“… the wish list of a right wing think tank.”

The luvvies have just realised that they have been mugged.

The Chifley Research Centre:

It’s easy to see why so many progressives are happy today. In mid-2014, almost one year into the reign of the most ideologically right-wing government Australia has seen, and little more than a month after a Federal Budget that set out to destroy Australia’s social safety net, a controversial program is gone. It’s a victory against a government we would all like to see gone too.

But we should spare a thought for some of the other Commonwealth programs now at risk. The High Court has said, in effect, that Commonwealth spending must be supported by a head of legislative power under the Constitution. A general piece of authorising legislation wasn’t good enough. The ‘fix’ put in to support a raft of Commonwealth spending two years ago was today found wanting. Presumably his means that the Parliament will now need to pass new laws specifically authorising a range of new spending, and do to that the law will need to be supported by a specific constitutional head of power. Most are found in Section 51. There’s a lot that the Commonwealth currently does that is not clearly supported by that list of powers.

Here’s a taste of what could be at risk:

• Environment grants
• Industry assistance
• Funding to local government
• Housing and homelessness support
• Carer’s services
• Financial counselling
• Support for volunteer groups
• Sports infrastructure and program grants

It sounds like the wish list of a right wing think tank.

(The $200 vouchers for marriage counselling are probably safe – the Commonwealth’s marriage power in section 51(xxi) will see to that.)

Many of these programs exist because a Labor Governments created them. Will a Liberal Government protect them, or use this as an opportunity to shut them down?

The Guardian:

…suddenly the Williams case looks a lot different. Instead of a gang of plucky atheists taking on the chaplains, Ron Williams’ hillbilly litigious circus is actually cover for an altogether more sinister cause: states’ rights activism.

Even though state governments were in favour of the chaplaincy program, every single one of the state attorneys-general intervened in the case in support of Williams’ second challenge. This should have immediately thrown up an enormous red flag. The states were in no way interested in joining the secular crusade against god botherers in primary schools; they were only interested in protecting the states from Commonwealth interference.

Shocking. How dare the States insist that the Commonwealth comply with the constitution?

This entry was posted in Budget, Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to “… the wish list of a right wing think tank.”

  1. James B

    The guy who wrote the Guardian article claims he’s a conservative, I posted about it here:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/06/19/thursday-thread-june-19-2014/comment-page-2/#comment-1353308

    He is some sort of paid shill I think. Worth further investigation.

  2. C.L.

    Here’s a taste of what could be at risk:

    • Environment grants
    • Industry assistance
    • Funding to local government
    • Housing and homelessness support
    • Carer’s services
    • Financial counselling
    • Support for volunteer groups
    • Sports infrastructure and program grants

    LOL!

  3. Infidel Tiger

    If only it were true.

    I have no doubt that the spivs in Laberal are colluding to make sure these programs are not only funded, but receive an increase.

  4. Cold-Hands

    Mugged? Shot themselves in the foot’s more like it.

  5. tom

    James B, Mark Fletcher, a nobody Canberra blogger, is a conservative (“one of Australia’s very few non-partisan conservatives”) in the same way that nobody suburban Brisbane blogger Shitfer at the blog that no-one reads, Dogshit Today, is “conservative leaning” — that is, he makes the Greenfilth look the VRWC.

  6. Kingsley

    Can I be the first to say how much I like the “vibe” of this high court decision

  7. tom

    Ron Williams’ hillbilly litigious circus

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    Notice how seamlessly the fucktards transition from having their heads up somebody’s arse to blue-faced ad hominem abuse.

  8. cynical1

    “Social safety net”.

    Is that the “net” that sees disability pensioners financed to turn up fighting in Syria?

    Must have few holes in it….

  9. Old School Conservative

    The High Court has said, in effect, that Commonwealth spending must be supported by a head of legislative power under the Constitution.
    Any clear thinkers out there to help this muddle-heeded wombat? I need to know what a “head of legislative power” is. A follow up question – if it’s unconstitutional to give targeted funds to the states, surely no Federal laws could overturn that Constitution directive?

  10. James

    Will donate to fund a legal challenge to the NDIS.

  11. James B

    Old School Conservative: Have a read of our Constitution: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/

    It’s not that long, it’s possible to have a good read through the whole thing, beginning to end, in a relatively short period of time. It’s understandable to a layman, too.

    Pay attention to this part:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

    Section 51 outlines the areas where the Commonwealth (federal) government can legislate. The states can legislate in ANY area, except areas where the federal government has legislation already (which has to be supported by one of those heads of power).

    if it’s unconstitutional to give targeted funds to the states, surely no Federal laws could overturn that Constitution directive?

    Tied grants to the states are constitutional, because of section 96:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s96.html

    This decision means the federal government will have to do it that way if it wants to fund programs outside its spending power.

  12. Andrew

    Funny how this clown forgot to mention

    Ryan is a member of the Board of Directors of the Chifley Research Centre. He served the previous Labor Government as Policy Director to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and as Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to Minister Jenny Macklin.

    So as Policy Director, he was presumably up to his armpits in WRITING the failed legislation ruled unconstitutional, which has managed to fuck over ONE “conservative” programme and 444 green-left-commie scheme.

    It’s easy to see why so many progressives are happy today.

    It’s NOT easy to see why you’re one of them.

    It’s a victory against a government we would all like to see gone too.

    That’s the only line he got right.

  13. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    So as Policy Director, he was presumably up to his armpits in WRITING the failed legislation ruled unconstitutional, which has managed to fuck over ONE “conservative” programme and 444 green-left-commie scheme.

    So what you are saying, Andrew, is that he’s exactly as competent in his new job as he was working for the The Lying Slapper when she was in office?

  14. twostix

    It’s a victory against a government we would all like to see gone too.

    How is it a victory against this government when the law was supported by the last government?

    These people are insane.

  15. James B

    https://newmatilda.com/category/tags/mark-fletcher

    No, seriously, this Mark Fletcher guy is a full blown leftist authoritarian. He may actually be Stalinist. In many of these articles he argues in a very sneaky way against any form of protection for any right. He even says we need to adopt NSA’s PRISM surveillance program.

    He argues in favour of Andrew Bolt being convicted for his ‘white aboriginals’ article. He argues in favour of plain packaging, and more.

    Yet, he still calls himself a conservative.

    I’m going to have to try and get in contact with this fucking faggot, because he needs to admit what he is, a radical Stalinist.

  16. Infidel Tiger

    “Social safety net”.

    Would be better renamed the “social hammock tied between two palm tree. “

  17. Infidel Tiger

    Yet, he still calls himself a conservative.

    The left consider themselves conservative if they haven’t yet been charged with a sexual crime.

  18. H B Bear

    … Policy Director to Prime Minister Julia Gillard

    How embarrassment.

    Would you like to borrow a neck tie? The ladies loos are down the corridor and to the right.

  19. Andrew

    So what you are saying, Andrew, is that he’s exactly as competent in his new job as he was working for the The Lying Slapper when she was in office?

    Fair go, I’ve only accused him of being dishonest, dangerously stupid and a clown. It would be a bit of a stretch to say he’s no improvement on Gillardesque.

  20. CameronH

    This will really test the Abbott government. Do they really believe in small government and giving more power back to the states or are they just another bunch of hypocritical liars. I suspect the latter but I hope I am wrong. What better cover to get rid of all of these leftists sheltered workshops.

  21. johno

    Ron Williams’ hillbilly litigious circus is actually cover for an altogether more sinister cause: states’ rights activism

    ‘states’ rights activism’ a ‘sinister cause’.

    This bloke has no credibility. You can argue the toss about State’s rights, but to declare that it is a ‘sinister’ cause.

    He’s a troll in disguise, surely.

  22. tom

    Do they really believe in small government and giving more power back to the states or are they just another bunch of hypocritical liars. I suspect the latter but I hope I am wrong.

    Of course, you’re right, CameronH. On May 13, after talking about how much they wanted to reduce the size of government, the Liberal Socialists increased the runaway Liars Party budget by a further 5% to $415 billion, which is 75% bigger than the last Costello budget in 2007, retaining and committing to further increase all of the Liars $320 billion debt.

  23. .

    It’s easy to see why so many progressives are happy today. In mid-2014, almost one year into the reign of the most ideologically right-wing government Australia has seen

    You can tune out right about now.

    Abbott approved the last socialist Treasurer’s projected budget within 0.5% of forecasts.

  24. Aristogeiton

    James B
    #1353774, posted on June 20, 2014 at 3:13 pm
    [...]
    Tied grants to the states are constitutional, because of section 96:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s96.html

    This decision means the federal government will have to do it that way if it wants to fund programs outside its spending power.

    In fact, the effective domination of taxation was precisely because of the expansive reading given to s. 96 by the High Court. The States had argued in the first Uniform Tax Case that the scheme was effectively an unconstitutional delegation of exclusive legislative power.

    This Mark Fletcher is a prize moron. He says:

    Ever since the first Constitutional Convention in the 1800s, states (then the colonies) feared losing their power to a central, all-encompassing government. The provincialist forces who undermined the drafting of the Constitution gave us a lasting gift: the so-called “blame game” of federalism.

    Of course the States feared losing their power. That’s why we have a Federation. That is why the Constitution was written envisioning a limited Commonwealth Government. Far from creating the “blame game”, the drafting of the Constitution was aimed at giving the States and Commonwealth clearly defined areas of responsibility. It is the centralist tendency of the High Court which has given rise to the Vertical Fiscal Imbalance we see today. The States cannot raise sufficient revenue, and are dependent on the Commonwealth for funding. Since the Commonwealth does not deliver the majority of actual services (as opposed to welfare), they have a perfect patsy in the States when things go bad: it’s actually not their responsibility. Meanwhile, they bribe voters with sit-down stipends and misleading and expensive tax welfare churn.

    The worst thing we ever did as a nation was carrying the 1946 social services referendum.

  25. In the words of the immortal Nelson -

    HA ha.

  26. Aristogeiton

    johno
    #1353806, posted on June 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    [...]
    You can argue the toss about State’s rights[...].

    No you can’t. We have the Convention Debates and the Constitution itself. There is no way the exclusion of the States from revenue raising was envisioned or intended by the founders, or outlined in the document itself.

    If the States had been told “after 45 years you will effectively lose your power to raise taxation”, there is no way they would have federated.

  27. TJW

    I checked out Mr Williams website and he quotes from Senator Brandis in mid-2012:

    “When I was writing these remarks last night, I was drawing upon my own no doubt very limited intellectual resources in arriving at some conclusions about the proper interpretation of the Williams decision. So you can imagine how gratified I was this morning to read that a constitutional scholar of far greater eminence than my poor powers of constitutional scholarship, Professor Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney, had posted on the University of Sydney’s website a note about this legislation, under the heading ‘Parliament’s abject surrender to the executive’. Professor Twomey is obviously a woman who does not hide behind clouds of ambiguity. This is what Professor Anne Twomey, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, had to say about this bill in her article published today:

    Will this Bill, once enacted, be effective? It is really just setting up more stoushes with the High Court. What the Court stressed in the Pape case in 2009 and the Williams case last week, was that the Commonwealth must have a head of legislative power to support its spending. Where is the head of legislative power to support this Bill? Many of the programs listed in the draft regulations will fall under a head of legislative power, and it is conceivable (although contestable) that this Bill, once enacted, is enough to support them. But others will not be supported by a head of power and will remain invalid regardless of such a law. Hence, this Bill merely provides a fig-leaf for the Commonwealth’s legislative incompetence. It still leaves open the question of whether the Commonwealth has the legislative power to support the chaplaincy program along with many others.

    Finally, what is most extraordinary above all is the fact that the Commonwealth Government seems so determined not to listen to the High Court. It ignored the High Court’s judgment in the Pape case, merrily going on with funding of bodies and programs without sufficient legislative power. In response to the Williams case it simply enacts a law that attempts to restore what it wrongly believed to be its former powers, without actually listening to or taking to heart the High Court’s concerns about a democratic deficit, the important role of parliamentary scrutiny and the importance of federal considerations. This Bill, in a bald-faced manner, rejects the fundamental propositions put by the High Court in the Williams case. The Commonwealth is clearly asking for another clobbering by the Court.

    Those are the views of Professor Twomey, who arrived at the same conclusion I did. I am sure Professor Twomey’s words carry a lot more weight than mine on this matter. I do say with all due respect, and I know they were operating under great pressure of time, that those who drafted this law and advised the government that it was a sufficient legislative response to the Williams case do not understand what the Williams case decided.”

  28. amortiser

    Many years ago when Barry Cohen was Minister for the Arts in the Hawke government, I sent him a letter asking him to provide me with a reference to the section of the constitution under which his department spends money on the arts.

    He cam back with an admission that there was no specific power to spend money on the arts but there was an “implied nationhood power” and also the government had the power to make appropriations.

    I always thought that was a crock of an answer and now the High Court has struck them down. The High Court needs to go one further and rule that tied grants under s96 can only be used on matters relating to powers that the Commonwealth has under s51.

    We might then get a real opportunity to pare back the advance of government. All those areas listed as under threat is a good start though. We just now need a few cases to be run by people with standing to strike down these intrusive and wasteful programs.

  29. Yet, he still calls himself a conservative.

    I’m going to have to try and get in contact with this fucking faggot, because he needs to admit what he is, a radical Stalinist.

    If he has a Twitter account, JC would love to know about it, I’m sure.

  30. Aristogeiton

    amortiser
    #1353824, posted on June 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    [...]
    I always thought that was a crock of an answer and now the High Court has struck them down. The High Court needs to go one further and rule that tied grants under s96 can only be used on matters relating to powers that the Commonwealth has under s51.

    Too late for that. As above, that was already decided in the Uniform Tax Cases. To our ruin.

  31. And here we are, JC:

    Mark Fletcher

    Mark Fletcher is a Canberra-based blogger and policy wonk who writes about conservatism, atheism, and popular culture. Read his blog at OnlyTheSangfroid. He tweets at @ClothedVillainy

  32. .

    Too late for that. As above, that was already decided in the Uniform Tax Cases. To our ruin.

    So there is no way to challenge spending not specifically mentioned under s51?

  33. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1353844, posted on June 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    [...]
    So there is no way to challenge spending not specifically mentioned under s51?

    The terms and/or conditions of the grant don’t have to be supported by any head of Commonwealth power. This, and VFI, mean that the Commonwealth have influence in areas far outside their enumerated heads of power.

  34. James B

    Too late for that. As above, that was already decided in the Uniform Tax Cases. To our ruin.

    The High Court can change their mind, and they should.

    Hopefully this is a turning point. This is the first time for a very long time that ANYTHING the federal government does has been ruled unconstitutional.

  35. Aristogeiton

    James B
    #1353852, posted on June 20, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    Too late for that. As above, that was already decided in the Uniform Tax Cases. To our ruin.

    The High Court can change their mind, and they should.

    Hopefully this is a turning point.

    They can, but they won’t. This decision just rejects a new and unlawful power-grab by the Commonwealth. If the High Court recanted on s. 96, then current taxation arrangements would probably be invalid, and most tied grants would also be invalid. The Federation would be thrown into absolute disarray. It would be bedlam.

  36. goatjam

    Yet, he still calls himself a conservative.

    Yes. He would be like all those “Liberal” voters who apprently frequent the QandA audience no doubt.

  37. .

    Good.

    The “libertarian project” would be dedicated to funding legal challenges such as the above.

  38. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1353866, posted on June 20, 2014 at 4:27 pm
    Good.

    The “libertarian project” would be dedicated to funding legal challenges such as the above.

    Godspeed.

  39. Phillip

    Prof Anne Toomey just on The Contrarians on Fox news speaking about how this decision opens the way for a new push towards real Federalism which is the most economically efficient way to run government.

  40. Rabz

    Mark Fletcher is a Canberra-based tax hoover who writes about rice pudding, conservatism, atheism and popular culture from an extreme left Hi-Alanist perspective. Read his blog at OnlyTheInsane. He twats at @ClothEaredNumpty

  41. The “libertarian project” would be dedicated to funding legal challenges such as the above.

    I’m ok with that.

  42. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1353917, posted on June 20, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    Mark Fletcher is a Canberra-based tax hoover who writes about rice pudding, conservatism, atheism and popular culture from an extreme left Hi-Alanist perspective. Read his blog at OnlyTheInsane. He twats at @ClothEaredNumpty

    What is a high-Alanist?

  43. H B Bear

    It is hard to know who suffers greater reputational damage when Teh Grauniad publishes dross from unemployed journalists freelancers and basement bloggers.

    At least there is some hope for the semenblogger when they cut off his Disability pension.

  44. What is a high-Alanist?

    Pretend conservatives who ring Alan Jones – ‘Hi Alan’ i’m an LNP supporter but…etc

  45. Aristogeiton

    Carpe Jugulum
    #1353941, posted on June 20, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    What is a high-Alanist?

    Pretend conservatives who ring Alan Jones – ‘Hi Alan’ i’m an LNP supporter but…etc

    Ah. Hi-Alanist. Got it.

  46. Sally Moore

    James
    “Will donate to fund a legal challenge to the NDIS.”

    Do you want to start a crowd sourcing funding thing for this? I am serious. Will contribute some $$$ if you can get up the fund-raiser system and ensure that the money isn’t miss spent.

  47. .

    Seems like my idea has more viability than I first thought.

    Dot Point Plan.

    Redacted from libertarian project

    In addition to supporting the IPA and LDP as a rolled gold member:
    (With some plans still under wraps, certain items have been edited out)
    There should be a libertarian charity which supports people to minimise the intrusion of Government from their lives, with zero financial or in kind cost to the user. Examples may be services to allow people to minimise tax, create trusts to minimise tax and protect their assets, assistance in trivial cases of prosecution and to offer such assistance to the point where prosecution of such cases becomes so burdensome on the legal system such laws will be repealed. Other assistance may be involve issues such as information concerning importing to lower tax costs. Other projects would include legal defence of private property rights, free speech, a think tank with a academic journal and a magazine like journal, advocacy of the removal of the most inefficient and inequitable taxes and fines, the charity would encourage gun ownership, providing legal advice, training and measures to cut costs for individuals trying to acquire firearms, and also facilitate the ownership of many categories of firearm. The charity would endeavour to disseminate libertarian literature, such as Atlas Shrugged or Free to Choose. The charity would have discretionary power to financially support the LDP, Aust. Tea Party or specific political campaigns (i.e, “Put the Greens Last”). The charity would have general aims of supporting privatisation, agorism and private provision of public goods like security, investigation and arbitration services. The charity would also support private philanthropy, such as the Human Capital Project. The charity would run parallel programmes to the Gideon’s programme. A copy of Atlas Shrugged and a copy of Free to Choose (for example) would be distributed for free in hotel rooms, etc.
    Further aim of legal services: to retain constitutional rights, protect civil liberties gained since Federation, to regain common law rights grandfathered just before Federation, protect private property rights and to find legitimate legal grounds to curtail Government action and agenda to restrict overall Government spending to 15% of GDP.
    A previous summary of my idea:
    This is why libertarians, free marketers, lovers of liberty, assorted right minded right wingers and righteous conservatives, need to form our own version of civil disobedience.
    The key is legal tax resistance and minimisation. A second pillar is to encourage people not to take welfare, and institutions not to take taxpayer supported funding (like churches). A third is to educate the public through evangelism like putting a copy of Atlas Shrugged and Free to Choose in every hotel room and doctor’s surgery and tyre shop. A fourth is to change language – TAXPAYER’S MONEY – let there be no illusion for low information voters that THE GOVERNMENT has its own funds for disposal. A fifth pillar is to initiate legal defence and challenges to petty imposition of fines, regulation or against minor misdemeanors and rules shackling development of businesses or the family home etc.

  48. wreckage

    High Alanist, as distinct from Low Alanist.

    High Alanists call Alan Jones but always insist on talking in exquisitely-crafted Latin.

  49. wreckage

    Dot; there absolutely should be a Libertarian fund devoted to defending citizens from abuse of power and to challenging unconstitutional laws.

    It should stay well away from edge cases and focus clearly on the real dirt and blatant disregard for the (properly understood) Rule of Law.

    Make it so. I’m broke but I will donate.

  50. wreckage

    I’d ditch Atlas Shrugged in favour of The Road to Serfdom, or The Constitution of Liberty, but it’s still a decent idea.

  51. High Alanist, as distinct from Low Alanist.

    High Alanists call Alan Jones but always insist on talking in exquisitely-crafted Latin.

    No no no no no – no Latin involved.

    But they DO insist on incense and vestments. It’s very offputting.

  52. I’d ditch Atlas Shrugged in favour of The Road to Serfdom, or The Constitution of Liberty, but it’s still a decent idea.

    FIFY

    I tried to read The Fountainhead last weekend. Gordon Bennett. There’s only so much of one woman’s rape fantasies I can stand. Apparently the way to a libertarian woman’s heart is thus:

    1. Be raped by a ranga on your summer holidays.
    2. Continue being raped by him later on.
    3. Marry the ranga’s arch-enemy, who you don’t love, and let him have meaningless sex with you.
    4. Let the arch-enemy pimp you out to a rich dude, who very conventionally decides not to rape you and instead wait till you are divorced and married to him.
    5. Aid and abet the ranga to blow up a building.
    6. Divorce the rich dude, and marry the ranga.

    I know that the course of true love never did run smooth, but this is ridiculous.

  53. [forgive me my blockquote ... it was all that ire]

  54. This is why libertarians, free marketers, lovers of liberty, assorted right minded right wingers and righteous conservatives, need to form our own version of civil disobedience.

    Now you’re talking my language

    Sally Moore

    #1353978, posted on June 20, 2014 at 5:54 pm - has the right idea, maybe crowd sourcing is the way to go.

  55. Tel

    The High Court needs to go one further and rule that tied grants under s96 can only be used on matters relating to powers that the Commonwealth has under s51.

    Very good suggestion, it would be perfectly consistent and sensible.

    I can’t believe we have journalists openly advocating illegal activity, not over minor matters, but to the tune of billions of dollars theft. I thought one of the limits of freedom of speech was encouraging others to commit crimes?

  56. Sally Moore

    Dot point :

    It’s looking too all-encompassing, prescriptive and emotive. Keep it simple and objective – based on commonly accepted broad libertarian/classic principles. Go back to the foundations/basics/classics – Hayek, Adam Smith, Bastiat etc. Not specifically agorist or anything.

    My thought is that a fund with a specific narrow purpose (ie to fund court challenges of breaches of the Constitution) would be more successful than a broad “Libertarian fund”, and would be less likely to get hijacked and less divisive. Potential donors would have more trust in something with a very narrow and specific objective. Apart from anything else, a clear narrow purpose would make it easier to make decisions as to which project(s) to tackle (with what will likely be very limited funds), will make it easier to assess results and ensure accountability (and minimise hobby-horse projects, fraud, the diversion of funds – we don’t want this to be a slush fund or an HSU! ).
    A good name? “The Bryan Pape Fund”!
    It would of course have to be a properly legally constituted body (and preferably tax-deductible). I am all for it if someone can set something up with the right constitution, board and governance etc.

  57. 2dogs

    The Carbon Tax scraped under the foreign affairs power as an implementation of the Kyoto Protocol obligations.

    Now if the executive were to withdraw from that treaty…

  58. Empire

    Since the term was coined, the man himself, Alan “frack no” Jones has outed himself as a hialanist. Who’d'athunkit?

  59. .

    My thought is that a fund with a specific narrow purpose (ie to fund court challenges of breaches of the Constitution) would be more successful than a broad “Libertarian fund”

    There is no reason different sub funds and specific donations could not be made.

  60. Sally Moore

    …..and I should have added, if this “person” can also set up the crowd-sourcing funding system (and other funding systems of course, for people with cheque books etc). I would love to do this but am too busy working/running a business. But it’s a great idea.
    Yoo hoo…….all you “Ideas Entrepreneurs” and free-market activists where-ever you are, here’s your big opportunity to “make your name” and help create a better catallaxy!

  61. Peter from SA

    [forgive me my blockquote ... it was all that ire]

    ha Philippa … that was very funny. Someone recommended The Fountainhead to me a month or two ago when Sinc had a Randian thread of some kind. Yes, the rape fantasies etc perhaps were exciting for 1940s suburban folk … but I’ve been halfway through it for a couple of weeks now and can only take a few pages at a time.

    I looked at Ayn Rands wiki page and it seems she was prescribed speed, and took it for many years as a counter to “lack of energy” or something … that would explain much of the waffle.
    *apologies for derailing the thread* please carry on.

  62. Peter from SA

    Oh, and Philippa: thanks for spoling the rest of the book for me. I can now spare myself the next 400p and instead read something meaningful and worthwhile, like … ummm … I might have to get back to you on that …

  63. .

    Peter

    I recommend this non fiction work partly written by Rand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal

    This from 1959 – an interview with Rand.

    Notice how subversively left wing Mike Wallace was in 1959. Objectivism “would strike at the very roots of society…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o

  64. Peter from SA

    hey dot thanks for that link. I am fully in support of Rand’s philosophy I just question elements of her literary efforts.

    anyway, this is fascinating, I will watch the rest of this. cheers.

  65. sdfc

    Many of these programs exist because a Labor Governments created them. Will a Liberal Government protect them, or use this as an opportunity to shut them down?

    Abbott and Hockey are centralists, they love having their fingers in State affairs.

    Hockey is sick of the States treating the Commonwealth like a honey pot, or so he says. He is confused about just who is the Federation parasite.

  66. .

    I love how Wallace is blazing up a darb on TV.

    sdfc

    Of course the feds are parasites.

    If I was an ALP member I’d be raging against big government. Why the hell do we have a Federal Department of Education!?

    Sheer bloody madness.

  67. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    It’s fun when lefties are hit in the face with the hot projectile chunderings of reality.

  68. sdfc

    Why the hell do we have a Federal Department of Education!?

    To dole out money and employ bureaucrats and clerks as far as I know.

  69. Oh, and Philippa: thanks for spoling the rest of the book for me. I can now spare myself the next 400p and instead read something meaningful and worthwhile, like … ummm … I might have to get back to you on that …

    Peter, I would normally apologise, but FFS, haven’t you already flipped to the end to see what happened? By about halfway through, I was simply turning the pages over and intermittently yawning.

    Go and read The Road to Serfdom. Much shorter, and it has a great car chase at the end.

  70. .

    http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X

    How An Economy Grows And Why It Crashes

    Understanding how all the pieces of an economy fit together can be a daunting task—especially when the experts can’t seem to do it. But when you get down to the basics, it is much easier than you may think. How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes uses illustrations, humor, and accessible storytelling to take economics off its lofty shelf and put it back on the kitchen table where it belongs.

    This straightforward story of fish, nets, saving, and lending exposes the gaping holes that lie hidden in our global economic conversation. With wit and humor, the Schiffs explain the roots of economic growth, the importance of trade, savings, and risk, the source of inflation, the effects of interest rates and government stimulus, the destructive nature of consumer credit, and many other economic principles that are so frequently discussed and so poorly understood.

    The story may appear simple on the surface but it will leave you with a powerful understanding of How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

  71. wreckage

    I think the second fight scene in The Road to Serfdom was one of the best I have ever read.

  72. Peter from SA

    I love how Wallace is blazing up a darb on TV.

    Dot … I did watch all of that. As you say Wallace really lights up. Even better at the 8 min mark you suddenly get a shot of a massive crucifix hanging around his neck … it comes back towards the end. At least she got a platform to explain herself … I guess it was pretty much live and they didn’t know how to selectively edit back then.

    But her pupils give a lot away: they are like frisbees, darting around a lot. Maybe that gave her a certain clarity of thought, who knows.

  73. Peter from SA

    Philippa: I’m kind of happy about that … I don’t think I’m missing much although I did enjoy aspects of Rand’s characters. I’m one of those annoying people that has several books on the go line-by-line and finishes few of them.

    Go and read The Road to Serfdom. Much shorter, and it has a great car chase at the end. Thanks … Christ this is turning into a book club experience … And I’m giving out non-fiction tips on the other thread. (memo to self: don’t become a literary wanker. whoops too late for some …)

  74. Peter from SA

    and Dot: Alan Greenspan was Rand’s co-author ???

  75. Old School Conservative

    Thanks James B.
    The links were exactly what I needed. Now to work out why the Federal Government didn’t use s96 in the first place.

  76. Richard

    Might be a bit premature to read too many far-reaching consequences into this decision. The whole body of law stemming from the Franklin Dam case over the last 30 years establishes a virtually unassailable means for the Commonwealth to by-pass the apparent limitations of S.51. The Government simply finds some kind of international treaty or protocol that concerns the area of interest and then signs it. Result? Instant Commonwealth head of power.

  77. Rabz

    High Alanist:

    A lefty who ingests a whole bunch of Mary Jane and then rings Alan Jones.

    “High, Alan!”. :?

  78. .

    Then external affairs and corporations power decisions are travesties. The WorkChoices case is an eminent example of this.

  79. The Federation would be thrown into absolute disarray. It would be bedlam.

    You say it like its a bad thing.

  80. I think the second fight scene in The Road to Serfdom was one of the best I have ever read.

    And it was amazing, the way that Serfdom turned out to be a projection of Hayek’s evil side …

    Damn! another spoiler!

  81. Peter from SA

    Damn! another spoiler!

    Thanks Philippa. Might as well watch Game of Thrones (again).

  82. amortiser

    They can, but they won’t. This decision just rejects a new and unlawful power-grab by the Commonwealth. If the High Court recanted on s. 96, then current taxation arrangements would probably be invalid, and most tied grants would also be invalid. The Federation would be thrown into absolute disarray. It would be bedlam.

    Something has to be done about what has developed. This has developed like tipsy over time. It is logical that the Commonwealth provide funding under s96 for only things it has power to do. The Federal Government may provide tied grants to the states because the states are in a better position to efficiently provide the service. How can the Commonwealth logically direct the States do perform functions that it does not have the power to do itself. Surely the concept of delegation applies.

    They can, but they won’t. This decision just rejects a new and unlawful power-grab by the Commonwealth. If the High Court recanted on s. 96, then current taxation arrangements would probably be invalid, and most tied grants would also be invalid. The Federation would be thrown into absolute disarray. It would be bedlam.
    The constitution should logically be read as a coherent whole. To legislate in areas it has no specific power to contradicts the entire purpose of the document. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the Federal Government. When it does things that it has no power to do it is acting illegally. It is acting like a common criminal.

    I dream of the prospect of having a referendum to include penalties for those who violate the constitution. This would concentrate their minds. At the moment the constitution is regarded as an administrative inconvenience rather than the law by which the Executive has to abide. We are all the poorer as a consequence.

  83. JohnA

    2dogs #1354044, posted on June 20, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    The Carbon Tax scraped under the foreign affairs power as an implementation of the Kyoto Protocol obligations.

    Now if the executive were to withdraw from that treaty…

    Hmm, IIRC, the Protocol has expired and not been replaced. It was supposed to happen at Hopehagen, but they just didn’t quite manage it…

    Very interesting – maybe some good things come out of the High Court after all.

    I have been reminding my fellow Christians that the chaplaincy program might have been “the leak in the dyke” that opened up the flood-gates of Constitutional restraint.

  84. brc

    In mid-2014, almost one year into the reign of the most ideologically right-wing government Australia has seen, and little more than a month after a Federal Budget that set out to destroy Australia’s social safety net

    If only. Neither very ideologically pure, and the budget tosses out more money to the welfare state.

    But thanks for trying.

    I can’t wait to see arts grant recipients marching next to school chaplains demanding their taxpayer cash back.

    Heres a great idea people. Make something I want to buy and you can gladly have my cash. I’ll hand it over with a smile. And you’ll actually go to bed realising you’re doing something worthwhile, rather than that empty feeling of spending your days in pointless activity.

  85. Squirrel

    Oh dear, let’s just hope that the third item in the “what’s at risk” list doesn’t revive the cunning plans to put local government in the constitution – that Labor/Green breeding ground and finishing school needs to be cleaned up, not given extra clout in a pincer movement against the States.

  86. Aristogeiton

    amortiser
    #1354299, posted on June 20, 2014 at 10:17 pm
    [...]
    Something has to be done about what has developed. This has developed like tipsy over time. It is logical that the Commonwealth provide funding under s96 for only things it has power to do. The Federal Government may provide tied grants to the states because the states are in a better position to efficiently provide the service. How can the Commonwealth logically direct the States do perform functions that it does not have the power to do itself.

    It’s a good point. Unfortunately, s. 96 is very widely drafted. The state of the Federation, particularly since the Uniform Tax Cases, is certainly not what the founders intended.

    The constitution should logically be read as a coherent whole. To legislate in areas it has no specific power to contradicts the entire purpose of the document. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the Federal Government. When it does things that it has no power to do it is acting illegally. It is acting like a common criminal.

    I agree.

    At the moment the constitution is regarded as an administrative inconvenience rather than the law by which the Executive has to abide. We are all the poorer as a consequence.

    I agree.

  87. the reign of the most ideologically right-wing government Australia has seen,

    What absolute bollocks. If they were extreme right wing, by definition they would scrap public education and public health, just for starters. As public services, they are by definition socialized. Far left, by definition, would disallow private education and private health.

    Thus, by definition, the Abbott government is centrist, not even on the right of the spectrum. Failure to rescind the national curriculum, which imposes socialized education on private schools, renders this government to be on the left side of the ledger.

    That just shows how extreme left the mouth-frothers are.

  88. .

    That just shows how extreme left the mouth-frothers are.

    Correct. Abbott passed their forecast budget within 0.5% of forecasts.

  89. Leo G

    It’s curious that Labor’s think tank professes to base its progressivism on Robert Nesbit’s philosophical premises:- the value of the past; the nobility of Western civilization; the worth of economic and technology growth; faith in reason and knowledge obtained by reason; and the intrinsic worth of life on earth.
    The CRC should check its position of its own camp followers and get its bearings before it claims to see the “far right” from a high position at the summit of progressivism.
    I think the think tank has tanked.

Comments are closed.