Matthew

    Do not use quotation marks for things that I did not say.

  17. tgs

    Wow, this Matthew guy is pants-on-head retarded.

  18. Senile Old Guy

    Since both labor & lab-lie are totally useless, the LDP is about the only hope we have. You should all join up and put your position.

    Unfortunately, this might well be regarded as supporting their policies.

  19. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333307, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    [...]
    Tweedledum is a rabid “anarchist libertarian” we’ve never seen here before but he really likes Operation Sovereign Borders and the creation of a large surface fleet, which cannot be used in a racist land war, unless it is fought in Australia.

    Which is to say, not a libertarian anarchist at all.

  20. Matthew

    Whatever. Tired of dealing with Internet losers that throw around profanity.

    Lesson of this thread – LDP policies are as oddball as it gets.

  21. Aristogeiton

    Maybe he’s really a librarian anarchist, and rejects the Dewey Decimal System as an unwarranted impost on his liberty?

  22. Aristogeiton

    If one was only to file books where one pleased, then we would end up with a better organised library than one where a top-down scheme were imposed.

  23. .

    Me –

    Our defence policy was formulated with input of Australian Defence Force officers who joined the LDP who were either at the time currently serving or whom were recently retired, each with with decades of experience. One was on the party’s Federal executive from memory.

    Matthew –

    LDP policies are as oddball as it gets.

    This is why the Young Liberals ought to open the creche for longer.

  24. DrBeauGan

    You can’t all be pissed at this time of day. Can you?

    Maybe you’ve been up all night and it’s lack of sleep.

  25. Grigory M

    You can’t all be pissed at this time of day. Can you?

    It’s been a six day binge so far, Doc.

  26. If one was only to file books where one pleased, then we would end up with a better organised library than one where a top-down scheme were imposed.

    Zen Librarianism. You can’t find what you’re looking for, but you do end up finding what you need.

  27. tomix

    To sum up: The policy of the LDP on Immigration is unrealistic, utopian, and defies the opinions and interests of all Australians,71% of whom, recent polling shows, support OSB.

    Their Defence Policy is even more alarming, suggesting the Navy’s ships be sold off to finance a Coast Guard and an Australian Foreign Legion. with Ghurkhas.

    All very jolly for the LDP Colonel Blimps, i’m sure, except that this party’s Senator may hold the balance of power in the Senate and he represents a party, some of whose policies make the Tasmanian Greens appear almost sane in comparison.

    As a matter of fact, they could have picked up their policies from the mostly loony LewRockwell.com.

  28. .

    So Tomix you blowhard, when did you go to ADFA like the blokes who wrote our policy?

    Killed any Nepalese in self defence yet you fucking lunatic racist?

  29. Infidel Tiger

    Careful, dot. Tomix hasn’t been immunised.

  30. tomix

    Arisrogeiton @ 5.18pm

    Which is to say, not a libertarian anarchist at all.

    Do these “libertarian anarchists” think creating a police state to monitor the $50,000 migrants for 10 years and the avalanche of “genuine ” asylum seekers that follow their abandonment of OSB could ever be viable?

    And where would “libertarian anarchists” be placed on the political spectrum?

    Somewhere in Gillard territory, on the extreme left, surely?

  31. .

    They don’t need to monitor anything. They’ve been background checked and are ineligible for welfare. They’ve paid a contribution on top of taxes to use public services.

  32. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333519, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    Arisrogeiton @ 5.18pm

    Which is to say, not a libertarian anarchist at all.

    Do these “libertarian anarchists” think creating a police state to monitor the $50,000 migrants for 10 years and the avalanche of “genuine ” asylum seekers that follow their abandonment of OSB could ever be viable?

    And where would “libertarian anarchists” be placed on the political spectrum?

    Somewhere in Gillard territory, on the extreme left, surely?

    The LDP are not a libertarian anarchist party, dumbass. Do some reading yourself; I’m not going to capitulate the philosophy for you. And yes, Gillard is a free-market anarchist, you fucking clown.

  33. .

    It was Matthew who insisted on his libertarian purity. He was full of shit.

  34. tomix

    So Tomix you blowhard, when did you go to ADFA like the blokes who wrote our policy?

    They went to ADFA? That could explain a lot. But so what?

    General George Marshall was a four star general and his treachery, in company with Soviet spy Harry Hopkins, led to the loss of China to the communists and the murders of uncounted millions.

  35. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ironically I worked with a Nepalese guy for many years here in Newcastle. World class scientist in his field. He’s back in the US now. I never saw him with a kukri.

    Most of the Muslim boat people are not so qualified.*

    (* statement designed to explode Dot’s head, since its a slow Wednesday)

  36. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333536, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
    So Tomix you blowhard, when did you go to ADFA like the blokes who wrote our policy?

    They went to ADFA? That could explain a lot. But so what?

    General George Marshall was a four star general and his treachery, in company with Soviet spy Harry Hopkins, led to the loss of China to the communists and the murders of uncounted millions.

    EXTRA: LDP IN BED WITH THE REDS: MILLIONS DIE!

  37. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333528, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    It was Matthew who insisted on his libertarian purity. He was full of shit.

    Yes. He is a ‘rock ribbed, hard-core libertarian’, as you so put it.

  38. .

    Oh my god this gets better and better. Can’t you see you’re digging your own grave here tomix?

    Now you’re actually smearing the service record of these ex ADF officers/LDP members to make a silly rhetorical point.

    Don’t worry tomix. I can rely on you, the Border Force and leadership free Navy to kill all of the retarded refugees and murderous, un-neighbourly Nepalese.

  39. tomix

    Aristogeiton:
    EXTRA: LDP IN BED WITH THE REDS: MILLIONS DIE!

    Isn’t that the sort of hysterical mockery that was directed against anti-comminists by the liberal Left for decades.
    Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union and, voila, it was all true.

  40. Aristogeiton

    That proves it. LDP are all commies!

  41. Aristogeiton

    Fuck you’re an idiot.

  42. .

    Holy crap tomix do you even believe the shit you write?

    – Nepalese tend to kill their neighbours over very minor disputes so they ought not to migrate here.

    - Immigration (ending Operation Sovereign Borders) would greenlight female genital mutilation in Australia.

    - The reason why the LDP defence policy is bad is because the people who wrote it went to ADFA, the specialised single service colleges and the staff college, thus you know better since you have no military service or foreign policy qualifications (because the ADF are treacherous commies – because they allow gays to serve – and like you’ve shown us previously, the Nazis were a gay organisation).

    – You still haven’t apologised for lying about the LDP tax policy.

    – We’re a bunch of commies…our proposed tax rate of 20% is less than half of the current rate or Abbott’s 49% NDIS and are tacked on.

    You have no fucking shame.

    You are unhinged and don’t seem to care how absurd the shit you say is. I’m guess you are glad your reputation has no value.

  43. tomix

    - Immigration (ending Operation Sovereign Borders) would greenlight female genital mutilation in Australia.

    There’s nothing much stopping it now, is there? Hospital midwives might have a story to tell.

  44. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333697, posted on June 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm
    - Immigration (ending Operation Sovereign Borders) would greenlight female genital mutilation in Australia.

    There’s nothing much stopping it now, is there? Hospital midwives might have a story to tell.

    Classic stupidity. Nevermind that FGM is carried at the earliest weeks after birth, and many times at or after puberty. No! THE MIDWIVES ARE FGMING DOE EYED BABIES! You’re a fucking lunatic.

  45. tomix

    I think you may be channelling regular VIZ character Major Misunderstanding now.

    Midwives in large capital city hospitals would be able to give a clear picture of the prevalence of FGM.

    In London, I’ve read it’s way over 95% of all Muslim mothers.

  46. .

    My god what has this got to do with anything? This is so off topic this whole thread is a bigger joke than the worst open thread. Presumably migrant mothers had the procedure done overseas?

    You are a glutton for punishment tomix. Your obsessions are bizzare, varied and many.

  47. tomix

    Presumably migrant mothers had the procedure done overseas?

    Muslims have been moving to the U.K. in numbers since the 50s , Dot.

    Ancient cultural practices like that don’t die out.

  48. Aristogeiton

    It’s not enough that they are criminal and carry harsh penalties. The only solution is to ban Islam! Dot, you Marxist, why can’t you see this?

  49. tomix

    What are the harsh penalties you speak of, Aristogeiton? Any examples of successful prosecutions and harsh penalties?

  50. Tel

    If one was only to file books where one pleased, then we would end up with a better organised library than one where a top-down scheme were imposed.

    Isn’t that pretty much what we now call the Internet?

    How has google effected your library usage pattern? Be honest now…

  51. Matthew

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

  52. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1333851, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

    RIVERS OF BLOOD! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCES!?

  53. Aristogeiton

    Interesting that you quote from the most well-known example of Powellism’s divergence from libertarianism.

  54. .

    Christ I’m happy these nutters gave up and stopped giving this site a bad name.

  55. Matthew

    Christ I’m happy these nutters gave up and stopped giving this site a bad name.

    You are a concern troll. Tomix had you pegged.

    tomix
    #1333031, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm
    You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “concern troll”

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

    There you go.

  56. .

    ???

    Yeah, a concern troll.

    No Matthew, that’s you. This is the only thread you’ve ever commented on. I have been guest blog posts on this site before.

    You’re a concern troll for anti immigration nutters. You actually want Kevin Rudd charged for what he said about Syria, because you’re such a good libertarian. This is because you set up some bizzare false premise about the LDP being unsincere about removing anti vilification laws.

    Care to tell our gentle readers about your central planning directive as to why we shouldn’t accept “retarded” refugees?

  57. Matthew

    You’re a concern troll for anti immigration nutters. You actually want Kevin Rudd charged for what he said about Syria, because you’re such a good libertarian.

    Cut and paste quote or put a sock in it.

    Care to tell our gentle readers about your central planning directive as to why we shouldn’t accept “retarded” refugees?

    Cut and paste quote about my ‘central planning directive’ concerning ‘retarded’ refugees.

    Kindly stop this BS.

  58. .

    No Matthew, I’m not putting a sock in it.

    Maybe you can tell us how such a rock ribbed libertarian such as yourself believes declaring refugees are technically retarded and thus ought to be excluded from such a wanky, Liberal Party central term as “the 21st century economy” is the epitome of libertarianism, and not racist central planning.

  59. Paridell

    Australian Defence Force officers who joined the LDP who were either at the time currently serving or whom were recently retired

    “or whom were”?

    Try: “who at the time were either currently serving or recently retired”.

  60. Demosthenes

    Dot accused of being a concern troll. Now I really have heard it all.

  61. .

    Yes I know Demos.

    I can’t wait until Matthew the rock ribbed libertarian tries to arrest Kevin Rudd with a citizens arrest ala George Galloway on GW Bush, because his views on Syria were “incitement”.

    This will prove that the LDP are not serious about repealing restrictions on free speech, anti vilification laws, cutting taxes and that their immigration policy will see Australia invaded by millions of homicidal Nepalese maniacs. Because projecting stragic power as the LDP desire is secondary for the navy to policing fishing and a handful of illegal immigrants.

    Who in their right mind comes up with an argument like this?

  62. tomix

    Further upthread your Defence Policy spruiks an Australian Foreign Legion with Ghurkha troops. In other words, mercenaries.

    Now, after years of service doing what mercenaries do best, are you saying you wouldn’t allow those Ghurkhas to settle in Australia?

  63. .

    tomix
    #1335073, posted on June 5, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    Further upthread your Defence Policy spruiks an Australian Foreign Legion with Ghurkha troops. In other words, mercenaries.

    Which is what the United Kingdom has been doing since 1816 and in the British Army formally since 1857.

    The anti mercernary rule was brought in by Malcolm Fraser.

    Now, after years of service doing what mercenaries do best, are you saying you wouldn’t allow those Ghurkhas to settle in Australia?

    Why wouldn’t we? What are you going to do, deport people who have served in he ADF? Does this apply to citizens who join up as well? After all, they might have served with the Guhrkas doing “what they do best”.

    Are you really, truly going to continue these bizzare criticisms, like using Malcolm Fraser as some sort of gold standard for conservative or libertarian thought?

    You actually accused Guhrkas of killing their neighbours over minor disputes. This is incredibly dumb and incredibly racist.

    Once again, who in their right mind puts forwards these arguments and thinks they can win people over with them?

  64. Demosthenes

    Once again, who in their right mind puts forwards these arguments and thinks they can win people over with them?

    Cultural Marxists?

  65. tomix

    Are you suggesting that because the British hire mercenaries it’s acceptable for Australia to follow suit?

    And Ghurkhas wouldn’t be members of the ADF. It’s a Foreign legion, remember the policy?

  66. .

    The point about the British is that it is a conventional idea used by one of our allies.

    Your idea about the Nepalese is that they all violently murder their neighbours without cause.

    How mind numbingly stupid and racist. Are you drunk or stoned?

    I never said the Guhrkas were in the ADF. ADF members do the same job they do. In your bizzare world, this is a good reason to remove them from society.

    Once again, who in their right mind puts forwards these arguments and thinks they can win people over with them?

  67. tomix

    How could ADF members do the same job mercenaries do? Do you understand what a mercenary is?

    And are you denying that the LDP Defence Policy calls for an Australian Foreign Legion led by Australian officers and containing Ghurkhas?

    And what do you think the attraction of Ghurkhas was for the British Army?

    Playing the spinet? Or quoting Schopenhauer?

  68. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1335142, posted on June 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm
    How could ADF members do the same job mercenaries do? Do you understand what a mercenary is?

    And are you denying that the LDP Defence Policy calls for an Australian Foreign Legion led by Australian officers and containing Ghurkhas?

    And what do you think the attraction of Ghurkhas was for the British Army?

    Playing the spinet? Or quoting Schopenhauer?

    THEY WON’T LERN UNTIL GHERKINS ARE MURDERERING EVERYONEA ON THE STREETS AND MUZZOS ARE FGM OUR DOE EYED ARAYAN BABBIES! RIVERS OF BLOOD! RIVERS OF BLOOD!

  69. tomix

    So are you in favour of an Australian Foreign Legion, featuring Ghurkha mercenaries, and should those Ghurkhas have right of settlement in Australia, Aristogeiton?

  70. Demosthenes

    How could ADF members do the same job mercenaries do?

    Killing people for money is the same regardless of letters of marque.

  71. tomix

    You appear to be equating the ADF members with mercenaries and pirates, Demosthenes.

  72. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1335169, posted on June 5, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    So are you in favour of an Australian Foreign Legion, featuring Ghurkha mercenaries, and should those Ghurkhas have right of settlement in Australia, Aristogeiton?

    FGM MURDER RETARD GHERKINS! CULTURAL MARXISM! RIVERS OF BLOOD! RIVERS OF BLOOOOOOOOD!!!!!

  73. .

    should those Ghurkhas have right of settlement in Australia

    Paying the fee or not has not been decided as far as I know. Eligibility for the Army otherwise would see them pass the health, security and “means to support themselves” rules so they would outside the fee be eligible for PR and thus settlement.

    I fail to see why after 10 years of this or other employment or retirement they souldn’t be eligible for citizenship either.

    This is basic stuff, short of if they pay the fee or not, which has been repeated to you over and over again, but you question and attack with relentless, brutal and aggressive stupidity.

    You won’t even take back your absurd, nutty claims about Nepalese regularly killing their neighbours if they settle here.

    You’re a fucking nutter.

  74. .

    How could ADF members do the same job mercenaries do? Do you understand what a mercenary is?

    1. Easily, it’s the same job. 2. …is nutter going to explain that a mercenary is a chicken sandwich, because I thought they were paid foreign soldiers.

    And are you denying that the LDP Defence Policy calls for an Australian Foreign Legion led by Australian officers and containing Ghurkhas?

    We’ve noted that several times. This is like admitting that we pull our pants down and sit down to shit. Do you stand up and leave them on? Are you simple?

    And what do you think the attraction of Ghurkhas was for the British Army?

    The British couldn’t beat them and concluded they were the best in the world. The Guhrkas see it as economic opportunity. My friend who served in east Timor said the Guhrkas were supremely fit, the best soldiers even among the elites and the most disciplined and best drilled.

    Playing the spinet? Or quoting Schopenhauer?

    You know think that Nepalese people are uncultured and kill civilian neighbours without cause.

    You belong on white supremacist websites. Piss off and don’t come back.

  75. Matthew

    The LDP plan for defense is loony.

    Disband the navy and focus on fighting a land war within Australia. That’s nuts.

    Spend enormous amounts of money attempting to achieve ‘long distance force projection’. Why not just defend Australia instead? Why does the LDP policy say it is for peace when the actual acquisition of equipment shows that it is looking for a fight (except that Australia will be virtually indefensible without a proper navy)?

    Why does Australia need foreign mercenaries? Is it because foreign mercenaries would be more likely to obey orders that are illegal or immoral?

    I don’t know if there really were any ADF personell involved in making this policy and if there were they must be fringe figures in the ADF because no one of note in the ADF has advocated policies along these lines. There are far better teenage strategists playing starcraft than there are ADF personell advising the LDP.

    It is obvious that Dot is a warped loon and Aristogeiton is his butt boy. Both of you are likely sheltered people that don’t know a thing about the planet that we live in, monolingual and ignorant. Go and sodomize yourself.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1335406, posted on June 6, 2014 at 12:56 am
    [...]
    It is obvious that Dot is a warped loon and Aristogeiton is his butt boy. Both of you are likely sheltered people that don’t know a thing about the planet that we live in, monolingual and ignorant. Go and sodomize yourself.

    What is it about closeted homosexuals that makes them so illiberal? I ask because another poster here, Joe Bloviacre, is a slave just like you, you dickless prick, and he’s also prone to homoerotic outbursts.

  77. tomix

    Dot @ 12.14pm
    You know think that Nepalese people are uncultured and kill civilian neighbours without cause.

    I’ve got no problem with the Nepalese following their own culture in Nepal. Others don’t.

    E.g. the Gadhimai Festival, due again this November. Now, your stated belief is that Australia should pretend incompatible cultural differences don’t exist, and grant entry to anyone with $50,000 or, in the case of the Nepalese mercenaries,10 years service with an Australian Foreign Legion..

    The Gadhimai Festival. http://www.occupyforanimals.org/gadhimai-festival-in-nepal.html

    By the way, does the LDP have an animal welfare policy?
    What about a mental hygiene policy for immigrants?

  78. tomix

    Aristogeiton @ 1.22am

    What is it about closeted homosexuals that makes them so illiberal?

    Do you not understand the meaning of the word “projection”, Aristogeiton?

    Here’s one definition that may help: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_7.htm

  79. Paridell

    Tomix:
    Now, after years of service doing what mercenaries do best, are you saying you wouldn’t allow those Ghurkhas to settle in Australia?

    Dot
    After all, they might have served with the Guhrkas doing “what they do best”.

    That’s “Gurkhas”, gentlemen. Also (forewarned is forearmed), “Gandhi”.

  80. .

    Disband the navy and focus on fighting a land war within Australia. That’s nuts.

    This is a lie.

    Spend enormous amounts of money attempting to achieve ‘long distance force projection’. Why not just defend Australia instead

    Force projection can’t be used to defend Australia. Really, you should give a lecture at the staff college about this idea.

    Why does Australia need foreign mercenaries? Is it because foreign mercenaries would be more likely to obey orders that are illegal or immoral?

    The ADF has had recruitment problems for a long time. Particularly if the economy improves and mining sees another upwell in employment. Once again Matthew, you simply don’t know what you are talking about you rube.

    I don’t know if there really were any ADF personell involved in making this policy

    Why yes there was. Why you continue to lie about a policy you are utterly clueless about is beyond me.

    There are far better teenage strategists playing starcraft than there are ADF personell advising the LDP.

    Says the idiot with no military pedigree and thinks he knows better than ADF officers of long standing. Force projection – unnecessary in modern warfare! Let’s bring the fight home!

    Indeed Matthew. Your brilliant idea would have meant the Allies would not have fought the battle of the Atlantic. They could have simply fought Germany in England.

    What a bizzare, crackpot display of nationalism and alleged “pacificist” “libertarianism”.

    It is obvious that Dot is a warped loon and Aristogeiton is his butt boy. Both of you are likely sheltered people that don’t know a thing about the planet that we live in, monolingual and ignorant. Go and sodomize yourself.

    So does bilingualism give you a pass to be a crackpot racist and homophobe? American spelling champ. Are you even an Australian?

  81. .

    Disband the navy and focus on fighting a land war within Australia. That’s nuts.

    Why not just defend Australia instead

    For a bloke calling other people sheltered and retarded, you really aren’t self aware, are you Matthew. One moment you (lie about disbanding the navy which would be expanded in terms of capability) criticise fighting a war in Australia but then say that force projection is warmongering and we should fight the enemy when they turn up.

    You monumentally stupid prick.

    There are far better teenage strategists playing starcraft than there are ADF personell advising the LDP.

    You say this after you expose yourself as a monumentally stupid liar.

    I’m sure the staff college wants future brigade commanders to hear your whacko ideas.

  82. .

    Tomix in fell swoop suggests that all Nepalese are not only murderers, but mentally ill and will all carry on a tradition the Nepalese are themselves agitating the abolish, contrary to our animal cruelty and other laws.

    The stupid hysteria about immigration can otherwise be dismissed by saying the current laws on animal welfare are enough, moves to change them are at the behest of greens who wish to shut down certain industries and the entry rules the LDP propose cover mental illness – minor stuff largely doesn’t matter. Otherwise you would require the means to support your dependents. Yes that would exclude some people. Refugees would get access to welfare.

    This is basically what the current rules are. Why don’t you rail against this and write a letter to Morrison about it, full of mind numbingly stupid racism how we must deport the murderous Nepalese and you find it offensive that we don’t let in people with mental illness that even if paid for an upfront transfer fee, the state can’t look after.

  83. .

    I still can’t believe these idiots (Matthew and Tomix) believe they are presenting a case to the public as to why the LDP is a dangerous fringe organisation.

    The longer this goes on, the more mainstream the LDP looks because of tomix and Matthew’s unhinged and utterly brain dead criticism.

    You have to feel sorry for these people.

    Relentless, brutal and aggressive stupidity pervades their “thinking”.

    Once again, who in their right mind puts forwards these arguments and thinks they can win people over with them?

  84. Matthew

    Dot, when you pull apart my sentences and reconstruct them out of context, and apply quotation marks for things I’ve never said, do you really believe the strawman narrative that you have constructed?

    So does bilingualism give you a pass to be a crackpot racist and homophobe?

    Who said I was bilingual? I’m not afraid of gays either, and think that they have the exact same rights as anyone. Tell me, why do you have hemophilia?

    American spelling champ. Are you even an Australian?

    I thought that caring about stuff like that was racist.

    The LDP must be full of crackpots to tolerate the likes of you. I hope this thread is never deleted and if someone asks about the LDP I will direct them towards this thread.

  85. Matthew

    Correction = why do you have homophilia (damned auto correct)

  86. .

    I really hope it is never deleted too, champion.

    Do you really think calling refugees retarded and calling Nepalese murderers supports your argument?

    This thread is a testament to your stupidity Matthew. You are an inveterate liar and you consistently misrepresented LDP policy regarding the Navy.

    This thread has been a relentless orgy of your stupidity, like your idea that we should best defend Australia by allowing a foreign invasion force to come here first and fight them on our soil.

    I hope it is put up in lights and you get interviewed by the press.

  87. Matthew

    This thread has been a relentless orgy of your stupidity, like your idea that we should best defend Australia by allowing a foreign invasion force to come here first and fight them on our soil.

    You are a dammed fool that doesn’t even know what long distance force projection means.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

    It is the LDP policy that disband the navy.

    It’s here in black and white –

    16. Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard while hospital, supply and amphibious capability may be retained for humanitarian disaster relief.

    And replacing the full time army with a peasant militia –

    19. Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded, retaining only those capabilities that have long training lead times and essential staff needed for part-time forces. Most of the army would comprise reservists who cycle in and out of active service.

    Without a proper navy to defend Australia a day invasion will have to be fought on land.

    I don’t need to lie about LDP policy.

  88. .

    It is the LDP policy that disband the navy.

    This is a lie Matthew. Actually it is two lies.

    You believe “the Navy” consists only of the surface fleet, which in the last couple of years has been so under-serviced and ill-prepared it had at times, no bluewater capacity.

    Furthermore the surface fleet would not be disbanded.

    The mix of vessels would change and other ships would be reassigned to a coast guard. Yes, excess would get sold, as we did with the Air Force Mirage IIIs etc. This standard practice is alarming to you.

    How on earth do we get force protection with a surface fleet that is inoperable, insufficient submarines and no air cover?

    Maybe this is a radical theory you can lecture to the staff college and get laughed out of Canberra for doing so.

    Your understanding of the Army is also a nonsense.

    The Army can only field a couple of battalions at a time which are ill equipped. This is a common complaint soldiers have.

    We are better off having a small standing army which is well equipped along with America as an ally and otherwise a reserve for longer term deployments and for a deterrence. Employing people below capacity where they are not properly equipped and cannot be deployed is simply a waste of finances and other resources.

    Once again Matthew, you don’t know what you are talking about. Lecturing to us with a wikipedia article you looked up? Gee thanks champ.

    Maybe one day you’ll understand that the submarine fleet also forms part of “the Navy”. From there maybe you can consider how force projection works with modern air forces and navies available to the enemy.

    Yes Matthew, please direct people you know here. I’m sure you will impress them with your dishonesty, aggressive stupidity and casual racism.

  89. tomix

    Dot @ 1.14pm

    Do you really think calling refugees retarded and calling Nepalese murderers supports your argument?

    Why don’t you cite the “retarded” quote to back up your argument?

    And Matthew hasn’t referred to the Nepalese at any time.

    On that point, surely an apology is in order, Dot?

  90. .

    I am not going to apologise for the unhinged, uninformed and hysterical commentary of others.

    You guys have outed yourselves as fringe nutters with bizzare beliefs about foreigners that no one is dumb enough to say in public.

    Enjoy the mess you have made.

  91. Matthew

    Geez, the guy that advocates murdering foreigners by bombing the hell out of their countries accuses me of ‘casual racism’.

  92. .

    Matthew
    #1336155, posted on June 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm
    Geez, the guy that advocates murdering foreigners by bombing the hell out of their countries accuses me of ‘casual racism’.

    I never said that – you quite literally concluded that is what I believe in.

    I’m amazed you honestly think you have anything to gain from this utterly stupid argument you are advancing.

    You think Kevin Rudd, as Foreign Minister, should have been charged with incitement, as he openly suggested Australia should use force against a foreign dictator. You also believe any war fought outside of Australia is a war crime. Yet you purport to speak for the military. Will your new chums take kindly to your request that most of them be put on trial for their service on the front line?

    This is not only bizzare, you believe this somehow proved the LDP weren’t really committed to free speech.

    Your racism is inescapable – you believe race is determined by nationality.

    Keep digging pal, whatever the hell you are meant to be doing is backfiring.

  93. tomix

    No, national characteristics are determined by culture.

    Which is why the LDPs non selective immigration policy is so unrealistic.

    The idea that a culture that has practiced women on girl violence [FGM] at near 100% for untold generations will stop because Australia’s States have statutes banning the practice is an insult to anyones intelligence.

  94. Matthew

    You think Kevin Rudd, as Foreign Minister, should have been charged with incitement, as he openly suggested Australia should use force against a foreign dictator. You also believe any war fought outside of Australia is a war crime. Yet you purport to speak for the military. Will your new chums take kindly to your request that most of them be put on trial for their service on the front line?

    It was you that said that vilification laws would apply to the government only. You also mentioned incitement as something you personally include in the definition of vilification.

    Tomix then asked if the vilification laws that you say would apply only to the government would apply to Kevin Rudd’s incitement against Libya (this type of incitement already determined to be illegal, specifically, the crime of plotting aggressive war, under the Nuremberg trials).

    You said no –

    Yes Tomix. I should be hanged for pointing out you are a liar and urging military action against a terrorist like Colonel Gadaffi should be treated the same as a fundamentalist Imam inciting followers to bomb civilians.

    The point is that you said that vilification laws would operate only against the government but in a practical sense there would be no instances in which a government official would be charged with vilification.

    If you are ok with the foreign minister advocating criminal war, then you are ok with criminal war itself.

    Your racism is inescapable – you believe race is determined by nationality.

    Race = nationality? Why would you think I hold that opinion? I’ve been all around the world.

    What makes you different from a socialist alternative type that throws around words like racist and bigot all the time? You do the same.

  95. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1336363, posted on June 6, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    [...]
    What makes you different from a socialist alternative type that throws around words like racist and bigot all the time? You do the same.

    What makes a libertarian different from a socialist? You’re really asking this question? You’re ‘practically retarded’.

  96. Matthew

    What makes a libertarian different from a socialist? You’re really asking this question? You’re ‘practically retarded’.

    Lol. Gay.

  97. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337081, posted on June 7, 2014 at 11:41 am
    [...]
    Lol. Gay.

    Actually, that’s the best argument you’ve put forward to date. Well done!

  98. Demosthenes

    What makes you different from a socialist alternative type that throws around words like racist and bigot all the time?

    Making factual observations about others dictates our political category? Weird.

  99. Matthew

    Making factual observations about others dictates our political category? Weird.

    Factual observations? I said nothing of factual observations.

    And throwing around scare words like racist and bigot does dictate your political when the goal is to vilify and silence dissent. I would say the category is cultural marxist.

  100. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337242, posted on June 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    Making factual observations about others dictates our political category? Weird.

    Factual observations? I said nothing of factual observations./blockquote>

    Clearly.

  101. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337242, posted on June 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    [...]
    I would say the category is cultural marxist.

    You may well be the dumbest cnut alive.

  102. tomix

    The LDP policies are meant to appeal to the sentimentality of Australians, viz:

    An Australian Foreign Legion led by Australian officers and made up of Ghurkhas and other
    “suitable ” mercenaries. So, in LDP- Land, brown people are O.K. so long as they are unquestioningly obeying orders from whitey?

    And LDP shills are calling anyone that questions them racist?

    Perhaps the shills should understand the meaning of the word “projection”?

  103. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337291, posted on June 7, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    [...]
    Perhaps the shills should understand the meaning of the word “projection”?

    Regale us with your insights into pop psychology, dumbshit.

  104. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337291, posted on June 7, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    [...]
    So, in LDP- Land, brown people are O.K. so long as they are unquestioningly obeying orders from whitey?

    So the LDP have an ‘open borders’ policy (according to you), but are discriminating against ‘brown people’. Flawless logic, fuckstain.

  105. tomix

    Well, it’s open borders by stealth, but wouldn’t you say an appeal to sentimentality in the LDP policies is dishonest, possibly Conservative?

  106. Matthew

    You may well be the dumbest cnut alive.

    How so? Both you and Dot are commenting on this thread and both of you are clearly alive.

  107. Matthew

    tomix, do you have a GPG public key? If you do post it and I’ll send you my details.

  108. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337333, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:19 pm
    tomix, do you have a GPG public key? If you do post it and I’ll send you my details.

    I’m sure you two biggoty dumbasses will combine into a powerful political force.

  109. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337320, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    Well, it’s open borders by stealth, but wouldn’t you say an appeal to sentimentality in the LDP policies is dishonest, possibly Conservative?

    So which is it fuckstick? Are the LDP conservatives or cultural Marxists? You could drive a truck through your ‘arguments’ here. Fucking pathetic.

  110. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337333, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:19 pm
    tomix, do you have a GPG public key? If you do post it and I’ll send you my details.

    I’d be careful tomix. Taking Matthew’s homoerotic outbursts into account, I don’t imagine he’s seeking a strictly platonic relationship.

  111. tomix

    Matthew- no, i’ll sort that out on Tuesday.

  112. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337347, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:26 pm
    Matthew- no, i’ll sort that out on Tuesday.

    Young love.

  113. Matthew

    Well, it’s open borders by stealth, but wouldn’t you say an appeal to sentimentality in the LDP policies is dishonest, possibly Conservative?

    The LDP are going to need those foreign mercenaries when ‘racist’ Australians object to open borders.

  114. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337349, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    Well, it’s open borders by stealth, but wouldn’t you say an appeal to sentimentality in the LDP policies is dishonest, possibly Conservative?

    The LDP are going to need those foreign mercenaries when ‘racist’ Australians object to open borders.

    So which is it? Conservative? Cultural marxist? You two are probably some of the dumbest cnuts I have ever met: and I’ve been to university.

  115. Matthew

    I’m sure you two biggoty dumbasses will combine into a powerful political force.

    Yes, but only because the LDP policy pages are a comedy gold mine and until now the LDP has been flying under the radar.

    David L. is on the radio quite a bit these days and he is going to be put on the spot to excuse these policies very soon. Guaranteed.

  116. tomix

    Aristogeiton- The LDP appear to be dishonestly chasing conservative votes with their “Foreign Legion” policy, and chasing who knows what with their “legalise pot, but nothing else” policy.

    Having fluked a NSW Senator through the “incompetence” of the AEC, the LDP seems to be tailoring policies to suit potential voters.

    Dishonest, much?

  117. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337362, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    [...]
    Having fluked a NSW Senator through the “incompetence” of the AEC, the LDP seems to be tailoring policies to suit potential voters.

    I suppose that it may appear that way to somebody who is profoundly retarded and understands nothing of libertarianism. That is to say, to you, you fuckwit.

  118. tomix

    Aristogeiton-
    You two are probably some of the dumbest cnuts I have ever met: and I’ve been to university.

    You don’t say? I never would have guessed.

    Heheh.

  119. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1337366, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    Aristogeiton-
    You two are probably some of the dumbest cnuts I have ever met: and I’ve been to university.

    You don’t say? I never would have guessed.

    With your intellect, I’m surprised you can breathe without a ventilator.

  120. Matthew

    Aristogeiton- The LDP appear to be dishonestly chasing conservative votes with their “Foreign Legion” policy, and chasing who knows what with their “legalise pot, but nothing else” policy

    This is the problem with the LDP. There are no general, guiding principles.

    Take pot legalisation. They support legalisation for pot and the reasoning behind it is completely arbitrary. A principled stance is that you don’t subject people to state harassment (imprisonment, for example) because they have decided to consume any kind of substance.

    The LDP however would see the marijuana enthusiast free and the cocaine enthusiast in prison.

    Whenever you look at LDP policies (the minimum wage, for example) you see this lack of principle.

  121. tomix

    Good one, Aristogeiton.

    Now, about that LDP policy of selling the Navy’s ships to fund an Australian Foreign Legion.

    What’s your opinion?

  122. Matthew

    Good one, Aristogeiton.

    Now, about that LDP policy of selling the Navy’s ships to fund an Australian Foreign Legion.

    What’s your opinion?

    Won’t his answer just be a variation of ‘fuck’ and [edit. Sinc]?

  123. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337372, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:41 pm
    [...]
    This is the problem with the LDP. There are no general, guiding principles.

    Take pot legalisation. They support legalisation for pot and the reasoning behind it is completely arbitrary. A principled stance is that you don’t subject people to state harassment (imprisonment, for example) because they have decided to consume any kind of substance.

    If you could operate Google, you would know that you’re talking through your ass. The relevant policy says the LDP supports:

    Re-legalisation of marijuana use by adults (subject to prohibition on involvement of minors, etc) and a review of prohibitions on certain other drugs.

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

    You lying fuckwit.

  124. Aristogeiton

    But you’re such a fucking rock-ribbed libertarian, it’s not enough for you? Fucking bullshit. Get Joe Goodacre’s GPG key while you’re at it. You three can fellate eachother at your leisure and stop wasting our time.

  125. Matthew

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

    You lying fuckwi

    A review?

    LOL. I wasn’t born yesterday.

    What about the victimless crime of person selling cocaine to another?

  126. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1337390, posted on June 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

    You lying fuckwi

    A review?

    LOL. I wasn’t born yesterday.

    What about the victimless crime of person selling cocaine to another?

    Not enough for you, you muscular libertarian? Lol. You fucking idiot. I’ll leave this thread to demonstrate what a fascist you are.

  127. Matthew

    Should engaging in commercial activity between willing parties be a crime or not? It’s an easy yes or no.

  128. Matthew

    By the way, do you support the LDP policy of selling Australian navy ships to hire foreign mercenaries?

  129. tomix

    Aristogeiton- As well as the LDP Gov’t charging migrants $50,000 for citizenship, what about extra charges to be allowed to practise their own culture free from interference.

    A per head fee to celebrate the Gadhimai Festival in November would help fill the Treasury coffers.

    Suncorp may be available. Or the MCG.

  130. Matthew

    Clearly the LDP thinks that there are not enough Tuk Tuk drivers on the streets of Australia.

    The LDP policy of open borders will fix that.

  131. tomix

    How would the LDP Senator vote on legislation to rein in or abolish the rampaging feral beast that is the AEC?

    Without AEC “incompetence” there’d be an extra Coalition Senator from NSW.

  132. .

    Clearly the LDP thinks that there are not enough Tuk Tuk drivers on the streets of Australia.

    Matthew insists he is not racist with this hysterical dog whistling and hyperbole.

    In the meantime, David Leyonhjelm is accepted in the mainstream press and TV given prime time slots on Bolt.

  133. tomix

    Prediction: If you thought the media loved Windsor & Oakeshott, wait ’til you see the free pass given to

    Senator Dave when he starts supporting ALP/Greens.

  134. .

    tomix the unhinged loon now thinks the LDP supports the Greens.

    Judge for yourselves, gentle readers:

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1226-environment

  135. tomix

    Millions of hectares are sown worldwide to GM crops and their safety as a group is not in question.
    The Senator from Monsanto.

  136. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1338221, posted on June 8, 2014 at 12:54 pm
    Millions of hectares are sown worldwide to GM crops and their safety as a group is not in question.
    The Senator from Monsanto.

    What the fuck? You’re anti-GM? You really are a mouthbreather.

  137. Demosthenes

    The Senator from Monsanto.

    Now you’re just trolling.

  138. tomix

    No-one could come close to your performance over many years, Demosthenes.

    Do you have a criticism of that comment?

  139. tomix

    Monsanto doesn’t lobby Australian politicians, Demosthenes?

    The U.S. Senate voted last year to prevent the States from legislating labelling of GMO ingredients in food.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/040523_monsanto_71_farm_bill_senators.html#

  140. Aristogeiton

    EXTRA: REDS UNDER THE BED AS LDP CUTS DEAL WITH MONSANTO!

  141. JC

    Someone mentioned Monsanto? Monsanto is God’s company and everyone who works for it goes straight to heaven with an express pass. I’ve owned this stock for years and will never sell it. It practically feeds the world.

  142. JC

    STFU Tomix. A fair slab of the world’s human population would be starving if it wasn’t for Monsanto. Get lost.

    If David L wants to speak to Monsanto reps he will be in the presence of saints.

  143. tomix

    Effect on humans of Monsanto’s Glyphosate : Glyphosate- The Elephant in the Room.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/claire-viadro/clean-out-your-brain/

  144. tomix

    JC- a fair slab of the Worlds population is always under threat of starvation due to their respective gov’ts socialist policies.

  145. Aristogeiton

    JC
    #1338265, posted on June 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    STFU Tomix. A fair slab of the world’s human population would be starving if it wasn’t for Monsanto. Get lost.

    If David L wants to speak to Monsanto reps he will be in the presence of saints.

    Let’s be clear; tomix has presented no evidence that David L met with Monsanto representatives. This is just a lying smear.

  146. JC

    Oh Great, Tomix, you’re now linking Lew Rockwell as a source of authority.

    Join Greenpeace and go around destroying GM crops. You, fucking idiot we’ve seen the impact of higher food prices when the ‘vironmentals thought it would be a great idea to burn crops as fuel. As a result kids in Haiti were eating dirt biscuits because of the high cost of food. Yes, dirt biscuits. Every single ‘vironmental shit bag who caused that should have been executed… Al Gore first.

    Those poor defenseless kids lives have been ruined as a result because the lack of nutrition even for a short time in their early years as would destroy their brain capacity.

    Al Gore ought to be facing the court in the Hague for crimes against humanity for what he did.

    Fuck off and go Lew Rockwell somewhere else.

  147. JC

    Let’s be clear; tomix has presented no evidence that David L met with Monsanto representatives. This is just a lying smear.

    No problems. I’m saying that it would be great if they met, as it always worth listening to what Monsanto has to say.

  148. JC

    Here, slap bang in the middle years when Gore and the vironemntal toads pushed for biofiuels causing food shortages around the world.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22902512/ns/world_news-americas/t/haitis-poor-resort-eating-mud-prices-rise/

    JC- a fair slab of the Worlds population is always under threat of starvation due to their respective gov’ts socialist policies.

    But no mention of the socialist statist policies from the rich world, right?

  149. tomix


    Let’s be clear; tomix has presented no evidence that David L met with Monsanto representatives. This is just a lying smear.

    Sure, Aristogeiton, sure. From David Leyonhjelm’s Wikipedia entry:

    Prior to being elected to parliament, he worked as a veterinarian and then as an agribusiness consultant, as well as writing columns on rural issues for several publications.

    Never met with a Monsanto rep, eh? Seriously?

  150. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1338284, posted on June 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Let’s be clear; tomix has presented no evidence that David L met with Monsanto representatives. This is just a lying smear.

    Sure, Aristogeiton, sure. From David Leyonhjelm’s Wikipedia entry:

    Prior to being elected to parliament, he worked as a veterinarian and then as an agribusiness consultant, as well as writing columns on rural issues for several publications.

    Never met with a Monsanto rep, eh? Seriously?

    So, no evidence. Also, your implication is that Monsanto effected the LDP’s policy position on GM crops, not that David L met with a Monsanto ‘rep’ as an agribusiness consultant. You fucking desperate liar.

  151. Fisky

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-ritchie/house-gop-has-killed-immigration-reform_b_5454033.html

    Reassuring news. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is a brain-dead dregs of a policy from pre-2008, which will do nothing for the economy, because the economy will not need unskilled labour at all in the near future, but will add 10 million Democrats to the voting rolls.

  152. Someone mentioned Monsanto? Monsanto is God’s company and everyone who works for it goes straight to heaven with an express pass. I’ve owned this stock for years and will never sell it. It practically feeds the world.

    Would that be the same Monsanto that produced Agent Orange?
    You won’t find too many Vietnamese or Vietnam veterans who would agree with that.

  153. tomix


    But no mention of the socialist statist policies from the rich world, right?

    Here’s one imposed on India by the World Bank in 1988 that’s created misery.

    “The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector”

    “http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947″>

  154. tomix

    It would indeed be the same Monsanto, 1735099.

    And LDP Agriculture Policy gives Monsanto’s GM crops a free pass, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

    Looks like the LDP is saying “The science is settled”

    Now, where have I heard that before?

  155. Aristogeiton

    Lord above, you’re a fucking idiot.

  156. tomix

    Weed Whacking Herbicide proves Deadly to Human Cells

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

    Roundup again. But apparently Millions of hectares are sown worldwide to GM crops and their safety as a group is not in question.

    In LDP-Land, anyway.

  157. Matthew

    The LDP supports organic farmers being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement when their crops are contaminated by GM genetic material.

    LDP will pass laws that immunise GM companies like Monsanto for any liability their crops have in making people sick.

    Disgusting.

    http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/rules-on-genetically-modified-food-are-unfair-to-farmers/story-e6frg9if-1226843064953#

  158. Demosthenes

    Looks like the LDP is saying “The science is settled”

    Now, where have I heard that before?

    Germ theory? Evolution? Plate tectonics?

  159. Ren Hoek

    Yes and the most efficient and natural way to start a fire is with two shards of flint.
    Anyone got a spare box of flints?

  160. Matthew

    From my link in the Australian newspaper.

    Most Australian farmers grow GM-free food and get premium income for it, because it is what consumers want. A poll released last month by EMC revealed that 50 per cent of Australians disapprove of the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Australia.

    But the farmers’ choice to grow GM-free can be affected by their neighbours’ choices, because of the lack of protection rules in Australia. The current non-binding recommendation guidelines for managing GM canola cultivation in Western Australia are very weak and only recommend a minimum of 5m separation between a GM and non-GM canola field.

    Every farmers know that such a small buffer zone cannot prevent GM contamination. And there is no farmer-protection legislation when genetic contamination occurs.

    Biotech companies have a no-liability contract with GM farmers (Monsanto calls it a Technology Stewardship Agreement) to protect themselves and they regularly sue contaminated farmers in North America for patent infringement. They haven’t done it in Australia yet, but nothing prevents them doing so in the future.

    This situation is insane, unfair and generates conflicts.

    A landmark trial under way in the WA Supreme Court sees farmer against farmer, neighbour against neighbour, all because of GM crops.

    Believed to be the first of its kind in the world, it’s a case that is being followed by citizens, lawyers, food businesses, the agriculture industry, and biotech companies in Australia, Europe, North America and elsewhere.

    It began when WA farmer Steve Marsh lost his organic certification on 70 per cent of his farm — and most of his livelihood — after his land was contaminated by GM canola patented by Monsanto and grown in the adjacent property.

    His only avenue to protect his right to grow what he chooses was to sue his neighbour for his losses in a civil negligence case, despite the risk and expense.

  161. Ren Hoek

    I am sure most consumers would pay more for free range canola.
    In time.
    When they are hungry.

  162. tomix

    Germ theory? Evolution? Plate tectonics?

    Thanks for jogging my memory, Demosthenes.

    1. Germ theory: Disproved by Bechamp- The terrain is everything

    2. Evolution. Where’s the fossil proof?

    3. Plate Tectonics: A Giant Eco- Blunder [along with Global Warming]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-maass/report-suggests-plate-tec_b_512358.html

  163. Tl;dr… Does the LDP have a policy to take on the Ghurkhas as an Australian fighting force? Now there’s a bit of discrimination I can get behind.

  164. Aristogeiton

    Actual policy is:

    23. A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers led by Australian Officers (along the lines of the French Foreign Legion and Ghurkas) would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats.

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1218-policy-on-defence

    But these two fuckwits just make up LDP policy to suit their criticism.

  165. tomix

    Summary of the origins of the Germ Theory:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html

    There’s money in the game- just like the Global Warming con.

    Has the LDP got a Policy on “Health”?

  166. Aristogeiton

    Tomix, you’re fucking insane.

  167. tomix

    23. A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers led by Australian Officers (along the lines of the French Foreign Legion and Ghurkas) would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats.

    So, in LDP-Land, Aristogeiton, Australia ougt to have an “International Brigade” that will venture abroad in search of dragons to slay?

    That’s sure to end well.

  168. Matthew

    Aristogeiton, do you support the LDP policy of selling Australian navy ships to hire foreign mercenaries?

  169. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1338358, posted on June 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    23. A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers led by Australian Officers (along the lines of the French Foreign Legion and Ghurkas) would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats.

    So, in LDP-Land, Aristogeiton, Australia ougt to have an “International Brigade” that will venture abroad in search of dragons to slay?

    That’s sure to end well.

    From the actual policy:

    Use of The Military

    1. The LDP recognises that international terrorist movements may have to be fought internationally, but believes the ADF should not be involved in the suppression of terrorist actions in other countries unless such actions are a direct threat to the security of Australia. Such involvement should be subject to authorization by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

    2. Australia may commit the ADF to UN operations including peacekeeping, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

    3. In rare cases Australia may commit the ADF to the relief of oppression in another country, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

    But just keep making up their policy to suit your anti-LDP fanaticism. You lying cnut.

  170. tomix

    Tomix, you’re fucking insane.

    Are you complimenting me, Aristogeiton? Do you mean i’m “fully sick’?

  171. Demosthenes

    2. Evolution. Where’s the fossil proof?

    OK, you got me. I fell for the previous trolling, but no more. When you want to get back to discussing things in good faith, let me know.

  172. Demosthenes

    His only avenue to protect his right to grow what he chooses was to sue his neighbour for his losses in a civil negligence case, despite the risk and expense.

    That is what happens when you abandon government regulation for private legal action. Hardcore libertarians don’t often think about this.

  173. tomix

    3. In rare cases Australia may commit the ADF to the relief of oppression in another country

    IOW, venturing abroad in search of dragons to slay.

    Sure to end well.

  174. Demosthenes

    Tomix, you’re fucking insane.

    No, he’s just doing a Hammy. I mean, linking to an anti-vaccine site in an argument about scientific knowledge and risk? There’s no way he’s for real.

  175. Aristogeiton

    …subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

    Lying fuckwit.

  176. Matthew

    2. Australia may commit the ADF to UN operations including peacekeeping, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.

    This is a non-binding promise by the LDP, no a policy of changing the law to require a vote of two thirds of parliament before engaging on military conflict.

    Another LDP bait and switch designed to deceive the unwary.

    The fact that the LDP wants to employ foreign mercenaries speaks of their desire for conflict more than their empty assurances.

  177. Aristogeiton

    Liar. Appeaser.

  178. tomix

    Aristogeiton- Liberal/ALP vote to end the oppression of schoolgirls in Bongo Bongo Land forbidden by their parents to have sleepovers.

    There’s your 2/3 majority and then some. But why is it in the Policy?

    Australia has never done such a thing before

  179. Fisky

    16. Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard while hospital, supply and amphibious capability may be retained for humanitarian disaster relief.

    19. Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded, retaining only those capabilities that have long training lead times and essential staff needed for part-time forces. Most of the army would comprise reservists who cycle in and out of active service.

    Oh my god, is that really the LDP’s defence policy? It’s barking.

    Could the LDP please do a favour to those of us who are disgruntled with Abbott’s poor showing (i.e. the million or so voters who have defected from the LNP in the last 6 months) and clean up your policy platform??? There’s a lot of rubbish on there that is going to tie David L up in knots if he’s faced with hostile questioning.

  180. Fisky

    The fact that the LDP wants to employ foreign mercenaries speaks of their desire for conflict more than their empty assurances.

    They are all over the place. There is no consistent thread through all the muddled ideas about mercenaries, defence cuts, avoiding foreign intervention, sponsoring military adventurism, etc. The LDP’s fundamental problem is that they have no overarching narrative that is consistent with the policy detail. What we have is motherhood statements about liberty and peace, followed by a mess of half-baked nonsense that was clearly the product of an extended drinking session.

  181. Matthew

    The LDP wants the full time army with a peasant miltia.

    Oh, and don’t forget the LDP version of the Hitler youth. It’s tight there in the policy.

  182. jupes

    19. Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded,

    Is that David L or Bob Brown?

    What we have is motherhood statements about liberty and peace, followed by a mess of half-baked nonsense that was clearly the product of an extended drinking session.

    Which indicates that pure libertarianism is as impracticle in the real world as any other idealogy.

  183. Matthew

    hey are all over the place. There is no consistent thread through all the muddled ideas about mercenaries, defence cuts, avoiding foreign intervention, sponsoring military adventurism, etc. The LDP’s fundamental problem is that they have no overarching narrative that is consistent with the policy detail. What we have is motherhood statements about liberty and peace, followed by a mess of half-baked nonsense that was clearly the product of an extended drinking session.

    Australia is going to be undefended by a navy under the LDP policy, while trying to develop long distance force projection (developing this ability costs trillions of dollars over time and most nations don’t have it, even China). It seems to me that someone heard a buzz word and decided to put it into the policy.

    Supposedly the defense policy was developed by ADF experts, according to dot and Aristogeiton.

    Any criticism of the LDP, however, means that you are a fucking racist [edit. Sinc] according to LDP supporters. I hope they take that to the next election.

  184. Matthew

    hey are all over the place. There is no consistent thread through all the muddled ideas about mercenaries, defence cuts, avoiding foreign intervention, sponsoring military adventurism, etc. The LDP’s fundamental problem is that they have no overarching narrative that is consistent with the policy detail. What we have is motherhood statements about liberty and peace, followed by a mess of half-baked nonsense that was clearly the product of an extended drinking session.

    Australia is going to be undefended by a navy under the LDP policy, while trying to develop long distance force projection (developing this ability costs trillions of dollars over time and most nations don’t have it, even China). It seems to me that someone heard a buzz word and decided to put it into the policy.

    Supposedly the defense policy was developed by ADF experts, according to dot and Aristogeiton.

    Any criticism of the LDP, however, means that you are a f*cking racist c*nt according to LDP supporters. I hope they take that to the next election.

  185. Matthew

    an extended drinking session.

    Which indicates that pure libertarianism is as impracticle in the real world as any other idealogy.

    I am a libertarian, and the LDP isn’t, which is why I object to it. A libertarian doesn’t have to support loony policies like those of the LDP. Open borders is an example… You need the state to hold those borders open over the objections of the people. A libertarian shouldn’t support that.

    What the LDP seems to be is a cultural marxist organisation seeking to capitalise of the recent growth in libertarian feeling, and co-opt it.

  186. Fisky

    The LDP defence policy debacle reminds me of a Thatcher-era advertisement about the UK Labour Party’s completely useless and cowardly position on deterrence, which, and this is quite incredible, claimed that the strategy was to make a Soviet occupation of the UK “totally untenable” in the words of Neil Kinnock. Not, to actually defend the UK using a mix of conventional and nuclear deterrents BEFORE the hypothetical Soviet invasion mind you, but to stir up trouble after the Soviets have already conquered the UK.

    Kinnock arrived at the most extreme defence policy in UK electoral history because his party’s starting point was that the UK should not have an independent nuclear deterrent against the Soviets, who Labour basically sympathised with, and that they should throw away that deterrent in lieu of any bilateral or multilateral nuclear negotiations. Their policy, in other words, had basically been written in the Kremlin.

    Anyone who starts out with a hard ideological position on important issues like defence and immigration, rather than a broad and coherent set of principles that allow room for flexibility, is ALWAYS going to end up with a pile of unelectable rubbish. It’s so predictable you can almost set your watch to it, as Christopher Hitchens would say. The LDP are running with the immigration policy of the Greens, and the defence policy of Foot/Kinnock Labour. Needless to say, they won’t ever be getting another Senator if they keep this up.

    Here’s the Tory election poster anyway –

    http://nottspolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/oulis2006-bzm-0496-0-300×160.jpg

  187. jupes

    Supposedly the defense policy was developed by ADF experts, according to dot and Aristogeiton.

    They may be right if the priorities of the current mob of ADF leaders is anything to go by.

  188. Fisky

    What the LDP seems to be is a cultural marxist organisation seeking to capitalise of the recent growth in libertarian feeling, and co-opt it.

    Their policy development process certainly reminds me of the operations and behaviour of Marxist organisations. And their ability to communicate their policies and connect them to the aspirations of normal people who don’t suffer from Asperger’s (a common affliction in libertarian circles) is about on a par with the Socialist Workers’ Party or the Socialist Alternative.

  189. Ren Hoek

    Highly recommend doing the tour of the SAS museum in W.A. if you ever get the chance.
    Managed to get a tour through a mate the day before Ben Roberts Smith got his Victoria cross.
    Amazing and powerful experience.

  190. tomix

    Not WWII – if that situation is covered at all, it would be in Points 1 & 2 of the Policy.

  191. Fisky

    Classic example from the LDP playbook.

    The Liberal Democrats support diplomatic recognition of, and diplomatic relations with, the overarching governing power of each populated region of the world.

    o This includes immediate re-establishment of full diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and a seat for Taiwan at the United Nations and in other world organisations..

    The LDP seems to be unaware that this policy necessitates ending diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, firstly because the PRC does not allow countries to maintain formal relations with both the ROC (Taiwan) AND the PRC (they must choose in other words), and secondly because the ROC claims to be the legitimate government of all mainland China as well.

    It’s quite remarkable that the LDP’s policy would actually preclude diplomatic relations with “the overarching governing power” of East Asia, which you might agree is a fairly important part of the world nowadays.

    The LDP’s vision for Australia: Rudd/Gillard’s border chaos redux, a military consisting of private mercenaries, and diplomatic freeze with our most important trading partner!

  192. Matthew

    Fisky, you can add their free trade policy in support of peace to that.

    The security of Australia is heavily dependent on goodwill with other countries. This can be promoted by active engagement, particularly through trade. Indeed, the prosperity and interdependence resulting from free trade is a key contributor to peace.

    We already have more or less free trade with most countries so this policy can only apply to countries currently under sanctions, like Iran.

    If we break sanctions to engage in free trade with sanction states then we will likely be sanctioned too.

  193. .

    Tomix and Matthew

    Please, please alert the media to this thread.

    Pretty please. Remember you guys think the LDP is loony. We will leave the dear readers to decide.

    tomix
    #1338342, posted on June 8, 2014 at 3:59 pm
    Germ theory? Evolution? Plate tectonics?

    Thanks for jogging my memory, Demosthenes.

    1. Germ theory: Disproved by Bechamp- The terrain is everything

    2. Evolution. Where’s the fossil proof?

    3. Plate Tectonics: A Giant Eco- Blunder [along with Global Warming]

    [4. Tomix is also an anti-vaxxer]

  194. .

    Matthew
    #1338412, posted on June 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm
    an extended drinking session.

    Which indicates that pure libertarianism is as impracticle in the real world as any other idealogy.

    I am a libertarian, and the LDP isn’t, which is why I object to it. A libertarian doesn’t have to support loony policies like those of the LDP. Open borders is an example… You need the state to hold those borders open over the objections of the people. A libertarian shouldn’t support that.

    What the LDP seems to be is a cultural marxist organisation seeking to capitalise of the recent growth in libertarian feeling, and co-opt it.

    Matthew put forward the idea that Kevin Rudd ought to be arrested for incitement regarding his comments over the Arab Spring as our Foreign Minister.

    Somehow, this bizzare theory proved the LDP were not committed to removing laws that constrain free speech. Or something.

  195. tomix

    Fortunately for the LDP, nobody reads Catallaxy Files.

    Otherwise, you’d be able to hear the laughing from Macquarie Island.

  196. .

    Matthew
    #1338412, posted on June 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm
    an extended drinking session.

    Which indicates that pure libertarianism is as impracticle (LOL) in the real world as any other idealogy (shut up you stupid kid).

    I am a libertarian, and the LDP isn’t, (no you are not – please explain your comment about refugees being retarded and immigration leading to tuk-tuks in Adelaide – you loony racist dickhead) which is why I object to it. A libertarian doesn’t have to support loony policies like those of the LDP. Open borders is an example…(the LDP does not advocate such a thing you shameless propagandist) You need the state to hold those borders open over the objections of the people. A libertarian shouldn’t support that.

    What the LDP seems to be is a cultural marxist organisation seeking to capitalise of the recent growth in libertarian feeling, and co-opt it.

    The last comment is untruthful and simply brain dead. The LDP has been around since 2001.

  197. .

    Wrong tomix

    Please alert the media that you have such bizzare beliefs.

  198. Fisky

    If we break sanctions to engage in free trade with sanction states then we will likely be sanctioned too.

    Not necessarily. A lot of countries trade with Cuba without being sanctioned by the US. I think the LDP’s position on free trade is one of the highlights of their platform. But they seriously need to clean up the rubbish on defence, foreign policy and immigration.

  199. Matthew

    Matthew put forward the idea that Kevin Rudd ought to be arrested for incitement regarding his comments over the Arab Spring as our Foreign Minister.

    Quote me then. You are lying.

    Somehow, this bizzare theory proved the LDP were not committed to removing laws that constrain free speech. Or something.

    Wrong again. I said that the LDP policy intends for discrimination and vilification cases to be handled by regular courts.

    Here is the policy here –

    Remove the power of all bodies except courts to issue binding decisions on matters such as discrimination and vilification.

    It means that discrimination and vilification laws will still be one the books under an LDP government.

    Bizzarely you claimed that the vilification and discrimination laws would apply only to the government and not to private individuals.

    As to what vilification by government means when you were asked, you brought up president Obama’s use of the IRS to harass political opponents –

    I have mentioned the IRS-Obama scandal at least two times Matthew.

    When I pointed out hat isn’t vilification you said –

    It is discriminatory. The government ought not to discriminate without good grounds and due process. Vilification (government vilification was a term you invented, BTW) can be incitement to violence as well. The government should not do this (or anyone else). Otherwise this is already covered in the criminal code and is illegal for anyone and outside of an PS code of conduct for both of these, not necessary.

    Which is why tomix asked you if Kevin Rudd should be charged with inciting violence (vilification in your definition) for his incendiary comments about bombing Libya.

    You are a slippery character and the LDP policies are being exposed. Keep digging.

  200. .

    Australia is going to be undefended by a navy under the LDP policy, while trying to develop long distance force projection (developing this ability costs trillions of dollars over time and most nations don’t have it, even China). It seems to me that someone heard a buzz word and decided to put it into the policy.

    Supposedly the defense policy was developed by ADF experts, according to dot and Aristogeiton.

    Any criticism of the LDP, however, means that you are a f*cking racist c*nt according to LDP supporters. I hope they take that to the next election.

    Matthew your problem is that you are exactly that.
    You said refugees were retarded. You said more immigration would lead to “tuk tuks in Adelaide” (why is this a bad thing?). Tomix thinks Nepalese cut off their neighbour’s heads over the smallest misunderstanding.

    You guys are fucking freaks the media would destroy in a matter of hours.

    You continue to lie about LDP policy. You understand nothing about defence (nor does Fisk at the moment).

    Force projection means you can interdict deep into enemy lines. You don’t understand this but call it a buzz word. You seem to think this is valueless. You seem to think a surface fleet is invulnerable and should do the bulk of the fighting.

    You continue to lie about the reorganisation of the Navy. Most of the surface fleet would be exchanged for more submarines and most of what is left over would go into a coast guard and some would remain but the obsolete ships would be sold off.

    You believe deep interdiction into enemy reserves makes one defenceless. You have no idea how wars have been fought since the ending phases of WWI.

    Most of the Army is effectively not deployable for weeks or even months. Most Brigades are under manned and under equipped. Effectively they are currently paid to be full timers with the equivalent deployability of reservists. There is no point in this except to waste recurrent spending on wages which can be spent on badly needed capital upgrades lile weapons systems and platforms (yet Fisk quite uncharacteristically and in a brain-dead fashion calls this dogmatic, yet he disregards practical input from at the time serving and retired ADF Officers).

    You are approaching this issue with no knowledge of the subject. You don’t know what you are talking about.

  201. .

    You are a slippery character and the LDP policies are being exposed. Keep digging.

    Yes Matthew, tell the people. Please stand behind your unhinged, uninformed and bullshit comments.

  202. Matthew

    please explain your comment about refugees being retarded

    Easy. You misrepresented my argument. The strawman logical fallacy. I must have rebutted you at least ten times on this thread in that very matter.

    and immigration leading to tuk-tuks in Adelaide – you loony racist dickhead

    I never mentioned Adelaide. That’s coming from your fevered imagination. Here is what I wrote –

    Clearly the LDP thinks that there are not enough Tuk Tuk drivers on the streets of Australia.

    The LDP policy of open borders will fix that.

    Am I racist because I don’t want LDP open borders?

  203. .

    It means that discrimination and vilification laws will still be one the books under an LDP government.

    You’re being dishonest. As was explained to you before: Private discrimination is allowable, public discrimination is not.

    A public officer who discriminated not on individual grounds without good reason contrary to the PS code would be punished.

    Which is why tomix asked you if Kevin Rudd should be charged with inciting violence (vilification in your definition) for his incendiary comments about bombing Libya.

    …and you went along with this stupid theory. Don’t lie and say now you didn’t. You went along with it and out your name to it. You own this.

    You are a slippery character and the LDP policies are being exposed. Keep digging.

    Yes Matthew I’m downright evil. You’re doing a bang up job exposing something which is publicly available and lying about it. Tell me Matthew, do you sign cheques, contracts or have an ID in the name “Matthew” – oh how slippery Matthew.

    Tell the public Matthew, tell then how you oppose retarded refugees and tuk tuks in Adelaide.

    I’m sure the media will support you.

  204. A Lurker

    Their policy development process certainly reminds me of the operations and behaviour of Marxist organisations. And their ability to communicate their policies and connect them to the aspirations of normal people who don’t suffer from Asperger’s (a common affliction in libertarian circles) is about on a par with the Socialist Workers’ Party or the Socialist Alternative.

    Hi Fisky, I value your contributions so I decided to de-lurk and respond to your comment.

    I’ve dived in and out of this thread over the last few days – lurking for the most part, occasionally contributing a comment. As a Conservative with Libertarian leanings I was considering the LDP as a viable choice for the Senate. However, their immigration policy really put the brakes on that idea. Also the fact that anyone who strenuously disagrees with their policies are consistently abused by LDP members using some of the foulest language I’ve seen on the Cat (and believe me I’ve read some doozies over the year or two I’ve been lurking) really puts me off voting for them. I mean if they can’t argue their message without resorting to personal abuse, then they need to go back to the drawing board to formulate their policies.

    Anyway, I’ve come to the conclusion that as a Social Conservative who believes in a small, out-of-your-face, non-interfering, low-taxing, pro-Freedom Government who will keep strong borders, and protect our culture and heritage – the LDP isn’t a viable choice for me.

  205. .

    Wow Matthew.

    So you’re against tuk tuks in Australia. This isn’t anymore racist?

    You also seem to believe that Australia has had open borders for the last 20 years.

    This simply isn’t true.

    You don’t like the idea of refugees getting due process and are prepared to lie to agitate against this.

    You’re racist because of your stupid beliefs about foreigners. You’re a liar in part because of your misrepresentation of LDP policy.

    Come on Matthew. Tell the public.

  206. tomix

    The LDP Defence Policy reminds me of the treacherous defence policy of the weaselly Curtin ALP Gov’t of WWII.
    When the were unable to put over the Brisbane Line and it’s successor, the Adelaide to Newcastle Line,they had to admit the real policy, which was:

    If the Japanese could get their fleets to Sydney Heads and Port Philip Heads, Australian troops would forcibly evacuate Sydney and Melbourne and then burn both cities to the ground.
    The homeless Australians would then wander the countryside, living off the land.

    Yeah, sure.

    The LDP defence Policy has that feel to it.

    Maybe that’s what those mercenaries are for.

  207. Demosthenes

    Their policy development process certainly reminds me of the operations and behaviour of Marxist organisations.

    So you know a lot about the internal workings of Marxist organisations, hey? How interesting.

  208. Aristogeiton

    Let me be clear, for the benefit of “A Lurker” and others; I am not affiliated with the LDP in any way. I also am undecided about elements of their policy platform. What I am acting to counter here are:

    1) the rampant and racist illiberalism of the anti-LDP commenters; and
    2) the gross misrepresentation of the LDP policy platform.

    If “A Lurker” or anyone else doesn’t want to vote for the LDP because some people on the internet had an argument, then that is a matter for them.

  209. jupes

    Come on Matthew. Tell the public.

    Seriously Dot you need a break.

  210. jupes

    I am not affiliated with the LDP in any way.

    Nor would I admit to it after their shambolic policies have been exposed.

  211. .

    tomix
    #1338478, posted on June 8, 2014 at 6:42 pm
    The LDP Defence Policy reminds me of the treacherous defence policy of the weaselly Curtin ALP Gov’t of WWII.
    When the were unable to put over the Brisbane Line and it’s successor, the Adelaide to Newcastle Line,they had to admit the real policy, which was:

    BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG…

    That is the noise of my head on my desk.

    No one in Australian history ever had the Brisbane Line as an actual policy. It was an idea Macarthur only ever made a passing reference to during the war. It was never official US Army policy and it was never, ever Commonwealth policy. It was not adopted by the Menzies Government. It was not adopted by Curtin.

    No one ever admitted to the policy tomix is talking about (scorched earth). Macarthur speculated later the Australian military, not government, would have defended an area bound by the coastline and from Adelaide to Brisbane. That however, is not the “Brisbane Line”, nor did it involved scorched earth.

    An old recycled lie is brought up to create hyperbole about a topic the liar has no understanding of.

    This is the kind of idiocy we face. I think the public can judge accordingly.

  212. A Lurker

    Aristogeiton (correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought I read on another thread that you decided to join the LDP?), the language being used is unfortunate but it’s not the primary issue. As a Culturalist, I cannot agree with the LDP’s immigration platform as I don’t see any protections in place for our culture. I think my very first argument (or two) was that culture is everything. It defines our Education, our Parliament and our Laws. It defines how our Society operates, how people deal with one another, and how people feel about their country and each other. Culture is intrinsic to who we are as a people, and as a nation. Open the borders and the culture will change – and it won’t be the slow agreeable sort of change that ordinary folk feel comfortable about in which the bad bits generally get chewed up and are tossed out, and the good bits remain, are digested and integrated. No, any sort of open border policy (even one with the best intentions) will likely mean more people coming in at a rate that our culture could absorb without negative consequences.

  213. tomix

    Defending a long ago treacherous ALP Government now, Dot?

  214. Matthew

    So you’re against tuk tuks in Australia. This isn’t anymore racist?

    Tuk Tuks exist in some foreign countries because they have unemployment or underemployment rates of 50% or more . desperation leads people to hang around all day waiting for a fare. I don’t want that for Australia and it is likely to happen with the LDP policy of open borders.

    You also seem to believe that Australia has had open borders for the last 20 years.

    This simply isn’t true.

    No, I don’t think that we have had open borders for the last 20 years. Where did you get that idea, and where did you come up with the number 20 years? Do you have a voice in your head telling you these things, like the Tuk Tuks in Adelaide?

    You don’t like the idea of refugees getting due process and are prepared to lie to agitate against this.

    No. It is because I insist on due process that I demand that we have an orderly way of processing refugees. That means no more border chaos, as we saw under Rudd-Gillard, and will see under the LDP when they dismantle OSB.

    You’re racist because of your stupid beliefs about foreigners.

    Beliefs? Is that voice talking in your head again?

    I’ve been all around the world. Most of the foreigners I’ve met I have liked. I enjoy other cultures and conversing in foreign tongues.

    I still don’t support open borders. Compared to the over populated and stressed countries that I have seen overseas, we have a good thing here. Lets try to to ruin this inheritance for our children.

    You’re a liar in part because of your misrepresentation of LDP policy.

    No. You have simply been answering legitimate criticism with foul profanity.

  215. tomix

    Washington considered Curtin’s “Call to America” speech treachery. American occupation had already been agreed upon with the British.

  216. Demosthenes

    As a Culturalist, I cannot agree with the LDP’s immigration platform as I don’t see any protections in place for our culture.

    I’m reminded of Greg Egan’s short story ‘The Moat’:

    ‘Just tell me one thing.’ I point to the wall. ‘Why? Why do you do it?’
    He snorts. ‘I could ask you the same fucking question.’
    ‘About what?’
    ‘About helping them stay in the country. Taking our jobs. Taking our houses. Fucking things up for all of us.’
    I laugh. ‘You sound like my grandfather. Them and us. That’s the kind of twentieth-century bullshit that wrecked the planet. You think you can build a fence around this country and just forget everything outside? Draw some artificial line on a map, and say, people inside matter, people outside don’t?’
    ‘Nothing artificial about the ocean.’
    ‘No? They’ll be pleased to hear that in Tasmania.’
    He just scowls at me, digusted. There’s nothing to communicate, nothing to understand. The anti-refugee lobby are always talking about preserving our common values; that’s pretty funny. Here we are, two Anglo-Australians – probably born in the very same city – and our values couldn’t be further apart if we’d come from different planets.

  217. .

    Tuk Tuks exist in some foreign countries because they have unemployment or underemployment rates of 50% or more . desperation leads people to hang around all day waiting for a fare. I don’t want that for Australia and it is likely to happen with the LDP policy of open borders.

    Not only are you unhinged, you are lying. It is not an open border policy.

    Immigration to Australia has caused real wages to rise. Unemployment has never been driven by immigration in Australia.

    50% unemployment?

    This is another bizzare fabrication you’ve pulled out of your arse, just like “retarded refugees”.

  218. Aristogeiton

    A Lurker
    #1338522, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:04 pm
    Aristogeiton (correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought I read on another thread that you decided to join the LDP?), the language being used is unfortunate but it’s not the primary issue. As a Culturalist, I cannot agree with the LDP’s immigration platform as I don’t see any protections in place for our culture. I think my very first argument (or two) was that culture is everything. It defines our Education, our Parliament and our Laws. It defines how our Society operates, how people deal with one another, and how people feel about their country and each other. Culture is intrinsic to who we are as a people, and as a nation. Open the borders and the culture will change – and it won’t be the slow agreeable sort of change that ordinary folk feel comfortable about in which the bad bits generally get chewed up and are tossed out, and the good bits remain, are digested and integrated. No, any sort of open border policy (even one with the best intentions) will likely mean more people coming in at a rate that our culture could absorb without negative consequences.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you, Lurker, except to point out that this is not an ‘open borders’ policy. Since earlier on this thread we’ve had people urging the banning of Islam, the deportation of Muslims, the assertion that refugees are ‘practically retarded’ and so on, as well as many wholesale lies being told about the LDP policy, there has as a result been more heat than light, I’m afraid.

  219. .

    tomix
    #1338528, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    Defending a long ago treacherous ALP Government now, Dot?

    No one adopted it as policy. The idea was made famous by an ALP MP who accused Menzies of doing so. The scorched earth policy you speak of is a myth as well.

    You are babbling on with nonsense. You want the fight brought to the home front, yet talk about scorched earth.

  220. Matthew

    Not only are you unhinged, you are lying. It is not an open border policy.

    It is effectively an open borders policy, as was discussed earlier in this thread. Even if it isn’t called open borders it achieves the effect of open borders.

    Immigration to Australia has caused real wages to rise. Unemployment has never been driven by immigration in Australia.

    Awesome. I guess that the LDP policy of open borders and millions of new migrants over a few years will cause wages to go sky high.

    50% unemployment?

    In countries that I have been to, yes. And likely to happen to Australia too, under an LDP government waging class warfare against the poorest Australians.

  221. jupes

    It is not an open border policy.

    No of course not!

    It’s an “Open the front door” (while dismantling OSB) policy.

  222. .

    Countries with 50% unemployment or higher:

    Nauru 90.0 2004[1]
    Vanuatu 78.2 1999[102]
    Turkmenistan 70.0 2008 (November)[95]
    Zimbabwe 70 2011[108]
    Mozambique 60.0 2009
    Tajikistan 60.0 2008 (August)[91]
    Djibouti 59.0 2007[1]
    Namibia 51.2

    Come on Matthew. Stop telling porkies.

    Your idea that immigration is “class warfare against the poor” is simply nonsense put out by the racist loons at the Australian Protectionist Party.

    Immigration in Australia has always generated wealth.

  223. A Lurker

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you, Lurker, except to point out that this is not an ‘open borders’ policy. Since earlier on this thread we’ve had people urging the banning of Islam, the deportation of Muslims, the assertion that refugees are ‘practically retarded’ and so on, as well as many wholesale lies being told about the LDP policy, there has as a result been more heat than light, I’m afraid.

    It’s a shame because generally I’m in favour of many things that the LDP propose, it’s just that culture is deal breaker for me. I accept that our culture will change (nothing ever remains the same), but I’d prefer the sort of change that happens in slow increments, gradually over time, where the bad gets weeded out, and the good is retained. Australia did have a good process for bringing people in, generally it worked, and I guess as a Conservative I go back to the old maxim 0f ‘why change what ain’t broke’ or more accurately for Australia, ‘get’s return to previous policies that did have a demonstrated history of working rather than rewriting the book again without knowing or predicting what the consequences are likely to be’.

    Anyway I’m just rehashing what I’ve stated all along, so I’ll return to lurking again.
    Just keep in mind that there may well be a lot of people like me who are looking for an alternative, and sadly the LDP are coming up short in important policy areas.

  224. tomix

    At what point would you say immigration would cease to “create wealth in Australia”?

    A million immigrants per year? 2 million? 10 million? 100 million?

    Take a stab.

  225. jupes

    Immigration in Australia has always generated wealth.

    Then why did we stop the Japs immigrating in the ’40s?

    Perhaps there’s more to immigration and potential immigrants than just wealth generation.

  226. .

    The level of migrants who would come with a $50,000 fee is far below any number like that.

    Given the cost to repatriate to Australia now, the number would be near what current immigration rates are anyway.

  227. Matthew

    Dot, this why you should actually quote what I write rather than listen to that voice in your head.

    Tuk Tuks exist in some foreign countries because they have unemployment or underemployment rates of 50% or more .

  228. tomix

    Given the cost to repatriate to Australia now, the number would be near what current immigration rates are anyway.

    If that’s the case, what’s the point of the Policy?

  229. .

    Jupes I don’t know anyone who would object to stopping immigration from a nation at total war with us – but what I said is still true. Immigration has always driven growth.

    Countries with 50% unemployment don’t have immigration problems. Zimbabwe for example has had a decades long emigration problem. They’re so far removed from our existence they’re nearly incomparable.

  230. Matthew

    Immigration in Australia has always generated wealth.

    Then we will be really rich when a billion people live in Australia, right, Dot?

  231. jupes

    The level of migrants who would come with a $50,000 fee is far below any number like that.

    Wow Dot brings out the crystal ball.

    Here’s a scenario: The Chicoms stump up with $750 trillion dollars, and 15 million Chinese adults immigrate to Australia. Next election Australia is the southern province of the PRC.

    Quite a bargain really.

  232. Fisky

    I’ve dived in and out of this thread over the last few days – lurking for the most part, occasionally contributing a comment. As a Conservative with Libertarian leanings I was considering the LDP as a viable choice for the Senate. However, their immigration policy really put the brakes on that idea. Also the fact that anyone who strenuously disagrees with their policies are consistently abused by LDP members using some of the foulest language I’ve seen on the Cat (and believe me I’ve read some doozies over the year or two I’ve been lurking) really puts me off voting for them. I mean if they can’t argue their message without resorting to personal abuse, then they need to go back to the drawing board to formulate their policies.

    Personally, I’m fine with the foul language! The real problem is that LDP members consistently fail to grasp how their policies are received by normal voters. Whenever there is a choice between ideology and common sense/practicality, they nearly always choose the former.

    Also, their presentation is disastrous. For example, having already been through the Ivan Milat debacle two cycles ago, their current “Firearms policy” section is headed by a picture of what looks like an M16 machine gun with a laser sight and a silencer on the end, and the caption “The LDP regards the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence”. Of course, the weapon they have used as their picture is highly illegal and would never be used for any of those activities.

    Note that they do not have, for example, a picture of a farmer leaning against his shottie surrounded by sheep or some other familiar setting to rural Australians, but rather a deadly weapon that is used to kill people, and only people, and which hasn’t a remote chance of being legal in Australia.

    I personally think they are going soft. Why not have a picture of an artillery piece or an atomic warhead on their “Firearms policy” section instead? Go the full hog I say!

  233. Fisky

    You don’t like the idea of refugees getting due process and are prepared to lie to agitate against this.

    I can see that, every 50-100 comments, the LDP supporters keep slipping back to their default position which is supporting the dismantling of Operation Sovereign Borders.

    Next up: OSB is “expensive”, “dangerous” and “harms our relations with Indonesia”.

    The LDP are going Rudd-Gillard 2007-2013 all the way!

  234. jupes

    Jupes I don’t know anyone who would object to stopping immigration from a nation at total war with us

    So you admit there is more to immigration than just numbers and ‘growth’. Good. Maybe, just maybe, culture is relevant and even worth defending.

  235. tomix

    The LDP will do a Cost/ Benefit Analysis of the ADF.

    The result?

    Nah, sorry, can’t justify the expense- it’s gotta go, i’m afraid.

  236. .

    A billion immigrants, ignorance that the AR 15 stock is common on many legal rifles as well as military rifles and a Chinese conspiracy to buy the food bowl as part of China.

    The nutty arguments continue.

    The Chicoms stump up with $750 trillion dollars

    LOL

    You joker, they’d destroy their currency and banking system. China has only ever had about 40 trillion yuan of M2 in the system. It is about 12 trillion yuan now. From memory their reserve requirement for banks is has a minimal level of 13.5%.

    You think they’re going to stump up 4000 trillion yuan?

    You’re out of you’re fucking mind if you even consider this is possible.

  237. .

    jupes
    #1338656, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:11 pm
    Jupes I don’t know anyone who would object to stopping immigration from a nation at total war with us

    So you admit there is more to immigration than just numbers and ‘growth’. Good. Maybe, just maybe, culture is relevant and even worth defending.

    No.

    The government isn’t going to tell me what culture to have.

    The issue is strictly a military one.

  238. Matthew

    The LDP will do a Cost/ Benefit Analysis of the ADF.

    The result?

    Nah, sorry, can’t justify the expense- it’s gotta go, i’m afraid.

    Lets be fair… The LDP will retain a Coast Guard from the navy ships that remain after the navy is disbanded. The coast guard will be used in the ‘humanitarian mission’ of escorting asylum seekers safely to Australian shores.

    In keeping with the LDP policy of hiring foreign mercenaries, I suggest that the LDP employ Indonesian people smugglers as experts performing this humanitarian mission in our Coast Guard.

  239. .

    ‘growth’

    What kind of luddites are we dealing with here?

    Economic growth raises living standards. If you want to have a real income that never rises – don’t expect everyone else to be dragged down with you.

  240. tomix

    Jupes did a “Barnaby Joce” and was 3 zeros out.

    How does $750 Billion for 15 million chinamen sound, Dot?

    Generate wealth for Australia, you say.

  241. jupes

    The government isn’t going to tell me what culture to have.

    Unless of course 10 mil Chicoms or Musos pay to come here.

    The issue is strictly a military one.

    Not if you are right about culture not having anything to do with immigration. Why even bother fighting the Japs? Surely we would have been better of just asking them to pay to come here. Imagine all the ‘growth’ we missed out on.

  242. tomix

    4 trillion yuan now. A doddle by your calculations, Dot.

  243. .

    Lets be fair… The LDP will retain a Coast Guard from the navy ships that remain after the navy is disbanded. The coast guard will be used in the ‘humanitarian mission’ of escorting asylum seekers safely to Australian shores.

    In keeping with the LDP policy of hiring foreign mercenaries, I suggest that the LDP employ Indonesian people smugglers as experts performing this humanitarian mission in our Coast Guard.

    You just keep on lying and lying.

    1. The Navy would actually be reorganised to have more submarines and less surface vessels, so it can still win a modern war and have greater interdiction and direct action capability.

    2. What doesn’t get kept gets put in a coast guard or gets sold.

    3. Gurkhas get equivocated with the part time, corrupt and poorly equipped TNI by dishonest critics.

  244. jupes

    Jupes did a “Barnaby Joce” and was 3 zeros out.

    Yeah maths was never my strong point.

Comments are closed.