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.

2,494 Responses to Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

  1. I don’t believe this at all. I think the legal framework, the review process and the lack of supporting documentation is what results in the high rate at which claims are accepted.

    Right… you think that… and I want to believe you…. but where’s the evidence?
    Right now, all the data is on the refugee advocates’ side. The vast majority are found to be legitimate refugees, even when they have no papers. How does that work?

  2. Matthew

    The vast majority are found to be legitimate refugees, even when they have no papers. How does that work?

    Because asylum seeker testimony is taken at face value.

  3. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1339995, posted on June 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm
    […]
    Right… you think that… and I want to believe you…. but where’s the evidence?
    Right now, all the data is on the refugee advocates’ side. The vast majority are found to be legitimate refugees, even when they have no papers. How does that work?

    Well, they have been found to meet the legal definition of legitimate refugees. There is an evidentiary disadvantage that the decisionmakers are placed at, as documentation has been destroyed. Given that there are two avenues of appeal, that’s three bites of the cherry. If these individuals are legitimate refugees, then why don’t they fly in directly instead of flying through a number of transit countries? Is it because an IMA is the only way you can get in without documentation?

  4. Aristogeiton

    In addition to which, a staggering amount is paid to smugglers. Why, when a flight is cheaper?

  5. Yobbo

    A contemporary open border policy in Australia would attract a different type of migrant than the migrants attracted to the US a century ago. The majority of immigrants in those days were either European or descendants of Europeans and they were Christian. They assimilated.

    Earth to libertarians: Culture matters.

    This kind of ignores the fact that our current immigration system does not have any cultural tests. We already let muslims in. I don’t see how this is a critique of the LDP policy.

  6. WOO HOO!!

    Well and truly over the limit.

    My joy is complete. Thank you everyone.

  7. jupes

    Well, they have been found to meet the legal definition of legitimate refugees.

    This just demonstrates that the refugee assessment industry is as corrupted as the climate change industry.

    If these individuals are legitimate refugees, then why don’t they fly in directly instead of flying through a number of transit countries?

    Exactly.

    Is it because an IMA is the only way you can get in without documentation?

    There’s Ari channelling Blind Freddy. The reason so many asylum shoppers are assessed as refugees is because the default setting of DIAC assessors and the RRT is that they are refugees unless proven otherwise.

    A sensible policy would be the opposite. An even more sensible policy is to not accept anyone at all who arrives without documentation.

  8. Tom

    I was going to harrumph a comment to help us get over the line, but I see I don’t have to. 2013 comments: longest thread of 2014?

  9. jupes

    This kind of ignores the fact that our current immigration system does not have any cultural tests. We already let muslims in. I don’t see how this is a critique of the LDP policy.

    Just because other parties do it doesn’t mean it is in the national interest.

    Opening the borders … sorry, opening the front door and dismantling OSB has the potential for a lot more people who will never assimilate to become citizens.

  10. Combine_Dave

    In addition to which, a staggering amount is paid to smugglers. Why, when a flight is cheaper?

    If an economic migrant arrived via a flight without the relevant visa and tried to claim assylum? They’d get sent home on the next flight back.

  11. Yobbo

    Just because other parties do it doesn’t mean it is in the national interest.

    Opening the borders … sorry, opening the front door and dismantling OSB has the potential for a lot more people who will never assimilate to become citizens.

    This policy is nothing like open borders. In fact it does not even claim to increase immigration levels at all. You are being completely dishonest again.

  12. tomix

    So this is what the $50,000 loan for Immigrants who arrive with no money is all about.

    They’ll be sent to the backblocks by the Federal Gov’t to work the debt off for miserable, low wage paying farmers under the watchful eye of some Simon Legree.

    How much of a surveillance state will be required to keep the boys down on the farm and away from the fleshpots in Sydney and Melbourne?

  13. Combine_Dave

    Enjoyed to the early talk about Taiwan.

    While I personally support the existence of Taiwan as a sovereign state (the bit about Taiwan KMT Gov being the rightful rulers of mainland China is a bit of a stretch), I don’t think Australia’s relations and trade with Taiwan are in such a bad state that we need to discard Beijing to win favour with Taipei. If anything I think things are ticking along nicely.

    (quite a few of the Chinese that have migrated here are Taiwanese rather than HK or mainland Chinese).

  14. Matthew

    A sensible policy would be the opposite. An even more sensible policy is to not accept anyone at all who arrives without documentation

    An even better policy would be not to accept any asylum seeker that transits through any countries that are signatory to the refugee convention in order to claim asylum in Australia.

  15. tomix

    This policy is nothing like open borders. In fact it does not even claim to increase immigration levels at all. You are being completely dishonest again.

    Well, what’s the point of it, then?

  16. Matthew

    This policy is nothing like open borders. In fact it does not even claim to increase immigration levels at all.

    Just because it doesn’t claim to increase immigration levels doesn’t mean it will not.

  17. jupes

    This policy is nothing like open borders.

    No of course not. It’s only “opening the front door”.

    Oh and dismantling OSB.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  18. No of course not. It’s only “opening the front door”.

    2000 comments in and you still haven’t read past the headline of the main article, have you?

  19. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340049, posted on June 9, 2014 at 3:47 pm
    This policy is nothing like open borders. In fact it does not even claim to increase immigration levels at all.

    Just because it doesn’t claim to increase immigration levels doesn’t mean it will not.

    You’ve been told countless times. The numbers will be set and the individuals determined by a dutch auction.

  20. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1340025, posted on June 9, 2014 at 3:31 pm
    […]
    There’s Ari channelling Blind Freddy. The reason so many asylum shoppers are assessed as refugees is because the default setting of DIAC assessors and the RRT is that they are refugees unless proven otherwise.

    Even in agreement you’re still an asshole.

  21. Yobbo

    Well, what’s the point of it, then?

    The point of it is that a university education is not the only thing that you give you a skill. There are a lot of skilled people out there who would like to live in Australia but cannot because they can’t satisfy the current points test. This is a different way of sifting applicants. One recommended by many economists.

    Under our current test someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs in their 20s would not be eligible to migrate to Australia.

  22. jupes

    2000 comments in and you still haven’t read past the headline of the main article, have you?

    Hmmm, let’s see:

    It’s time to open the front door.

    David L, last sentence of the last paragraph.

  23. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1340062, posted on June 9, 2014 at 3:53 pm
    Well, what’s the point of it, then?

    The point of it is that a university education is not the only thing that you give you a skill.

    Proved positive by the idiocy of some of the University-educated numbskulls who post here.

  24. Matthew

    You’ve been told countless times. The numbers will be set and the individuals determined by a dutch auction.

    Asylum seekers will still be able to come, they won’t be subject to limited numbers or immigration fees after the LDP dismantles OSB and ‘opens the front door’.

  25. Yobbo

    you can*

    Editable comments please 🙁

  26. tomix

    Under our current test someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs in their 20s would not be eligible to migrate to Australia.

    Why on earth would scion of millionaires Gates or Steve Jobs have ever wanted to emigrate to Australia?

    Are you saying that there’s even a slight chance that a Somali camel herder might make a bigger contribution than a Pommy electrician?

  27. Matthew

    This is a different way of sifting applicants. One recommended by many economists.

    Most likely the result of the LDP policy of an immigration fee will be trafficking on labor, and debt slavery.

    David Leyonhjelm has been a long term member or the cheap agricultural labor lobby. Take a situation where farmers front $50000 in form of a loan for foreign laborers to come to Australia. The foreign laborers will earn a low wage (not coincidently David Leyonhjelm has called for a lowering of the minimum wage) and will have to pay interest on this loan. The foreign laborers put up with this because they will be able to get citizenship in a few years.

    In short the LDP privatises the profits and socializes the costs.

    This policy turns Australia into the third world, a place of blackbirding, coolies, and indentured laborers.

  28. Ren Hoek

    I’m all for open borders and letting people in the front door provided they have the documentation to back up their claims for asylum and their identities can be verified.
    Seems a libertarian response to me.

  29. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340077, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    […]
    This policy turns Australia into the third world, a place of blackbirding, coolies, and indentured laborers.

    Hahahaha! Hysterical!

  30. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340081, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:08 pm
    I’m all for open borders and letting people in the front door provided they have the documentation to back up their claims for asylum and their identities can be verified.
    Seems a libertarian response to me.

    How’s the hangover, Ren?

  31. Combine_Dave

    Does the LDP policy include FIA and if so, with whom?

  32. tomix

    Mighty white of you, Ren Hoek.

    You’ve got accommodation down your backyard for 600,000 people, I take it?

  33. tomix

    This policy turns Australia into the third world, a place of blackbirding, coolies, and indentured laborers.

    That was where Qld and Northern N.S.W. were headed before the introduction of the White Australia Policy by an ALP Gov’t in 1904.

    The wheel has gone full circle.

  34. Combine_Dave

    Free Immigration Agreement I think. Like what Oz and NZ share.

    Maybe something we could share with one of our big trade partners like Japan or Germany. I just realised why creating a FIA with both SKorea and Japan wouldnt work…

  35. Ren Hoek

    Italy and Spain seem to be doing fine oh wait…..
    I am wrong.
    Nevermind.

  36. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340100, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    This policy turns Australia into the third world, a place of blackbirding, coolies, and indentured laborers.

    That was where Qld and Northern N.S.W. were headed before the introduction of the White Australia Policy by an ALP Gov’t in 1904.

    The wheel has gone full circle.


    ‘You’re a complete imbecile.

  37. jupes

    Seems a libertarian response to me.

    Bingo. You’ve nailed the problem.

  38. Yobbo

    The foreign laborers will earn a low wage (not coincidently David Leyonhjelm has called for a lowering of the minimum wage)

    You’re right, it’s not a coincidence.

    It’s because anyone who knows the first thing about economics calls for lowering the minimum wage. Especially Australia’s, which is among the highest in the world and results in a true unemployment rate of well over 10%

  39. Combine_Dave

    I’m all for open borders and letting people in the front door provided they have the documentation to back up their claims for asylum and their identities can be verified. english competency, a degree or $1 million they can use to invest in Australia

    FIFY

  40. Matthew

    ‘You’re a complete imbecile.

    Translation: I have no idea how to rebut this so I will resort to personal abuse. I do this because I am an individual of vile character.

  41. JC

    Ren
    What sort of wooden toys do you like making at the workshop?

  42. Aristogeiton

    Combine_Dave
    #1340110, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm
    I’m all for open borders and letting people in the front door provided they have the documentation to back up their claims for asylum and their identities can be verified. english competency, a degree or $1 million they can use to invest in Australia

    FIFY

    The LDP propose a more stringent citizenship test:

    The LDP believes in making Australia a more open country for people to come and live, but not necessarily to vote and receive welfare. Requirements for citizenship should be significantly increased.

    Applicants for citizenship should have resided in Australia for at least 10 years, passed a basic citizenship test (in English, of standard high school quality), provide evidence of likely continued employment (or means to support themselves), links to the Australian community and no criminal record.

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1156-immigration

  43. Aristogeiton

    JC
    #1340112, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
    Ren
    What sort of wooden toys do you like making at the workshop?

    Did you change your e-mail? Why is your gravatar thingy a different colour?

  44. Yobbo

    Does the LDP policy include FIA and if so, with whom?

    Under the LDP policy, FIAs would be negotiated with countries that share our basic values (rule of law, democracy, market economy) and only in situations where there is no expectation of a flood of immigrants in either direction. Citizens of countries with which Australia had a FIA would be entitled to reside permanently in Australia while retaining the citizenship of their home country, and vice versa. (Non-citizens of these countries would not have the same entitlement.)

    Currently Australia has a FIA with New Zealand. Likely countries for additional FIAs include Canada, Singapore, Japan, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands.

  45. Ren Hoek

    No hangover Ari, thanks.
    The effects of ultra ultra radian cycling on quality of production standards are fairly evident though.
    Back later.

  46. Yobbo

    I doubt Japan would be interested though.

  47. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340111, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm
    ‘You’re a complete imbecile.

    Translation: I have no idea how to rebut this so I will resort to personal abuse. I do this because I am an individual of vile character.

    You’ve got me. I can’t respond to your flawless logic in calls for a return to the white Australia policy and theory of the ‘technical retardation’ of most refugees.

  48. tomix

    Another problem is the assumption that Australia owes a responsibility to refugees over and above all national security interests.
    Is this assumption made about any other country in the World?

  49. Matthew

    It’s because anyone who knows the first thing about economics calls for lowering the minimum wage. Especially Australia’s, which is among the highest in the world and results in a true unemployment rate of well over 10%

    I want a free market wage as well, meaning no government mandates at all. I still puzzled at how David Leyonhjelm thinks that he knows what the ‘right’ price for labor should be set at.

    When you combine this with the LDP immigration program however you are essentially waging class warfare against the poorest working and unemployed Australians for the benefit of a certain group of employers. The Australian working poor and unemployed will see no benefit from this policy and will even experience hardship because of it.

    This is a big business plan to drive down the price of labor by saturating the labor pool with excess labor.

  50. Matthew

    I can’t respond to your flawless logic in calls for a return to the white Australia policy

    Where did I say that. You making up things.

  51. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340138, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    I can’t respond to your flawless logic in calls for a return to the white Australia policy

    Where did I say that. You making up things.

    I often get you and your idiot mate tomix confused. You are so indistinguishable, I wonder if you aren’t the same person.

  52. Combine_Dave

    I doubt Japan would be interested though.

    Imagine the pull factors…. geting oz citizenship also enables you to then enter multiple other desirable locales….

  53. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340138, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    I can’t respond to your flawless logic in calls for a return to the white Australia policy

    Where did I say that. You making up things.

    Actually, dumbshit, you were defending tomix’s original post praising the ‘white Australia policy’. So the criticism is justified.

  54. Aristogeiton

    Combine_Dave
    #1340143, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    […]
    Imagine the pull factors…. geting oz citizenship also enables you to then enter multiple other desirable locales….

    Have you read the policy? They don’t get citizenship. The LDP policy is to make citizenship harder to get.

  55. Combine_Dave

    BTW; thanks Yobbo and Aristogeiton for the additional info.

  56. Matthew

    I often get you and your idiot mate tomix confused. You are so indistinguishable, I wonder if you aren’t the same person.

    He didn’t call for a return to the white Australia policy.

    The white Australia policy wouldn’t be appropriate now because there are so many non-white people of foreign extraction here now, and the government can hardly say ‘we don’t want any more people of your ethnicity to come here anymore’ without alienating them. Even groups considered extreme by the media only call for a general decrease or freeze in immigration rather than a white immigration only policy.

    That doesn’t mean the white Australia policy wasn’t appropriate at the time. There was a lot less racial conflict under the white Australia policy, and any white Australians inclined towards racism rarely had an opportunity to practice that racism against foreigners.

  57. jumpnmcar

    Speaking of immigration, the sponsored Venezuelan engineer ( + wife and child ) may have to go home.
    His English class ( already paid for by him ) that he has to do to comply with visa is getting the chop from our local Uni.
    The closest one is 1000km south in Brisbane.
    His sponsors, that he must be accommodated by ( visa rule ), don’t want to live in Bris.
    What to do?

  58. notafan

    What kind of Enlish class? Does it have to be accredited? Neighbourhood house, CAE or online programme not an option?

  59. Ren Hoek

    Socialism is not a valid lifestyle for me.
    Just like sock puppetry is best left to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

  60. jumpnmcar

    notafan
    Needs level 9 of some accredited class.
    Cant sign a rental lease and only allowed to get payed work of about 20 hours/week.

  61. Combine_Dave

    His sponsors, that he must be accommodated by ( visa rule ), don’t want to live in Bris.
    What to do

    Sorry to hear that. The more skilled immigrants we receive the better!

    Maybe he could find a new sponsor.

  62. tomix

    Aristogeiton- have you noticed that the defenders of LDP policy are bigger on Political Correctness than on explaining how the policy could possibly work?

    And the dogmatism that no policy could possibly be flawed. Were they written by angels?

  63. Ren Hoek

    As a former Catholic altar boy, I am confident I can return the budget to surplice.
    Agnostic now though.

  64. jumpnmcar

    CD

    Maybe he could find a new sponsor.

    Highly unlikely. He only here cos he’s married to the girl the sponsors billeted as an exchange student years ago.
    Package deal Im afraid.
    Apparently they are among the lucky well educated back home but the place has turned to a violent shithole and, as any would, they see a future here.
    She was in insurance would you believe.

  65. Fisky

    That doesn’t mean the white Australia policy wasn’t appropriate at the time. There was a lot less racial conflict under the white Australia policy, and any white Australians inclined towards racism rarely had an opportunity to practice that racism against foreigners.

    That’s not entirely true. Australia had appalling sectarian problems between people of Anglo and Irish stock right up until the 1960s when the Menzies government was actively courting Catholic votes and trying to bury our internal problems for good. I think it was the gradual healing of the main sectarian cleavage over the 20th Century that made it easier for politicians to reconsider Australia’s exclusionary policies, as well as the fact that we had close alliances with non-Communist Asian countries against whom it now seemed rather odd to be discriminating.

  66. JC

    Ari

    I have no idea. I use a different server. It’s still me though.

  67. Matthew

    Australia had appalling sectarian problems between people of Anglo and Irish stock right up until the 1960s when the Menzies government was actively courting Catholic votes and trying to bury our internal problems for good.

    Depends on how you define appalling. There wasn’t much violence, and sectarian issues in Australia’s past is nothing compared to the kinds of sectarian issues we have seen overseas.

    My mother grew up in Adelaide in the 30s and 40s. She told me a story about a Catholic girl in her neighborhood (my mother’s family was Catholic) that ran off with a Protestant boy. What happened was that the word got out in the Catholic community that the girl was not the kind of girl that good Catholic girls should associate with, and the result was a kind of social ostracism.

    This kind of thing might be considered ‘appalling’ by a modern standard of liberalism, but for that community it was just about protecting their values and their identity. It is hard to imagine this kind of thing happening now.

    Anyway… Whatever sectarian issues there were under the white Australian policy it is nothing compared to the racial issues that we have today. We have an entire state ideology, multiculturalism, built around the attempt to ameliorate racial conflict in a racially and culturally diverse society. The comparison is apples and oranges.

  68. Demosthenes

    Just like sock puppetry is best left to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

    Sick reference, bro.

  69. Notafan

    We’ve seen a little elbow jostling between Greeks and Macedonians, and Serbian and Croatians too. We have supporters of both sides of the war in Syria here but so far there doesn’t seem to have been much more than possibly a couple of unexplained fires in Sydney that might and I stress might be related to sectarian issues.

  70. Ren Hoek

    You mock me Sir?
    Mock me not Sir.
    The wise man mocks the man,
    the mocked man mocks the mocker.

  71. tomix

    Aborigines and Pacific Islanders- They’re forced to live among one another in low income outer suburbs and the cultures have nothing in common.

  72. So nat’ralists observe, a flea
    Hath smaller fleas that on him prey;
    And these have smaller fleas to bite ’em.
    And so proceeds Ad infinitum.”

  73. Ren Hoek

    Except that once they live here they are Australian.

  74. Ren Hoek

    Weren’t you Clam Chowdah?

  75. Baldrick

    Ren Hoek
    #1340361, posted on June 9, 2014 at 6:51 pm
    I am Stimpy too.

    You need to sign up to WordPress Ren and get yourself an avatar of Ren & Stimpy.

  76. .

    Matthew
    #1340077, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    This policy turns Australia into the third world, a place of blackbirding, coolies, and indentured laborers.

    tomix
    #1340100, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    That was where Qld and Northern N.S.W. were headed before the introduction of the White Australia Policy by an ALP Gov’t in 1904.

    The wheel has gone full circle.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Oh my god.

    You two idiots can not be serious.

    The LDP is becoming ever more mainstream the more these two idiots play along and declare themselves as critics of the LDP.

    Keep digging, boys.

  77. tomix

    Dot- try to understand:

    It doesn’t matter who your interlocutors are, or what points of view you ascribe to them.

    What matters is that you are unable to refute their criticisms of LDP policy.

  78. Yobbo

    Unable and unwilling are not the same time.

    I’ve already wasted thousands of hours futilely debating idiots here.

    Idiot racists who accuse the LDP of encouraging indentured servitude are just not worth my time. They will eventually be banned when they let their mask slip. It’s Catallaxy they are making look bad, not the LDP.

  79. Rabz

    I’ve already wasted thousands of hours futilely debating idiots here.

    You really aren’t as clever as you think you are, are you, Lord Yobo of Siam?

    I’m more of a ‘libertarian than you, BTW. If two gays want to consider themselves ‘married’, my opinion is of no import.

    Your demanding that the State recognise ‘same sex marriage’, is not a ‘libertarian’ position.

    You’ve never been able to justify this totalitarian position.

  80. .

    What matters is that you are unable to refute their criticisms of LDP policy.

    What matters is that you keep on lying about the policies.

    You still haven’t apologised with your egregious lie about tax policy – you said someone on the DSP was only $70 or so a week worse off than a minimum wage worker under LDP tax policy.

    This is simply incorrect.

    You’re full of shit, busted and are not sorry.

  81. Yobbo

    ITT rabz posts lots of words whose meaning he doesn’t understand.

  82. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1340406, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm
    I’ve already wasted thousands of hours futilely debating idiots here.

    You really aren’t as clever as you think you are, are you, Lord Yobo of Siam?

    I’m more of a ‘libertarian than you, BTW. If two gays want to consider themselves ‘married’, my opinion is of no import.

    Your demanding that the State recognise ‘same sex marriage’, is not a ‘libertarian’ position.

    You’ve never been able to justify this totalitarian position.

    I’m with you on this issue Rabz, but seriously, lets argue among ourselves and the big bigotty bigots can cut up through the middle with their racial supremacy, anti-Muslim sectarianism and calls for the abolition of ‘interracial marriage’.

  83. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1340426, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:36 pm
    ITT rabz posts lots of words whose meaning he doesn’t understand.

    Being a complete asshole, I’ve been foremost among those abusing you Yobbo; but I will say this: you are about as consistently pro-freedom as anybody else here. I didn’t realise how rare it was until lately.

  84. tomix

    Did someone mention “concern trolls” here the other day?

  85. Rabz

    posts lots of words whose meaning he doesn’t understand

    That’s the best you can come up with, Lord?

    C’mon, tell us peasants how the State dictating that Same Sex Marriage exists, is a potential reality that would be approved by a ‘Libertarian”?

  86. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340429, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:41 pm
    Did someone mention “concern trolls” here the other day?

    Please explain how Rabz and Yobbo are concern trolls. GO!

  87. Yobbo

    There’s already been a 4 page thread dedicated to the subject Rabz. Like I said, futilely arguing with idiots is not my thing. And yes, I mean you.

  88. Rabz

    Concern Trolls are go!

    🙂

  89. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1340442, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    Concern Trolls are go!

    🙂

    No. Not you! Stay! STAY!

  90. Rabz

    Yobo – you want to dictate what people can think.

    You fucking loathsome, dishonest, totalitarian hypocrite.

  91. Yobbo

    You can think what you like Rabz.

    I just happen to believe that the government should serve the people. And that includes gay people. And having laws on the books that discriminate against gay couples is wrong.

  92. Rabz

    I just happen to believe that the government should serve the people.

    No. You and I know that the reality is very, very different.

    The government does not serve the people, it enslaves them, incrementally. I regard the push for SSM as part of that creeping agenda.

  93. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1340448, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    You can think what you like Rabz.

    I just happen to believe that the government should serve the people. And that includes gay people. And having laws on the books that discriminate against gay couples is wrong.

    I can see how you would think that, assuming that you thought that marriage was exactly as defined by the state. But surely it contains attributes over and above the legal formalities pertaining to marriage and divorce?

  94. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1340446, posted on June 9, 2014 at 7:55 pm
    Yobo – you want to dictate what people can think.

    You fucking loathsome, dishonest, totalitarian hypocrite.

    This is OTT. This is a matter upon which reasonable libertarians can differ.

  95. Yobbo

    Well, I don’t care what other attributes it has. That’s a matter for private citizens. I only care how the state treats it. And the state currently treats gay marriages differently to heterosexual marriages. Even gay marriages that have been legally conducted in foreign jurisdictions where they are legally recognised are explicitly unrecognised by the Australian government.

  96. Rabz

    This is OTT.

    No, it’s two people having a disagreement.

  97. Rabz

    Yobs – FFS – stop trying to justify the state’s treatment of marriage – we both agree that the role of the state should be rolled back as far as possible.

    aarrgghh!

  98. tomix

    Dot @ 7.34pm
    You still haven’t apologised with your egregious lie about tax policy – you said someone on the DSP was only $70 or so a week worse off than a minimum wage worker under LDP tax policy.

    Your open borders by stealth policy must result in massive numbers of unskilled workers and, one way or another, the end of the minimum wage.
    So, potentially DSPensioners [currently on $950+p/f] could be better off financially than someone out in the backblocks battling for 10+ years to pay off a $50,000 plus interest loan from the Federal Gov’t.

  99. Tel

    And having laws on the books that discriminate against gay couples is wrong.

    Having laws that treats married people either better or worse than any other people is wrong.

    Marriage should be handed back to the churches from whence it came. The government job is as a notary, and only as a notary, not as a gatekeeper, nor as a bestower of favours. Gays (if they are smart) would avoid using the word “marriage” and would be better to find their own cultural norms, since they are indeed different from the church tradition. Government cannot keep all the little fringe groups happy (especially in a Democracy) unless they teach people to leave one another alone, which is all most people ask.

  100. Yobbo

    Yes, but unlike you I’m not deluding myself that is going to happen. So I am talking about what should be done in terms of the framework we are currently working under, which is where the government issues marriage licenses and wants to know people’s marital status for all kinds of reasons.

    Likewise I don’t talk about literal open borders because it’s a pipe dream. Instead, I have a serious discussion in how we can improve the current immigration system.

  101. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1340457, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    Well, I don’t care what other attributes it has. That’s a matter for private citizens. I only care how the state treats it. And the state currently treats gay marriages differently to heterosexual marriages. Even gay marriages that have been legally conducted in foreign jurisdictions where they are legally recognised are explicitly unrecognised by the Australian government.

    To use a confected example, suppose that the state chose to redefine ‘contracts’ as covering another class of transactions which were not traditionally covered? This is a change in the traditional meaning of ‘contract’, is it not? It doesn’t rehabilitate it to say that those transactions, and the people affected, were ‘discriminated’ against. I would argue that this is what is happening here. The Greeks were alive to this, and their word for law, ?????, was the same as for ‘custom’ or usage. We now tend to see all law as the positive law of the state, and discount custom or usage as the wellsprings of moral or legal norms.

  102. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1340459, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    This is OTT.

    No, it’s two people having a disagreement.

    Well, I hardly have clean hands in this regard, so carry on 🙂

  103. Yobbo

    Tel: Marriage was not invented by churches and predates religion by tens of thousands of years. Marriage will still be here when religion is long gone. I don’t see any confluence between the two. I haven’t been to a religious wedding for over 2 decades. People just don’t do them much any more.

  104. Rabz

    the government issues marriage licenses and wants to know people’s marital status for all kinds of reasons

    In terms of recognition of ‘partner’s rights’, this already happens – and you know it.

    Bridge too far, Yobs.

    Live with it.

  105. tomix

    But your “improvements” will create open borders, Can’t you see that?

  106. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340464, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    Dot @ 7.34pm
    You still haven’t apologised with your egregious lie about tax policy – you said someone on the DSP was only $70 or so a week worse off than a minimum wage worker under LDP tax policy.

    Your open borders by stealth policy must result in massive numbers of unskilled workers and, one way or another, the end of the minimum wage.
    So, potentially DSPensioners [currently on $950+p/f] could be better off financially than someone out in the backblocks battling for 10+ years to pay off a $50,000 plus interest loan from the Federal Gov’t.

    Fuck off. We’re having a discussion about something important here, besides which it’s past your bedtime.

  107. Yobbo

    To use a confected example, suppose that the state chose to redefine ‘contracts’ as covering another class of transactions which were not traditionally covered?

    Like when they extended contracts to include transactions between white people and black people? I thought that was a positive change too. Presumably there were also people back then arguing that they should “get the government out of contracts” so that they weren’t forced to recognise black people as valid parties to one.

  108. Yobbo

    In terms of recognition of ‘partner’s rights’, this already happens – and you know it.

    Bridge too far, Yobs.

    No, it doesn’t. And the original marriage thread contained numerous examples of where there were still big differences between treatment of married and unmarried couples, and treatment of hetero vs gay couples. Those examples have been posted here dozens of times. If you want to continue to ignore them, that’s your choice, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

  109. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1340478, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:13 pm
    To use a confected example, suppose that the state chose to redefine ‘contracts’ as covering another class of transactions which were not traditionally covered?

    Like when they extended contracts to include transactions between white people and black people? I thought that was a positive change too. Presumably there were also people back then arguing that they should “get the government out of contracts” so that they weren’t forced to recognise black people as valid parties to one.

    I’m not saying that it didn’t happen, but my understanding is that there has never been any contractual incapacity of ‘black people’ which formed part of the common law of England.

  110. Matthew

    I’m more of a ‘libertarian than you, BTW. If two gays want to consider themselves ‘married’, my opinion is of no import.

    Your demanding that the State recognise ‘same sex marriage’, is not a ‘libertarian’ position.

    You’ve never been able to justify this totalitarian position.

    I strongly agree. I said the same thing, that the state should not be involved in marriage registration at all. The LDP advocates marriage registration, which is the method by which the state discriminates against single people and married people in taxes and more.

    The response of LDP supporters here was to say that I am homophobic.

  111. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340488, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:17 pm
    I’m more of a ‘libertarian than you, BTW. If two gays want to consider themselves ‘married’, my opinion is of no import.

    Your demanding that the State recognise ‘same sex marriage’, is not a ‘libertarian’ position.

    You’ve never been able to justify this totalitarian position.

    I strongly agree. I said the same thing, that the state should not be involved in marriage registration at all. The LDP advocates marriage registration, which is the method by which the state discriminates against single people and married people in taxes and more.

    The response of LDP supporters here was to say that I am homophobic.

    Who said that? People called you a racist. Because you are one. You racist fuck.

  112. tomix

    We’re having a discussion about something important here, besides which it’s past your bedtime .

    Is this the same Aristogeiton who was abusing people in homophobic, and most un- PC terms on this thread most nights this past week?

    Why, yes- yes, I think it was.

  113. Rabz

    I’m not deluding myself that is going to happen.

    Some libertarian you are.

    And your last comment is not a gotcha. I didn’t follow the marriage threads for a very good reason – the State’s meddling in marriage has been an ongoing disaster for centuries.

    What I find (slightly) interesting is your acquiescence with the status quo.

    You just lerve state meddling.

    Like, what could possibly go wrong, FFS?

  114. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340494, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm
    […]
    Is this the same Aristogeiton who was abusing people in homophobic, and most un- PC terms on this thread most nights this past week?

    Hey, dumbass. Listen close, because I’m not going to repeat myself. Almost nobody here defends ‘political correctness’. It’s your vile illiberalism and racialism that commenters deride. Now piss off.

  115. Yobbo

    I don’t acquiesce to the status quo. I find ways to subtly improve on it. There are some people that believe it’s best to throw out wildly utopian policies like unilateral open borders, and hope that the status quo can meet them in the middle. I prefer to propose fixes that could be implented immediately and offer an immediate improvement.

    TLDR I agree that getting the government out of marriage would be a good thing. But I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon, and in the meantime we should recognise gay marriages because there is no good reason not to.

  116. Aristogeiton

    Also, religious intolerance, FWIW.

  117. Yobbo

    E.G. saying that my position is statist is kind of like saying that proposing to end the drug war is statist because I didn’t go all the way and advocate getting rid of the government completely. It’s ridiculous.

  118. Ren Hoek

    Ari:
    While it is true that homosexuals are part of the human race, I don’t think that Matthew is being racist in this context.
    Drop the insults and return to the issue. Same team as it were.
    Phobias? I have a phobia that I will not be eloquent enough to logically prove a point.

  119. Rabz

    I don’t acquiesce to the status quo. I find ways to subtly improve on it.

    Whilst living in Siam.

    Yeah, right.

  120. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340509, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    Ari:
    While it is true that homosexuals are part of the human race, I don’t think that Matthew is being racist in this context.
    Drop the insults and return to the issue. Same team as it were.
    Phobias? I have a phobia that I will not be eloquent enough to logically prove a point.

    Get bent drunkie. If you can’t be bothered reading upthread, then don’t comment downthread. You have no idea.

  121. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340494, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm
    […]
    Is this the same Aristogeiton who was abusing people in homophobic, and most un- PC terms on this thread most nights this past week?

    Also, excerpt the comment where I expressed a fear of homosexuals. GO!

  122. Yobbo

    It’s cute that you think you’ve done more to advance the cause of liberty in Australia than I have.

    I ran a libertarian blog of my own with a significant readership for over 7 years. I ran as a candidate for the LDP in 2007. I developed their political quiz that is a good source of new readers and members. You have posted a youtube setlist of your favourite songs. Good one.

  123. Matthew

    . Listen close, because I’m not going to repeat myself. Almost nobody here defends ‘political correctness’.

    Yeah right. Not politically correct but throwing around ‘racist’ and ‘homophobe’ everywhere, when you are not tossing f-bombs and c-bombs.

    You endorse every politically correct idea. Why deny it?

  124. .

    tomix is flat out lying. His example was 100% unadulterated bullshit. He did not predicate his argument with reference to immigration (per June 2, 2014 at 7:27 am)

    Which is immaterial – if immigration reduces real wages – then we must have had massive and virtually continuous net emigration since 1788.

    This is clearly nonsense.

    tomix is such a rabid opponent of the LDP he flat out lies about what the LDP represents, then has the gall to refuse to apologise.

    Just a lying bullshit artist, anti vaxer nutter, anti low tax bullshit artist, anti GM nutter, know nothing Catholic bashing bigot and racist imbecile.

    A horrible little man who hates freedom.

  125. tomix

    Almost nobody here defends ‘political correctness’. It’s your vile illiberalism and racialism that commenters deride

    Have a reread of that, Aristogeiton.

    Does the phrase “personal insight’ have any meaning for you?

  126. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340519, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    . Listen close, because I’m not going to repeat myself. Almost nobody here defends ‘political correctness’.

    Yeah right. Not politically correct but throwing around ‘racist’ and ‘homophobe’ everywhere, when you are not tossing f-bombs and c-bombs.

    You endorse every politically correct idea. Why deny it?

    When have I called you a homophobe? Your racist and anti-Islamic sectarian views are on record on this thread. People can read upthread if they want examples.

  127. A Lurker

    My mother grew up in Adelaide in the 30s and 40s. She told me a story about a Catholic girl in her neighborhood (my mother’s family was Catholic) that ran off with a Protestant boy. What happened was that the word got out in the Catholic community that the girl was not the kind of girl that good Catholic girls should associate with, and the result was a kind of social ostracism.

    Just popping my head out of lurk-mode to observe that nowadays in Australia if that girl was of a particular religion that some people would prefer to remain nameless (and blameless), then it is likely that mere social ostracism would be the least of her concerns. More likely a bullet in the back of her head, or her throat cut in order to assuage male family honour.

  128. Ren Hoek

    So explain. Convince me. Convert me to your point of view.
    Telling me to go away won’t prove your argument.

  129. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340523, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:33 pm
    Almost nobody here defends ‘political correctness’. It’s your vile illiberalism and racialism that commenters deride

    Have a reread of that, Aristogeiton.

    Does the phrase “personal insight’ have any meaning for you?

    Yes, people defend liberty and racial and religious tolerance still. Who knew? These people are called, variously, classical liberals and libertarians. They post here. Why don’t you fuck off?

  130. Rabz

    Yobs – you have done well, but you don’t need to be so dismissive of your critics, especially when they’re natural allies.

    As a labour market economist, I’ve posted a lot more on this blog than my favourite songs.

    Perhaps you should have been paying more attention.

  131. tomix

    Aristogeiton @ 8.30pm

    Also, excerpt the comment where I expressed a fear of homosexuals. GO!

    No, Aristogeiton. Homophobia is a projection.

    Do you understand that meaning of the word “projection”?

  132. Yobbo

    You aren’t a critic Rabz. You’ve hated me ever since I pointed out that you were trying way too hard with your hipster music selections. Since then you’ve gone actively looking for things to disagree with me about. It’s all on you.

  133. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340527, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    So explain. Convince me. Convert me to your point of view.
    Telling me to go away won’t prove your argument.

    “You have no frame of reference here, Donny”.

  134. Matthew

    When have I called you a homophobe?

    Dot did up thread when I wrote that the state should be out of marriage completely. You wrote in support of Dot. I can be bothered looking for it as it won’t be acknowledged anyway.

    Your racist and anti-Islamic sectarian views are on record on this thread.

    And yet I haven’t. For example, I haven’t mentioned Islam at all. I believe this is the first time I have mentioned Islam on this thread and on this site.

    I opposed the LDP immigration policy, and opposed the dismantling of OSB and that is what got you and Dot calling me racist.

    The fact is that both of you are open borders fanatics. And your standard for racism is so low that it makes 99.9% bigots in some way (including you).

    By the way, aren’t you monolingual? Aren’t you racist and smug in your assumed superiority that you think that you can go overseas and expect non-white foreigners to serve you in English?

    You call others bigots and racists, and it is a complete sham. Go and learn about other peoples and civilizations before opening your mouth with your ignorance.

  135. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1340533, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:39 pm
    Aristogeiton @ 8.30pm

    Also, excerpt the comment where I expressed a fear of homosexuals. GO!

    No, Aristogeiton. Homophobia is a projection.

    Do you understand that meaning of the word “projection”?

    Oh, more of your unified theory of pop psychology. I suppose people have to do something now that Oprah is off the air.

  136. Rabz

    I pointed out that you were trying way too hard with your hipster music selections.

    Hang on – I wasn’t even trying – they are my favourite songs, you dildo.

    Look up the vintage, if you need a hint.

    In the meantime, you’ll keep on arguing for the extension of state power, even if it kills you.

  137. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340542, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:47 pm
    When have I called you a homophobe?

    Dot did up thread when I wrote that the state should be out of marriage completely. You wrote in support of Dot. I can be bothered looking for it as it won’t be acknowledged anyway.

    So no quote; didn’t happen.

  138. tomix

    Dot @ 8.33pm tomix is ……………….
    Just a lying bullshit artist, anti vaxer nutter, anti low tax bullshit artist, anti GM nutter, know nothing Catholic bashing bigot and racist imbecile.

    A horrible little man who hates freedom.
    ust a lying bullshit artist, anti vaxer nutter, anti low tax bullshit artist, anti GM nutter, know nothing Catholic bashing bigot and racist imbecile.

    A horrible little man who hates freedom.

    Maybe- but at least i’m not a freedom-peddlin’ totalitarian pretending to be the refugee’s mate.

  139. Rabz

    Zombie thread from Hell

    😡

  140. Ren Hoek

    Ari:
    Then call me Harmodius, pretend I’m your brother and try again.
    Why should I kill the tyrant?

  141. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340542, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:47 pm
    […]
    By the way, aren’t you monolingual? Aren’t you racist and smug in your assumed superiority that you think that you can go overseas and expect non-white foreigners to serve you in English?

    What the fuck is this? Lol. Because you say you speak Mandarin, that means you can’t be a racist? Because there are no mainland Chinese who are racist, right? You’re the progenitor of the ‘technical retardation’ theory of refugees, don’t forget.

  142. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340551, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm
    Ari:
    Then call me Harmodius, pretend I’m your brother and try again.
    Why should I kill the tyrant?

    Wrong Aristogeiton.

  143. Ren Hoek

    Still my brother though:)

  144. Matthew

    Monolingual, right, aristogeiton?

    You would think a non-racist could at least speak one non-white language.

    You must be a bigot and a racist.

  145. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340556, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:53 pm
    Monolingual, right, aristogeiton?

    You would think a non-racist could at least speak one non-white language.

    You must be a bigot and a racist.

    You’re right. This proves it! God, you’re so comprehensively stupid.

  146. .

    Such a pathetic non-argument.

    Matthew you got called a homophobe when you told Aristo (and myself) to go and “sodomize yourself”.

    This thread is completely ridiculous. tomix owns up to lying but refuses to apologise.

  147. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340554, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:52 pm
    Still my brother though:)

    I think they were more than brothers.

  148. Rabz

    This thread is completely ridiculous.

    No – say it ain’t so. Squire!

  149. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1340563, posted on June 9, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    Such a pathetic non-argument.

    Matthew you got called a homophobe when you told Aristo (and myself) to go and “sodomize yourself”.

    Matthew was not called a homophobe by me, it should be noted. More lies, from the natural born liar. I doubt he even speaks Mandarin.

  150. Matthew

    I doubt he even speaks Mandarin.

    I accept your challenge.

  151. tomix

    Can either of you verrry PC galahs comprehend what “sodomize yourself” means?

  152. Ren Hoek

    Matthew:
    Racism means to treat someone differently from yourself based on their appearance(biologically)or identified race.
    As such anyone from any race can be racist.
    Bigotry means to treat someone differently based on their creed, belief, or opinion.
    As such anyone can be a bigot.
    I don’t think Ari is racist just because he only speaks one language.
    You’re my brother too.
    Stop the name calling it cheapens the both of you.

  153. .

    tomix

    You are a crackpot.

    You think the nazis were a gay movement. You are a Hislipoian, anti Catholic know nothing bigot. You are an anti vaxxer. You are an anti science crank.

    You’ve been caught out lying and refuse to apologise.

    Your opinions are worthless.

  154. tomix

    Keep right on drinkin’ the Kool-Aid, Ren Hoek.

  155. Matthew

    I don’t think Ari is racist just because he only speaks one language.

    It is meant as a parody of his low standard of determining racism. I was called racist for rejecting LDP policy and supporting OSB. I never mentioned Islam or anything like that, despite what aristogeiton says (not that Islam is a race anyway).

    You’re my brother too.

    Cheers!

  156. Ren Hoek

    Over my head completely?
    Good night guys keep it civil.

  157. tomix

    I appreciate your sensitivity to any criticism of Nazi’s, Dot, and shall refrain in future.

    Trust me.

  158. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340602, posted on June 9, 2014 at 9:14 pm
    I don’t think Ari is racist just because he only speaks one language.

    It is meant as a parody of his low standard of determining racism. I was called racist for rejecting LDP policy and supporting OSB.

    Not at all. You were called a racist because you made statements like ‘a significant proportion of refugees are technically retarded’.

  159. Ren Hoek

    He meant to say less mentally skilled.

  160. Ren Hoek

    Reading bedtime stories.
    Goodnight.

  161. tomix

    Aristogeiton-

    a significant proportion of refugees are technically retarded’.

    If that statement were true, would you concede that these people are not assimilable into Australian society and will create a permanent welfare burden?

  162. Matthew

    You were called a racist because you made statements like ‘a significant proportion of refugees are technically retarded’

    Nope! But keep misquoting me. There isn’t any other way to fit a square into a circle.

  163. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340641, posted on June 9, 2014 at 9:31 pm
    You were called a racist because you made statements like ‘a significant proportion of refugees are technically retarded’

    Nope! But keep misquoting me. There isn’t any other way to fit a square into a circle.

    Quote is reproduced numerous times upthread. Recapituating it won’t stop you lying, so there’s no point.

  164. Ren Hoek

    The statement is not true, but culture, and skills needed, not race, should determine who enters Australia.

  165. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340663, posted on June 9, 2014 at 9:37 pm
    The statement is not true, but culture, and skills needed, not race, should determine who enters Australia.

    Go to bed Donny!

  166. Combine_Dave

    Mathew…..
    ???????????

    ????????/???

  167. .

    tomix
    #1340606, posted on June 9, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    I appreciate your sensitivity to any criticism of Nazi’s, Dot, and shall refrain in future.

    Trust me.

    Yes nice try in being deceitful, economical with the truth and being a good little smear merchant.

    Cultural communists, Nazis, communists, is there any absurd, defamatory nonsense tomix won’t hurl at libertarians?

    tomix. You were caught out lying. You refuse to apologise.

    You have an utterly ugly and bizzare belief system. I welcome criticising totalitarians as anyone wishes. Your belief system is so bizzare however you think “da gays” started the Nazis. somehow you think disagreeing with this puerile nonsense is “political correctness”.

    Your beliefs are repulsive and you are a shameless liar and smear merchant. You have been caught out lying and refuse to apologise. You simply don’t like the LDP and behave shamelessly to make unwarranted criticism.

  168. Matthew

    Combine_Dave.

    ????????????????????????????????????????

    ????????????????????????????????

    ??????????

  169. Matthew

    Combine_Dave.

    ????????????????????????????????????????

    ????????????????????????????????

    ??????????

  170. Combine_Dave

    ‘a significant proportion of refugees are technically retarded’.

    If that statement were true, would you concede that these people are not assimilable into Australian society and will create a permanent welfare burden?

    It’s entirely possible that some refugees somewhere are technically mentally retarded due to childhood deprivation and starvation… it just seems highly unlikely that guys who have made a concerted effort to come to Australia inorder to milk our welfare state (coming via third nations, disposing of documentation and rote learning tales of woe)would fit this potentially racist description. They could work once they are here and are likely to work cash in hand, but based on current stats have no qualms around accepting welfare payments. All this would seem to indicate that no, our BP arrivals are not ‘retards’.

  171. Matthew

    Combine_Dave.

    ??????????????? = ???

  172. Aristogeiton

    Right, so Matthew admits that he can barely speak Chinese, having studied it for three months. That’s hardly something I’d lord over others in an attempt to smear them as racists, mate.

  173. Combine_Dave

    wow 🙂

    ?????????????????

    ?????????????

  174. Combine_Dave

    I have to be honest while learning a language is a good thing to do, from a simply practical standpoint if you can speak English/??, there’s little reason to learn another language unless you plan to spend a lot of in said nation (or just curious about the culture).

    Mainly because everyone else is using English as a trade language.

  175. Matthew

    It’s entirely possible that some refugees somewhere are technically mentally retarded due to childhood deprivation and starvation… it just seems highly unlikely that guys who have made a concerted effort to come to Australia inorder to milk our welfare state (coming via third nations, disposing of documentation and rote learning tales of woe)would fit this potentially racist description. They could work once they are here and are likely to work cash in hand, but based on current stats have no qualms around accepting welfare payments. All this would seem to indicate that no, our BP arrivals are not ‘retards’

    Just to clarify, I never even used the word refugees, which makes the quote false and constructed out of context anyway.

    I was referring to ‘illegal immigrants’. I noted that the average Afghan has an IQ of 84, which is lower than the average Australian IQ of 100, but is still manageable. Among these Afghans are people that are both below and above average.

    50% of these Afghans, then, are below average intelligence for an Afghan, and well below the Australian average intelligence. It is to these people that I refer.

    I don’t make any claims about how they got this way. It seems that saying that brain parasites, malnutrition, or prenatal development problems is the acceptable explanation, and genetics the unacceptable ‘racist’ one.

    These very below average people are going to have a hard time fitting in, holding a non basic job, and so on.

    Dot and aristogeiton dismiss any discussion of IQ as racist. I disagree.

    If however the illegal immigrants are in all respects above average (though I hardly think that getting on a plane to Indonesia and then boarding a boat requires much in terms of brainpower) then it hardly justifies their claims as asylum seekers.

  176. Matthew

    Right, so Matthew admits that he can barely speak Chinese, having studied it for three months. That’s hardly something I’d lord over others in an attempt to smear them as racists, mate.

    Don’t be such a complete dork. Your machine translator has lost the nuance of what I wrote.

  177. Matthew

    ?????????????????

    ?????????????

    ??????????

    ???????????????

  178. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1340860, posted on June 9, 2014 at 10:09 pm
    Right, so Matthew admits that he can barely speak Chinese, having studied it for three months. That’s hardly something I’d lord over others in an attempt to smear them as racists, mate.

    Don’t be such a complete dork. Your machine translator has lost the nuance of what I wrote.

    Lol. GF.

  179. Infidel Tiger

    If we can get some fractional reserve banking and pyramid discussion going in this thread, it will make the Cat top 10 weirdest.

  180. Aristogeiton

    Infidel Tiger
    #1340935, posted on June 9, 2014 at 10:27 pm
    If we can get some fractional reserve banking and pyramid discussion going in this thread, it will make the Cat top 10 weirdest.

    We did have a discussion of white supremacy and the merits of interracial marriage. Does that count?

  181. tomix

    Any thread about loony LDP policies is bound to get weird. Just don’t mention the Nazis gay origins. Dot gets very upset.

    Combine Dave @ 9.47pm
    It’s entirely possible that some refugees somewhere are technically mentally retarded due to childhood deprivation and starvation

    You’re talking about IMAs. Can you decipher the meaning of the term “technically retarded?
    A dictionary may help.
    And then:

    All this would seem to indicate that no, our BP arrivals are not ‘retards’.

    No one has called IMAs “retards”, though some “libertarians” are fond of throwing the term at critics at the drop of a hanky.

    And there’s more:
    it just seems highly unlikely that guys who have made a concerted effort to come to Australia in order to milk our welfare state (coming via third nations, disposing of documentation and rote learning tales of woe)would fit this potentially racist description

    More PC claims of racism. But it’s not so bad to be a criminal coming to Australia to defraud the welfare system.

    Interesting priorities you’ve got, Combine Dave. How far down your list are the best interests of Australia and Australians?

  182. Combine_Dave

    We did have a discussion of white supremacy and the merits of interracial marriage. Does that count?

    For the record I don’t advocate marriages of any kinds 🙂

    Although I did once read a sci fi novel where humans were so PC that to be white skinned was to cause offense. We are not there yet but someday soon ^^

  183. Combine_Dave

    More PC claims of racism. But it’s not so bad to be a criminal coming to Australia to defraud the welfare system.

    Interesting priorities you’ve got, Combine Dave. How far down your list are the best interests of Australia and Australians

    Who determines this best interest?

    To my mind it would be better for Australia to have few barriers to trade, to capital and to people.

    However other Australians disagree and believe we should massive barriers to FDI, to skilled immigration while allowing shedloads of boat people to arrive and live on handouts.

    And that’s even before we get onto the minimum wage, the wealth transfers from the productive to the moochers and how we all aren’t paying enough (it’s not apparently politically possible to shrink the size of the state).

  184. Combine_Dave

    Matthew,

    Dangerous territory to tread. It’s true that IQ has been shown to have a genetic component, and that different ahem groups of people can have different mins/maxs averages of IQ.

    Personally I think it’s best to treat all people equally (even when they are not). Which is why I think having a skilled and investment intake that only looks at the skills/cash you’ve got, regardless of race, is the way to go. And have a strict morrisonistic approach to illegal arrivals (if the wealthfare state were to be abolished I’d switch to open borders).

    Based on current stats, where the majority of immigrants are from the Uk, India and China, I don’t think we have any real issues with immigrants (in general), in terms of welfare dependence, and not working productively. If anything these hard working guys are subsidising our own homegrown moochers with the tax they pay.

  185. Matthew

    Dangerous territory to tread. It’s true that IQ has been shown to have a genetic component, and that different ahem groups of people can have different mins/maxs averages of IQ.

    Perhaps… But I still support free inquiry over the witch hunting of people yelling ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’.

    Personally I think it’s best to treat all people equally (even when they are not). Which is why I think having a skilled and investment intake that only looks at the skills/cash you’ve got, regardless of race, is the way to go. And have a strict morrisonistic approach to illegal arrivals (if the wealthfare state were to be abolished I’d switch to open borders).

    Based on current stats, where the majority of immigrants are from the Uk, India and China, I don’t think we have any real issues with immigrants (in general), in terms of welfare dependence, and not working productively. If anything these hard working guys are subsidising our own homegrown moochers with the tax they pay.

    In this thread we have been discussing LDP policies. Part of what was discussed is how this policy purports to deal with the asylum seeker issue, but in fact does not. Under the LDP policy OSB will be dismantled and asylum seekers will still be able to make asylum claims and receive welfare.

    There is also a distinct risk of labor trafficking, debt slavery and indentured servitude under the policy. In fact the policy just about guarantees it. I give an example up thread –

    David Leyonhjelm has been a long term member or the cheap agricultural labor lobby. Take a situation where farmers front $50000 in form of a loan for foreign laborers to come to Australia. The foreign laborers will earn a low wage (not coincidently David Leyonhjelm has called for a lowering of the minimum wage) and will have to pay interest on this loan. The foreign laborers put up with this because they will be able to get citizenship in a few years.

    In short the LDP privatises the profits and socializes the costs.

    In other policy areas we have discussed the LDP plan to hire foreign mercenaries, disband the full time Australian army and replace it with a army reserve, the disbanding of most most of the Australian Navy, the LDP plan to develop long distance force projection (something that would likely cost trillions of dollars), the LDP plan to cut off diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in favor of diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), and so on.

    In short the LDP is an unserious party with fringe, indefensible policies. I oppose the LDP policies, and I think the LDP is a bait and switch designed to co-opt the libertarian feeling that has been growing in the past few years.

  186. .

    You’re a lying, irresponsible dickhead Matthew.

    long distance force projection (something that would likely cost trillions of dollars)

    I’m sick of the braindead innumeracy in this thread. The US only spends 640 bn USD per annum and they have global naval supremacy and air superiority with millions of soldiers and marines to back it up.

    France and the UK have militaries have force projection. They spend about 0.8% and 0.6% more of GDP on their defence spending than we do in comparison (both roughly three times our population with roughly equal per capita GDP). This is after years of neglect by Rudd and Gillard. They also have standing armies that are basically overblown – France more so than the UK. They also both have a greater capacity of reserves (especially France). They also maintain costly nuclear (and the UK, chemical) arsenals.

    Force projection is affordable and simply irresponsible to ignore. Giving the military power to interdict an invasion at arm’s lenght is simply responsible policy and leadership.

    There has been no sensible or honest criticism of the policy.

    The two previous examples of “Africa” and China destroying their monetary base several times over to flood Australia with migrants is another dishonest or foolish criticism of LDP policy which is beyond laughable.

  187. Matthew

    I’m sick of the braindead innumeracy in this thread. The US only spends 640 bn USD per annum and they have global naval supremacy and air superiority with millions of soldiers and marines to back it up.

    They have spent decades developing it. We would need to start from scratch and it won’t happen starting from scratch. Anyway the ignorance of LDP supporters is astonishing. Only the LDP has this policy. Considering the lunacy of other LDP policies (such as breaking of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in favor of establishing diplomatic relations with the Republic of China), the LDP is hardly the party to lecture anyone on security or anything else for that matter.

    You’re a lying, irresponsible dickhead Matthew.

    Every LDP supporter on this thread has been using foul language and throwing around personal abuse. It shows the low, base character of its supporters.

  188. .

    You are a lying, irresponsible bloody imbecile. It does not take decades to purchase capital and weapons off the shelf. The better defence purchases have been off the shelf. The failures have been custom ordered.

    We would need to start from scratch and it won’t happen starting from scratch.

    Pure bloody idiocy. This is desperate, stupid utter nonsense.

    You have no shame Matthew. You have been proven demonstrably wrong about China (Fisk’s ideas are about 20 years outdated by the realities of Chinese/Taiwan diplomacy, US arming of Taiwan and internal Taiwanese politics), immigration and the military (innumeracy to the point of idiocy) and rant on like the uninformed blowhard you are.

    Your nonsense about defence was innumerate to the point of total and blind ignorance. You are prepared to say anything because you don’t like the LDP because you don’t like immigrants.

    If you had any dignity you’d be embarrassed.

  189. The Hunted Mind

    Your nonsense about defence was innumerate to the point of total and blind ignorance. You are prepared to say anything because you don’t like the LDP because you don’t like immigrants.

    Not liking immigration is not the same as not liking people who are immigrants. No one’s obliged to like immigration. If you value your own culture and aren’t happy with multiculturalism then not liking immigration is quite logical and normal.

    If you had any dignity you’d be embarrassed.

    Not exactly covering yourself in glory, Dot.

  190. .

    “I like immigrants, but I want no more of them because they are a threat”

    ???

    The breakdown on immigration to Australia by origin says this is not a well founded idea. Mostly from the UK and former dominion status nations.

    The government ought to have no say regarding culture, at all. Let free people choose what is best.

    “Your choice, not the government’s”

  191. Combine_Dave

    demonstrably wrong about China (Fisk’s ideas are about 20 years outdated by the realities of Chinese/Taiwan diplomacy, US arming of Taiwan and internal Taiwanese politics),

    Not to get involved in your larger dispute with Fisky/Matthew but they are right when it comes to TW-China relations.

    Beijing would go mental if we were to recognise Taiwan as a soverign state (while the USA opposes a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan by PRC China they still recognise mainland as the ‘One China’).

  192. tomix

    The government ought to have no say regarding culture, at all. Let free people choose what is best.

    “Your choice, not the government’s”

    That’s right, Dot. And if the Gov’t listened to the people, it would hear loud and clear from the overwhelming majority that Australians despise Multiculturalism and all attempts by the Gov’t to divide and rule.

    But it doesn’t. What’s the LDP policy to force Gov’t to obey the electors clear wishes?

  193. .

    ???

    “You guys are against multiculturalism. Where is your policy speaking out against multiculturalism?”

    You are incredibly unfair as well as dishonest.

  194. .

    Dave

    Many small nations broke off relations with the PRC earlier in favour of Taiwan (implying sovereignty). This would have pissed them off as well.

    What was the consequence?

    Nil.

    We should have bilateral relations with Taiwan, as well as mainland China.

    China will not cut us off for doing so, if we recognise them as “Taiwan”.

    As long as they don’t declare independence as Taiwan, then on paper China has no official policy to act on.

  195. Fisky

    I hope the LDP aren’t still pushing their extremist policies on recognising Taiwan. Australians could get seriously hurt over this and possibly lives will be lost.

  196. .

    Nonsense Fisk. You are just playing a parlour game with rhetoric.

    What I outlined above satisfies China’s petulant demands.

  197. Demosthenes

    And if the Gov’t listened to the people, it would hear loud and clear from the overwhelming majority that Australians despise Multiculturalism

    Do you always think is such simplistic terms? The fact is that it isn’t a simple subject. Here is an excellent overview of Australians’ opinions, based on evidence not your biases. You’ll find your certainty isn’t warranted. The short version – Australians are tolerant, like cultural diversity, but don’t want to fund separatism, and want immigrants to assimilate.

  198. Matthew

    I hope the LDP aren’t still pushing their extremist policies on recognising Taiwan. Australians could get seriously hurt over this and possibly lives will be lost.

    Not a chance.

    Nonsense Fisk. You are just playing a parlour game with rhetoric.

    What I outlined above satisfies China’s petulant demands.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Reality meets LDP policy. Reality ignored by LDP.

  199. Gab

    I hope the LDP aren’t still pushing their extremist policies on recognising Taiwan

    Have no fear, Fisky. Just grab an orange lifeboat and you’ll be fine 🙂

    Besides which I doubt the LDP’s foreign policy is going to affect anyone.

  200. Matthew

    The short version – Australians are tolerant, like cultural diversity, but don’t want to fund separatism, and want immigrants to assimilate.

    Assimilation is just about the opposite of multiculturalism. I’m not sure that your position is far from tomix’s at all.

    It should be noted assimilation was in fact attempted, but failed. Some migrants didn’t want to give up aspects of their own culture. Some cultural differences and religious differences were too great to bridge the gap. The result was multiculturalism as a coping mechanism and as a state ideology.

    Of course now even multiculturalism is under pressure because the core of multiculturalism is tolerance (tolerance of mainstream Australians towards ethnic communities), and many mainstream Australians are having trouble tolerating things like female genital mutilation, etc.

    The multiculturalism is also under pressure because the tolerance rarely goes both ways.

    If you ask a mainstream Australian whether a prospective migrant that practices female genital mutilation should be admitted to Australia as a migrant or refugee, you are certain to get a ‘racist’ and ‘intolerant’ answer.

  201. Fisky

    What I outlined above satisfies China’s petulant demands.

    The LDP’s extremism will be openly mocked by Beijing. In fact, I’m sure they are reading this thread now and laughing hysterically. There is no chance of Beijing allowing anyone to recognise both Taiwan and the PRC.

  202. The Hunted Mind

    Demosthenes, you are saying that Australians don’t despise multiculturalism – they just want immigrants to assimilate. You do realise that multiculturalism is the exact opposite of assimilation? You can’t have both. You just confirmed the opposite of what you argued.

  203. .

    It should be noted assimilation was in fact attempted, but failed.

    Nonsense.

    It worked very well until Gough got rid of it.

    The result was multiculturalism as a coping mechanism and as a state ideology.

    No one had to cope with migrants having their own cultural heritage. We coped for nearly 150 years without any “coping mechanism”.

    Matthew is demonstrably incorrect about China. His response is simply dishonest and smarmy.

  204. I think we need a new thread just to comment on the number of posts to this thread.

  205. Token

    Besides which I doubt the LDP’s foreign policy is going to affect anyone.

    Why stand out on this issue?

  206. .

    Fisk China do not want to go against their official policy. It would destroy the credibility of their promises. How many times have they been known to break their word? To patronise them at the same time as noting their astuteness and cleverness makes no sense.

  207. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1341891, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:02 pm
    The short version – Australians are tolerant, like cultural diversity, but don’t want to fund separatism, and want immigrants to assimilate.

    Assimilation is just about the opposite of multiculturalism. I’m not sure that your position is far from tomix’s at all.

    It should be noted assimilation was in fact attempted, but failed. Some migrants didn’t want to give up aspects of their own culture. Some cultural differences and religious differences were too great to bridge the gap. The result was multiculturalism as a coping mechanism and as a state ideology.

    Of course now even multiculturalism is under pressure because the core of multiculturalism is tolerance (tolerance of mainstream Australians towards ethnic communities), and many mainstream Australians are having trouble tolerating things like female genital mutilation, etc.

    The multiculturalism is also under pressure because the tolerance rarely goes both ways.

    If you ask a mainstream Australian whether a prospective migrant that practices female genital mutilation should be admitted to Australia as a migrant or refugee, you are certain to get a ‘racist’ and ‘intolerant’ answer.

    Multiculturalism is meaningless. What does it mean? Can you tell me? What you want is some kind of state-enforced monoculturalism. Yes, let’s have the state involved in telling citizens what their ‘culture’ should be. FGM is a criminal act. The practice would offend any libertarian. Any voluntary expression of an individual’s faith or proclivities (provided they have reached the age of majority) is a matter for them, so long as they are not harming another individual.

  208. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1341851, posted on June 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    […]
    “Your choice, not the government’s”

    That’s right, Dot. And if the Gov’t listened to the people, it would hear loud and clear from the overwhelming majority that Australians despise Multiculturalism and all attempts by the Gov’t to divide and rule.

    No, you don’t agree. Dot’s position is about individual choice within the bounds of the harm principle. You are proposing some kind of majoritarian collectivism.

  209. Fisky

    Fisk China do not want to go against their official policy. It would destroy the credibility of their promises. How many times have they been known to break their word? To patronise them at the same time as noting their astuteness and cleverness makes no sense.

    China’s diplomatic practice is not to accommodate dual recognition at all. That’s a reality that the LDP are still blissfully unaware of.

  210. A Lurker

    Poking my head up over the parapet to answer Demosthenes’ comment.

    Australians are tolerant

    Yes we are, but our innate laidback tolerance can be pushed to breaking point by immigrant pressure groups who want laws changed, cultural norms changed, in effect wanting Australians to bend over backwards to accommodate new cultural practices that might not sit well with us.

    like cultural diversity

    Festivals, food and music are benign additions to our culture, however there are other additions that aren’t benign and as we have experienced, and as places like Europe has experienced, can cause untold damage to culture, society, and community safety and cohesion.

    but don’t want to fund separatism, and want immigrants to assimilate.

    Thing is, you can’t have a true multicultural State and also have integration and assimilation. The intent of multiculturalism was (in my opinion) an erosion of the nation state, an erosion of the indigenous culture – a Socialist tool to bring about changes that they desire – and with most Socialists it never stops at music or food, but always the fundamental changes to our society. It is a huge error to make assumptions about the Australian character because certain viewpoints and opinions aren’t expressed, it doesn’t mean they’re not there, it means they’re being suppressed.

    p.s. Does the LDP possess an official stance on multiculturalism and culture, because I saw none on their website.

  211. Fisky

    Multiculturalism is meaningless. What does it mean? Can you tell me?

    That’s exactly the point though – it’s a useless official ideology because no one can agree on its meaning and application. What I like about the French ideology of “laicite” is that no one is under any misunderstanding as to the position of the state. It’s a very consistent approach to religious affairs, and I think it works well.

  212. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1341891, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:02 pm
    […]
    Assimilation is just about the opposite of multiculturalism. I’m not sure that your position is far from tomix’s at all.

    Assimilation of the attributes of another culture is a natural result of living within the nation-state. What you are proposing is that individuals be forced by the state to adopt extra-legal attributes. This is also your precise fear; that Muslims will force you to adopt cultural attributes. Where are your principles in all of this? This is about as profoundly illiberal a view as there is.

  213. Gab

    Why stand out on this issue?

    No idea.

  214. Fisky

    Assimilation of the attributes of another culture is a natural result of living within the nation-state.

    Leaving aside the fact that there is no agreed set of principles to assimilate people to, I don’t think it is reasonable to expect assimilation from people over a certain age. Certainly, almost no one can start learning a new language in their 20s and expect ever to be fully proficient (i.e. at native speaker level).

  215. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341914, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    Multiculturalism is meaningless. What does it mean? Can you tell me?

    That’s exactly the point though – it’s a useless official ideology because no one can agree on its meaning and application. What I like about the French ideology of “laicite” is that no one is under any misunderstanding as to the position of the state. It’s a very consistent approach to religious affairs, and I think it works well.

    It’s meaningless, so it poses no threat. It is a facile nothing the cultural Marxist utters to make the right sounds to the (mostly Anglo) group-rights obsessed left. All equal before the law; what more do you want? All of the ‘problems’ that the above nutjobs propose (FGM, violent demonstration, honour killings) are criminal, and will remain so. And let me tell you, skilled immigration at a high price is not going to bring the violent Islamists here; they aren’t usually much good at business, or life.

  216. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341917, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    […]
    Leaving aside the fact that there is no agreed set of principles to assimilate people to

    This is precisely the point. It can’t be done. It is illiberal. And nobody agrees. Because people differ.

  217. Fisky

    The French have a larger Muslim population than the UK. But they are very clear about their expectations of people and don’t mess around. No one in a position of influence in France would accept for a moment that “special” rights should be allowed for people who want to wear a burka while driving or depositing money at the bank. But in the UK, it seems to be a right.

  218. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341921, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:29 pm
    The French have a larger Muslim population than the UK. But they are very clear about their expectations of people and don’t mess around. No one in a position of influence in France would accept for a moment that “special” rights should be allowed for people who want to wear a burka while driving or depositing money at the bank. But in the UK, it seems to be a right.

    I struggle with the loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public. I think the threat is completely overblown; were there examples of the face covering used to commission a crime? That said, as a human animal I judge the intentions of people by looking at their body language, and particularly their face. But the face covering is worn by women, who pose, generally, no physical threat to me. I don’t think the ban is justified. I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

  219. Matthew

    Multiculturalism is meaningless. What does it mean? Can you tell me?

    Well, it’s a good question and I won’t fault you for asking it. To the average person it is meaningless, you are right. It was a word made up relatively recently.

    As far as the state is concerned it means speech codes for certain citizens, special (discriminatory) funding for certain ethnic, cultural, religious or racial groups, discriminatory hiring practices (also known as affirmative action or equal opportunity employment), a biased and negative version of Australian history taught in schools that vilifies one particular ethnicity, penalties for people that speak out against the state ideology of multiculturalism (professor Andrew Fraser comes mind), and so on.

    What you want is some kind of state-enforced monoculturalism. Yes, let’s have the state involved in telling citizens what their ‘culture’ should be.

    No. And I am not even particularly monocultural myself.

    FGM is a criminal act. The practice would offend any libertarian. Any voluntary expression of an individual’s faith or proclivities (provided they have reached the age of majority) is a matter for them, so long as they are not harming another individual.

    Well it would take a police state in Australia to prevent it happening here. Rather than change our whole society to adapt to objectionable cultural practices, let’s take the path of least resistance and simply not admit people from places where the practice of FGM is prevalent.

  220. egg_

    Has Hammy commented yet?

  221. Fisky

    It’s meaningless, so it poses no threat.

    That’s not really true. The UK have been tying themselves in knots to appease and subsidise what they call “non-violent extremists” precisely as a consequence of their official ideology of multiculturalism. They are precluded from launching a full-throated defence of the public domain by their adherence to “tolerance”, and this has had some very nasty effects, such as majority-Muslim public schools demanding that the holocaust not be taught, that women are pressured into mediations at private sharia courts instead of in secular courts, and that apostates are under constant threat of violence.

    The French actually have a consistent and clear value worth defending, which is secularism, and do not allow other considerations to affect this. I think it is a very sensible stance.

  222. .

    p.s. Does the LDP possess an official stance on multiculturalism and culture, because I saw none on their website.

    Pt 1

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1274-equality-before-the-law

  223. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1341927, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm
    […]
    As far as the state is concerned it means speech codes for certain citizens, special (discriminatory) funding for certain ethnic, cultural, religious or racial groups, discriminatory hiring practices (also known as affirmative action or equal opportunity employment), a biased and negative version of Australian history taught in schools that vilifies one particular ethnicity, penalties for people that speak out against the state ideology of multiculturalism (professor Andrew Fraser comes mind), and so on.

    You are describing cultural Marxism. Ask any of the libertarians here what their position on the list above is.

  224. Fisky

    I struggle with the loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public. I think the threat is completely overblown; were there examples of the face covering used to commission a crime?

    Yes there are. Even Bangladesh has had to ban the burka in certain public spaces to prevent crime.

    That said, as a human animal I judge the intentions of people by looking at their body language, and particularly their face. But the face covering is worn by women, who pose, generally, no physical threat to me.

    The question, properly-phrased, is this – should people be allowed to wear motorcycle helmets in banks, petrol stations, airports and other sensitive security areas? If not, then on what basis is there a concession to the burka? Respecting religion is an inadequate response, as there is no reason to elevate religion over any other consideration.

    I don’t think the ban is justified. I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

    There is nothing stopping people from wearing the burka on their own property. The ban applies to government property only. It is entirely reasonable.

  225. Fisky

    I should say – the public domain, more than simply government property.

  226. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341929, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:37 pm
    […]
    That’s not really true. The UK have been tying themselves in knots to appease and subsidise what they call “non-violent extremists” precisely as a consequence of their official ideology of multiculturalism. They are precluded from launching a full-throated defence of the public domain by their adherence to “tolerance”, and this has had some very nasty effects, such as majority-Muslim public schools demanding that the holocaust not be taught, that women are pressured into mediations at private sharia courts instead of in secular courts, and that apostates are under constant threat of violence.

    And the libertarian response to this is what? The LDP’s policies say what? In almost every case this would not be tolerated. Some of what you outline is against our criminal and civil law at present.

  227. Fisky

    And the libertarian response to this is what?

    I’m less interested in the libertarian response because a lot of libertarian positions have been shown to be lacking on this thread. What I’m really explaining is why an official ideology of multiculturalism is far more dangerous in practice than a strict position of defending civic equality and secularism in the public domain, forcefully and without apology.

  228. Gab

    I think it is a measure adapted to enjoin a particular type of religious expression that individuals find uncomfortable.

    The crazy thing, the thing that makes Middle Easterners snicker up their burqa sleeve, is that removal of the burqa from the face is a requirement in security sensitive areas, like airports, in Arab countries. There is no dilemma there, no pc angst about the issue. It’s only the West that carries on like spineless useful idiots over the matter.

  229. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341937, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:42 pm
    I struggle with the loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public. I think the threat is completely overblown; were there examples of the face covering used to commission a crime?

    Yes there are. Even Bangladesh has had to ban the burka in certain public spaces to prevent crime.

    I’d like some French examples. That’s the place in which we’re trying to justify the law.

    The question, properly-phrased, is this – should people be allowed to wear motorcycle helmets in banks, petrol stations, airports and other sensitive security areas?

    No, the law enjoins the wearing of a face covering in any public space. I would not mind the law so much if it were outlined as you say, and resulted from a genuine concern, expressed by the institutions, for such a ban. Balaclavas and their analogues, in my view, have (generally, except for burn victims &c) no place worn in the public arena.

  230. .

    Fisk you keep on saying that but it would mean China is not following their own rule after Ma’s election and his policy views are amicable to the mainland.

    Honduras actually has dual recognition.

  231. Aristogeiton

    s/no place worn in the public arena/no place being worn in the public arena/

  232. A Lurker

    Thanks Dot, that is a lot more reassuring, however it would be worthwhile adding a specific comment such as ‘we do not support State multiculturalism’ and also comments about ‘selling SBS’ and perhaps making some kind of official Statement of what Australia expects from immigrants (other than the economic rules that has been outlined on this thread) and you might be able to induce culturalists like myself to give you a vote.

  233. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1341941, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:47 pm
    […]
    I’m less interested in the libertarian response because a lot of libertarian positions have been shown to be lacking on this thread. What I’m really explaining is why an official ideology of multiculturalism is far more dangerous in practice than a strict position of defending civic equality and secularism in the public domain, forcefully and without apology.

    You are wrestling with phantoms; you can’t outline the ‘official ideology’ in any detail, apart from recapitulating cultural Marxism. Read the LDPs policy on equality before the law &c.

  234. Gab

    to give you a vote

    hang on, didn’t Yobbo say somewhere on this thread recently that the LDP doesn’t want your vote?

  235. Fisky

    Another example of how the forceful French defence of equality in the public domain affected two black American women. This story encapsulates everything about the French mentality, and I think it is highly flattering.

    I was going to the movies with a friend of mine from Yale who is black also. And there was a long line. And we were like, let’s jump the line. These white people, they’re going to be scared of us. We’ll just go and jump the line. We’ll get to the front of the line. So, of course, you know, we walked up to the front of the line, like, yeah, you want to try me? I’m black. That usually works in New York.

    These people were ready to rip our hair out. And they were white. I couldn’t believe it. And they were like, in French, what are you doing? The line starts back there. You can’t just walk to the front of the line. They were, like, ready to kick our butts. I was shocked. I’m like, these are white people, and they’re not scared of us?

    That’s when I realized I wasn’t in Kansas anymore. And I liked it. I mean, of course, it was kind of humiliating, because you know, we’re supposed to be the intimidating, scary ones. And then all these French bitches in high heels were threatening us. And they were in our faces. And it made me realize that the whole black-white game just doesn’t work outside of the United States.

    Because white people aren’t afraid of you here. And at the same time, they don’t hate you, because that sort of goes together. So I’ll take it. I’ll wait on line. Now I don’t dare jump lines. So that opened my eyes.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/165/transcript

    And so mutual respect is re-inforced by setting rules based on unambiguous standards, and sticking to them.

  236. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1341944, posted on June 10, 2014 at 5:48 pm
    […]
    The crazy thing, the thing that makes Middle Easterners snicker up their burqa sleeve, is that removal of the burqa from the face is a requirement in security sensitive areas, like airports, in Arab countries.

    They are ‘snickering’ are they? Is that supposed to make me act or feel in a certain way? I don’t have a problem with the requirement in airports, banks, or indeed any place of business, provided in that case it is voluntary (i.e. “If I cannot see your face, you cannot enter”). If there was an explosion of niqab/burka crime here, then I might think different. It would be different if the covering was worn by men.

    So far as what I think of the practice, I think it is a disgrace in principle; men and women should have the opportunit be equal participants in civil society.

  237. Fisky

    You are wrestling with phantoms; you can’t outline the ‘official ideology’ in any detail, apart from recapitulating cultural Marxism

    I have said nothing about cultural Marxism, but the official ideology of multiculturalism, as you have pointed out, is totally incoherent. That’s actually a bad thing, because principles should be clear and understandable to the public so that they can be enforced.

  238. Matthew

    You are describing cultural Marxism. Ask any of the libertarians here what their position on the list above is.

    I did. And I was called a racist!

  239. Gab

    If there was an explosion of niqab/burka crime here, then I might think different. It would be different if the covering was worn by men.

    Ah so the “equality before the law” is just bullsh!t then?

Leave a Reply

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