Guest post from David Leyonhjelm: Marriage is a private matter

From The Fin Review.

Most Australians are horrified when they read stories detailing how, in some countries, parents arrange their children’s marriages and then get mighty stroppy when the kids won’t play along. The explanation for this is simple: one of the main reasons for our contemporary understanding of marriage is recognition of the importance of love and affection. The modern ‘marriage for love’ represents a decisive rejection of parental and social control over individual romantic choice.

However, before we Australians start getting too smug about all our marital freedom, we need to remember that, as things stand, we let the government regulate the gender of the person we’re supposed to marry. I struggle to see how this is much different from parents calling up a marriage broker and choosing their children’s spouses for them.

Sure, arranged marriages may have been the norm in the past, but they’re not now, and that’s because the definition of marriage has changed. In my view, it’s time for parliament to catch up with other changes currently taking place in society. In last December’s case overruling the ACT’s same sex marriage legislation, the High Court stressed the extent to which ‘marriage’ in Australia is a term of law, not one of morality or religion. The Court rejected the opportunity to give marriage an originalist interpretation, frozen in time and therefore incapable of reworking by Parliament.

This is important because those who oppose same-sex marriage often attempt to fix in law a particular definition of marriage, like trapping an insect in amber. That is not, despite popular perceptions to the contrary, how law works. Legal definitions undergo a process of evolution, sometimes rapid, at the hands of the courts or Parliament. Often the two work in concert.

Throughout history, human societies have had every form of marriage imaginable (including same-sex marriage), and a couple have had no conception of it at all. Even within opposite-sex marriage, the definitional differences over time are pervasive. It took until the 20th century for the status of a married woman in developed common law countries to surpass that of a married Roman woman in the first century AD, for example. The historical diversity is staggering and occasionally frightening, because it then leads to angry debates over which sort of marriage is ‘best’.

Another important lesson, this time from Roman law, is that marriage is a private matter (it’s part of private law, not public law, in civilian countries). The state simply provides a legal framework, particularly in the event of divorce or intestacy. It is difficult to resist the argument that defining the gender of people getting married is intrusive as well as silly and petty. Laws defining marriage in that way are akin to once-common laws that forbade the marriage of Jews and non-Jews, Protestants and Catholics, and blacks and whites.

The simple fact is that Parliament can change the definition of marriage if it wants to; indeed, Parliament (and other authorities) have been changing it for centuries. Importantly, widening the definition to allow marriage equality will do existing forms of marriage no harm, just as no harm was done when Jews could finally marry non-Jews, Protestants could marry Catholics, and blacks could marry whites.

Widening the definition of marriage beyond the union of a man and woman is also necessary now that the High Court has confirmed some people are neither male nor female but of non-specific sex. These people are currently prevented from entering into marriage with anyone.

Of course, while those who have a particular view of marriage should not seek to impose that view on others, neither should it be necessary to approve of other people’s marriage choices. Who hasn’t met a friend’s spouse and thought, ‘what does s/he see in him/her?’ If we accept the view that marriage is a private matter between consenting adults, the only choice we each need to make is whether to participate and which variety of marriage to embrace. And for those who perform marriages, religious or civil, there should be no obligation to marry those of whom they disapprove.

It is much better to adopt a deregulatory rather than a regulatory approach, and not just to marriage.

If there are to be ‘definitions’, let them be drafted widely, facilitating individual choice. Letting the state tell people whom they may or may not marry represents the worst sort of ‘minding other people’s business’; if parents are not supposed to regulate their children’s marriages, then it seems perverse to let the government do it instead.

Persuading Parliament to deregulate marriage is something I intend to pursue.

David Leyonhjelm is Liberal Democrats’ Senator for NSW

This entry was posted in Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

1,186 Responses to Guest post from David Leyonhjelm: Marriage is a private matter

1 3 4 5
  1. candy

    Tanya’s bill now? hehehe David L is on a steep learning curve methinks

    Maybe he’s just dazzled by her charm and grace? Mrs David L better keep a close eye on him. :)

  2. JC

    JC, you’re a stupid, ignorant fuck.

    Actually that’s what you are Specter. We’re talking about David L meeting with Slobbersek and you think we’re discussing SSM, you confused, pretentious dunce.

    I’m “kneepadding” because I didn’t shit my pants when the LDP senator met with a member of the shadow cabinet over a policy they both champion?

    Well yes, you are kneepadding. There’s no reason to meet up with her. None, which was my humble point. It’s disgusting and if he had any sense he would have at the very least refused to have a pic taken with that slime ball.

    So far as my relationship with my wife is concerned, it’s a damn sight better than the one you seem to enjoy with your own.

    You wish. As I said, get back to discussing 13th C marriage practices, you boring pretentious git.

    I know it’s surprising to you that I might respect her intelligence and opinions, since you seem to have so low an opinion of your own wife’s.

    And I bet yours secretly thinks you’re a crushing bore. FFS man 13 century Danish marriage practice. Talk about something a little more interesting, you clown.

    Imagine

    “Good evening Darling. how was your day?”

    ” Ummm. You’re home early. good thanks”.

    ” During Dinner I’d like to discuss what the Danes were up to in the second half of the 13 th C with respect to marriage”.

    ” Interesting, Ummmmm Okay”.

  3. Infidel Tiger

    Tanya’s bill now? hehehe David L is on a steep learning curve methinks

    He’s been played like a doe eyed rent boy first night on the job.

    He gets all the flak and none of the credit.

  4. JC

    He’s been played like a doe eyed rent boy first night on the job.

    Pathetic, isn’t it? He’s a vet, so he ought to know what happens when you pick up a flea ridden mangy dog.

  5. Aristogeiton

    Lol. JC, you’re a fucking dimwit. As you were.

  6. Aristogeiton

    Also, JC, you dimwitted fuck, as was clear from my comment, my wife brought it up because she had been reading about the subject, not I. Fuck you’re just not that bright, are you? And seems a darn sight better than a begrudging “pass the chicken”, and “I can’t tell you how my day was because I think you’re too stupid to understand”.

  7. jupes

    Hilarious. Ari and JC’s stoush is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.

  8. JC

    Also, JC, you dimwitted fuck, as was clear from my comment, my wife brought it up because she had been reading about the subject, not I.

    Oh okay then, so you’re both crushing bores. That’s compatibility i guess.

    Fuck you’re just not that bright, are you?

    I get by.

    And seems a darn sight better than a begrudging “pass the chicken”, and “I can’t tell you how my day was because I think you’re too stupid to understand”.

    True. I’d rather be discussing 13 century Danish SSM. Anyone would.

    But here’s the point Ari Specter, you asshat. Every comment bar yours is showing some degree of disgust with David meeting Slobbersek. Who made you his gatekeeper?

  9. .

    Fisky
    #1384062, posted on July 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm
    Tanya Plibersek
    The more supporters of marriage equality the better. It was great to talk to David Leyonhjelm – Liberal Democrats Senator NSW about my bill for marriage equality.

    So it’s Tanya’s bill for gay marriage eh? There had better be a freedom of conscience clause going in the Senate verions.

    She could be bullshitting. I spoke to some Young Labour fuckwit about the republic and he claimed it was “their model”, not the model voted on at the constitutional convention.

  10. JC

    STFU Jupes. After your recent performance you shouldn’t be commenting at all.

  11. JC

    The pic with David and Slobbersek has a disturbing resemblance to the iron pact pic.

    Recall?

  12. Gab

    David L looks decidedly uneasy in the photo. Clearly the slobberbitch is using him for publicity.

  13. Matthew

    He’s been played like a doe eyed rent boy first night on the job.

    Indeed! Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    He gets all the flak and none of the credit.

    You could say that he is taking it like a man. Not a heterosexual man but still…

  14. wreckage

    The fact that he looks uncomfortable is really actually a very good sign.

    A tiny itsy bitsy spark of hope is kindled, then squashed again when instead of insisting for full elgal recognition of unconventional couples, he’s just going to insist the State be blind to the partners in a Marriage. Except when it isn’t. Which is most of the time, actually.

  15. candy

    Come on JC, David L is just a new senator vulnerable to fame and photos and media stories.

    Ah .. it’s natural to get a little sidelined by such attention. I don’t like his views on SSM and open borders at all, mind you, they are Green policies and wrong. But he’s just new to this fame thing.

  16. .

    Read the comments. What a hoot! The left are shit scared of David L. Some say he is an Abbott plant, others say he’s a swivel eyed loon, others say he’s not even a libertarian…

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/14/same-sex-marriage-senator-pushes-conscience-vote

  17. JC

    Candy,

    His immigration policy is libertarian. It needs to be rounded around the edges such as dismantling the welfare state first though.

    Okay, he supports SSM, which isn’t the end of the world because the current state of marriage is basically fucked. In any event it’s LDP policy and was taken to the last election so David isn’t surprising anyone with it.

    He has absolutely no business meeting with that slimeball. None. I’m hugely disappointed.

  18. JC

    Read the comments. What a hoot! The left are shit scared of David L. Some say he is an Abbott plant, others say he’s a swivel eyed loon, others say he’s not even a libertarian…

    Which is IT’s and my point. There’s never a reason to make nice with the Left. Ever!

  19. JC

    Dot

    Face facts. David’s one hope is to peel away disaffected libs and possibly a handful of Liar Right. There’s next to no chance of ever getting a single vote from the scumbags who support Slobberfest. They hate him and would think even less of him for succumbing to getting a pic taken with that monster.

  20. Infidel Tiger

    He should have agreed to the photo op on the condition that he could smoke during it.

  21. wreckage

    Point is, to the left his leftish social policies only rate as normal non-satanic human behaviour… but his economic views are way, way worse than his social views are good. Do not for one second underestimate just how much the left hates pretty much any form of free market.

  22. .

    Read some stuff in the news and you find out the fears above are unfounded:

    1. Pilbersek’s bill is different to Leyonhjelm’s.

    2. Leyonhjelm’s will simply remove to “a man and a woman” and backstop marriage celebrants from being shanghaied into marrying people they don’t want to.

    Sources – SBS and Sydney Star Observer.

    SBS – News, 15 JUL 2014 – 7:28AM
    Same-sex marriage garners growing support among Aussies: poll

    SSO: EXCLUSIVE: PLIBERSEK STILL WED TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY PLANS DESPITE DOUBLE UP WITH NEW SENATOR, BENEDICT BROOK — JULY 16, 2014

  23. Gab

    I get the impression David had no choice in the matter as it looks to be just a quick passing shot.
    Pity he didn’t have a rifle on his shoulder.

  24. candy

    His immigration policy is libertarian. It needs to be rounded around the edges such as dismantling the welfare state first though.

    We’ve been through this JC and welfare for immigrants won’t be dismantled. David L needs to know that.
    My thoughts are that he is making a name for himself as a senator, as a leader of a party, via the issue of same sex marriage. A signature policy.

  25. JC

    Dot

    It doesn’t matter if David’s bill is different to Slobber’s. There was never any fucking reason in the world to have a meeting with her. In fact he ought to cold cock Shane Wand in the corridor next time they cross paths. :-) .

    I get the impression David had no choice in the matter as it looks to be just a quick passing shot.

    No, he could have asked there be no pics taken, but he obviously didn’t.

    As I said earlier, there would be next to no chance Bob Day would be seen in a meeting room with that arsehole.

  26. JC

    No more fighting Ari. Let me bask in the glory of Bank of America’s beat this evening.

    They just reported earnings of 41 cents 12 cents over the top of the whisper numbers. I had this stock from Friday too. I’ve made some great money with banks this week and there will be a no stoush policy instituted for 24 hours.

    Fucking amazing beat. I was expecting 28 cents and these fuckers rolled in with 41 cents. Heroic!

  27. JC

    For the next 24 hours David is allowed to meet with Tubbsie Milne, Adam Ant and even Shane Wand. He won’t hear a fucking peep out of me during this time.

  28. JC

    Fme , they even beat estimates on the revenue number.

  29. Gab

    For the next 24 hours David is allowed to meet with Tubbsie Milne, Adam Ant and even Shane Wand. He won’t hear a fucking peep out of me during this time.

    You had a good day trading? Don;t look at XON then.

  30. Gab

    oops, I missed your comment at 9.15 before I posted, JC.

  31. JC

    Gab

    the position in XON is an always position. In any event I have a great average on it after I sold some a few weeks back.

    BofA is a trading position. In any event a 24 hour no stoush policy has voted on inn the senate.

  32. JC

    Gab

    Janet Yellen tried to kill social media and biotech stocks in her testimony last night. How dare the stupid bint discuss market sectors. How dare she.

    Watch

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiPnGek0-Wo

  33. Gab

    Janet Yellen tried to kill social media and biotech stocks

    She unfriended biotechs? What a nasty biotch.

  34. Peter

    Tanya’s bill now? hehehe David L is on a steep learning curve methinks </blockquote

    He’s been played like a doe eyed rent boy first night on the job.

    One hopes that he is not so impressed with his own cleverness that he end up being played by those that he thought he was playing. I say that because, despite his poor start, there I things that I would like to see him achieve.

    But if things do not go well he will be faced with the prospect of voting against his own policies, or voting for them in the knowledge that the conditions required to make them actually work, will not be in place.

  35. Matthew

    I’ll make a prediction right here. David Leyonhjelm is going to be the politician of ‘privatise the profits, socialise the costs’. In other words a big businesses politician that wants to stick it to the taxpayer.

  36. .

    Matthew
    #1384252, posted on July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    I’ll make a prediction right here. David Leyonhjelm is going to be the politician of ‘privatise the profits, socialise the costs’. In other words a big businesses politician that wants to stick it to the taxpayer.

    Matthew.

    For a self described purist libertarian, your talking point is unreconstructed hard left pap.

    A few pointers:

    David was a driving force behind getting the LDP to lower its tax rate and raise the TFT in the tax policy. The LDP also wants to end corporate welfare and abolish taxes that hit the poor the hardest, like excise taxes and payroll taxes. The LDP also support a balance budget and his alternative budget cut 37 bn off the budget, fiscal rectitude in little over a term of government and had immediate tax cuts and flattening of the tax structure.

    I really can’t understand where you are basing these criticisms/predicitons from.

  37. Matthew

    Dot, let’s see actual policies. So far I am not impressed. The immigration policy has more holes than a leaky boat from Indonesia.

  38. Leyonhjelm’s will simply remove to “a man and a woman”

    But not remove the condition that it consist only of two persons? Gee, he’s like an interfering parent planning his/her child’s arranged marriage.

  39. Gab
    Gab #1384272, posted on July 16, 2014 at 10:22 pm DOT Just listening to Leyonhjelm on 2GB. He spoke about his gay “marriage” bill and included that religious and civil celebrants would be exempted but he made no such guarantee for businesses.

    I never said it was in THAT legislation.

    Why not? He exempts celebrants why not business people in the same bill?

  40. .

    In this instance I don’t believe I have the capacity or right to speak for the Senator. I’d drop him a line if I were you asking for such a variation to the bill.

    Visit the LDP or the David Leyonhjelm Politician FB pages.

  41. twostix

    It’s still a marriage “between two people”.

    Ahahaha.
    So it still arbitrarily “discriminates”, expands the state and sets up bakers and churches to be harrassed and persecuted by the state as the are everywhere else it’s passed.

    But he’s a pop-culture icon now with people that will never, ever vote LDP so let’s hear it: LDP Mission Accomplished! You’re cool for a minute with the left fellas! Woo! Thanks for the attempted expansion of state power that even Labor didn’t dare try on!

  42. JC

    I’ll make a prediction right here. David Leyonhjelm is going to be the politician of ‘privatise the profits, socialise the costs’. In other words a big businesses politician that wants to stick it to the taxpayer.

    Bullshit.

  43. Matthew

    Bullshit

    Talk to me in three years.

    That’s what predictions are about.

  44. Aristogeiton

    Ok. How about you fuck off hence and come back in three years?

  45. .

    You’re gonna look really dumb in three years, boy.

    I’m bookmarking this for posterity.

  46. Matthew

    Ok. How about you fuck off hence and come back in three years?

    Why don’t you fuck off, internet tough guy?

  47. Aristogeiton

    I’m a man son, just like my father. I’m not some lying little prick with an implacable hatred for the LDP.

  48. Aristogeiton

    Misread as “tough boy”, so strike that first part.

  49. wreckage

    Did someone say internet tough guy? DO MY PEOPLE NEED ME?

  50. JC

    You have to start being nice to people, Ari. Abusing people because they disagree with you is not the way of the Cat. You’re a newbie and possibly come here from Bolt’s blog. There’s a way of doing things differently here. Try and be nice.

  51. Yobbo

    Is there any bullshit Matthew won’t spout in his eternal quixotic crusade against the LDP?

  52. Gab

    Don’t tell him that, JC. He’s the poster boy for the LDP and is doing a great job.

  53. Matthew

    I’m a man son, just like my father. I’m not some lying little prick with an implacable hatred for the LDP.

    Says the guy on the on the internet. Your anonymity and the resulting credibility awesome me. Accept my non apologies.

  54. JC

    Is there any bullshit Matthew won’t spout in his eternal quixotic crusade against the LDP?

    Perhaps he won’t reach your level of bullshit, yobbo such as supporting SSM because you believe it discriminates and then wanting to go after the baker who doesn’t want to bake as SSM cake. Mattie’s certainly stretching the elastic in his undies, but he probably wouldn’t go as far as you.

    Now, do you agree the government and people in general do discriminate? Yes or no?

  55. Yobbo

    Now, do you agree the government and people in general do discriminate? Yes or no?

    Of course they do? What a stupid question.

    The point is that the government shouldn’t.

    You’ve plumbed new depths in your feeble attempts to score a gotcha.

  56. Aristogeiton

    Fuck off JC. “Came here from Bolt’s blog”. Phht.

  57. From Steyn’s latest:

    Nick Boles is Minister of State for the Business & Education depts. Part of his brief will be equal marriage implementation. #Reshuffle

    You just no Labor here would try this on.

  58. twostix

    The point is that the government shouldn’t.

    lol you people can’t even keep your story straight.

    So it’s Gay Marriage now and the Polygamy later is it?

    Like, say, a slippery slope?
    Which if anyone says is the exactly what is planned you all wail in unison: “No, Slippery Slope is a Fallacy you idiot!11!”.

    Either you plan a slippery slope or you plan to stop now and aide and abet discrimination. You can’t have it both ways.

  59. The point is that the government shouldn’t.

    The government shouldn’t discriminate between citizens and non-citizens? between those 18 or over and those under? And so on.

  60. JC

    You’ve plumbed new depths in your feeble attempts to score a gotcha.

    You’re the one plunging over the ditch, not me. While there’s big government around it will of course have to discriminate. I don’t think you would disagree with that seeing you’ve argued that disestablishment of marriage in the current environment is a libertarian pipe dream. In fact you’ve even gone further and argued that people use that as a cloak to hide their true feelings.

    There are people who genuinely feel marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman. They also believe that the baker should not be held to account if he refuses to serve people s/he doesn’t like.

    You on the other hand believe marriage should be open to gays and the baker ought to be legally sanctioned if he refuses service.

    I can’t believe you’re accusing other people of not being libertarian with the views you hold when the wheels are coming off your car.

  61. JC

    Fuck off JC. “Came here from Bolt’s blog”. Phht.

    I thought you said you were a Bolthead, Ari. So what other blogs were you posting comments at. If not Bolt’s, where?

  62. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo, in my view youve made two big mistakes. First, accusing everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage of being motivated by religious fanaticism or hatred of homosexuals. Second, supporting anti-discrimination laws. In the latter case, this is not a libertarian position. In the former case, this is insulting bullshit.

  63. Yobbo

    While there’s big government around it will of course have to discriminate.

    It doesn’t have to discriminate.

    There are people who genuinely feel marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman.

    Good for them. I fully support their right not to attend any gay weddings.

  64. Aristogeiton

    JC, I’ve linked to posts on Mumbles blog here before. A search should find it.

  65. JC

    It doesn’t have to discriminate.

    Of course it does. It has no choice when there’s mountains of money involved. That’s what you end up with big government. You make it sound as though SSM is the civil rights violation of the last 100 years when the government is discriminating all the time.

    Good for them. I fully support their right not to attend any gay weddings.

    But of course you don’t support the right of the baker not to bake an SSM cake for a gay wedding.

  66. Clam Chowdah

    You proved nothing Abu. You made an assertion. I showed an example of it being crap by a case study with verifiable time series economic data.

    Yet you think you proved a point because you ignore the evidence.

    Lee Kuan Yew is the exemplary politician when it comes to managing clashing cultural issues. Singapore is the success it is because he identified that culture is destiny and employed some tough policies to bang square pegs into round holes. Fact.

    To put things in your crude terms, I win and you have not disproven the truth that culture is destiny.

  67. Clam Chowdah

    Yobbo, in my view youve made two big mistakes. First, accusing everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage of being motivated by religious fanaticism or hatred of homosexuals. Second, supporting anti-discrimination laws. In the latter case, this is not a libertarian position. In the former case, this is insulting bullshit.

    Yes. This sums up Yobbo’s approach.

  68. It doesn’t have to discriminate.

    Well, sure, it doesn’t have to, but neither is it unjustified in doing so.

    If you read DL’s essay carefully you’ll notice that the source of the discrimination is simply ANY definition of marriage. That is why he says “if there are to be ‘definitions’, let them be drafted widely”. In other words, he doesn’t believe there is a thing called marriage; he thinks there are just relationships.

  69. JC

    Yobbo, in my view youve made two big mistakes. First, accusing everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage of being motivated by religious fanaticism or hatred of homosexuals

    I think there are a few people here who are motivated by their religious beliefs. Fine with me. That’s what they believe, that’s what they believe. It certainly isn’t bigotry. I think the vast proportion of people here that show an anti gay slant are those who find the leftist activist gays as repulsive as other leftwing activists. I think Yobbo may read those comments and thinks it shows a hatred towards gays.

    I have no issue with gay people. If I was invited to a gay wedding I’d go. I’d think it more than a little peculiar, but I would go and charm everyone as I always do at every venue.

    I do have an issue with the leftwing militant gay fucks though…. in a big way.

  70. JohnA

    dover_beach #1384387, posted on July 17, 2014 at 12:08 am

    “In other words, he doesn’t believe there is a thing called marriage; he thinks there are just relationships.”

    Which is why he is off with the larks.

    Or as Gilbert & Sullivan express it:
    “when everybody’s somebody/
    then no one’s anybody”

    (Gondoliers: Trio; Don Alhambra, King Marco, King Giuseppe)

  71. Yobbo

    You guys make it sound like it’s just based on the content of this thread that makes me believe they hate homos.

    It’s more that gay-bashing has been the #1 sport at Catallaxy for years now. Every open forum, gay slurs. Every topic eventually gets down to sodomy and all gays are paedophiles. It’s like The Cat’s version of Godwin’s law. The longer a comment thread goes, the higher the chance of someone gratuitously insulting gays.

    I’ve been calling you guys out on it for years. Don’t act stupid.

  72. Yobbo

    Second, supporting anti-discrimination laws. In the latter case, this is not a libertarian position.

    Your point is?

    Border control isn’t a libertarian position either, but I support that too. I also support fluoridation of the water supply. I’m pretty much an out-and-out fascist these days.

  73. Aristogeiton

    Border control is a libertarian position for a consequentialist, as we have a welfare state.

  74. Yobbo

    Nope, sorry. If you support border control you aren’t a libertarian. Can’t have it both ways.

  75. Aristogeiton

    Milton Friedman: not a libertarian? I’ll take his word over yours.

  76. JC

    Your point is?

    Border control isn’t a libertarian position either, but I support that too. I also support fluoridation of the water supply. I’m pretty much an out-and-out fascist these days.

    Nope. You’re being selective in what you pick and choose. That’s okay, but it’s not okay when you’re doing it but you find fault with others when they do. In other words your purity test smells.

  77. twostix

    Border control isn’t a libertarian position either, but I support that too. I also support fluoridation of the water supply. I’m pretty much an out-and-out fascist these days.

    No Yobbo. You’re just standard leftist.

    I have no idea why some people think you’re some arch-”Libertarian”. You’ve surely disavowed any silly remaining notions of that in this thread though.

    The problem for the LDP is besides dot you’re one of its oldest and loudest maaates here.

    So do your views closely align with the LDP? Should bakers and florists and churches be getting ready to be persecuted by the state on behalf of gays thanks to “Libertarians” in the LDP like you?

    Or is dot the LDP? I mean it’s only got about 100 members right? And from what I hear they’re more like you and Jarrah and less like Dot.

  78. wreckage

    If the law can’t recognise the difference between a male-female relationship and, for example, a male-male one, then the law has failed.

    The male going to be abandoned, pregnant, by his man? No. And the law recognizes this; therefore the law discriminates. Saying that there is “marriage equality” is a fantasy. Ensuring both relationships have the necessary protections under law is appropriate and equal treatment. Scribbling out “man and a woman” is pointless bullshit, but closer to the former than the latter.

  79. Saying that there is “marriage equality” is a fantasy. Ensuring both relationships have the necessary protections under law is appropriate and equal treatment. Scribbling out “man and a woman” is pointless bullshit, but closer to the former than the latter.

    Quite so, wreckage.

  80. Gab

    If, however, we retained existing marriage law, and created a uniform civil union regime that provided homosexuals and others the rights appropriate to such a relationship then I would agree with you and support such a change.

    This is very sensible. However, the gay nazi activists would still screech that it is not “marriage” equality becuase a civil union is just not the same.

    What was that recent poll? Around 70% support gay “marriage”? I wonder how many of those were actually homosexuals? Given that the population of homosexuals is around 2%, that poll is beginning to resemble the “97% of climate scientists” malarky.

  81. wreckage

    All I’m saying is that DL will have achieved nothing but making the Marriage Act obsolete.

    My hope is that he’s actually using this shortcircuit the fascists and enshrine religious freedom. I genuinely hope that’s what he’s doing. But he’s swimming with the sharks now, and can’t rely on being the smartest, much less the most cunning, man in the room.

  82. Gab

    My hope is that he’s actually using this shortcircuit the fascists and enshrine religious freedom.

    He said he would for the clergy and celebrants but it is naive to believe that these cannot be amended in future while the RDA and section 18c is law.

  83. twostix

    My hope is that he’s actually using this shortcircuit the fascists and enshrine religious freedom. I genuinely hope that’s what he’s doing. But he’s swimming with the sharks now, and can’t rely on being the smartest, much less the most cunning, man in the room.

    It’s wishful thinking wreckage. They want the exact same gay marriage legistlation as the green left want.

    The piss weak “protections” are a sop.

  84. Clam Chowdah

    Nope, sorry. If you support border control you aren’t a libertarian. Can’t have it both ways.

    Not a militant libertarian who has no grasp of reality, in any case.

  85. Aristogeiton

    Clam, Yobbo is full of shit here. Milton Friedman is a Libertarian Consequentialist. He is fine with illegal Mexican immigration, but only while it is illegal and they get no benefits. He does not support open borders where immigrants can get welfare. This is precisely the situation we face here. The LDP policy is an attempt to overcome this problem and promote greater freedom of movement.

  86. Clam Chowdah

    Milton Friedman was a genius. I’m a big fan.

  87. Aristogeiton

    Right you are Clam, “was a Libertarian”. He still lives on in my heart…

  88. wreckage

    Wait only clergy? What about sects and religions that have a religious injunction against ordination or heirarchy?

    Does he know anything about religion?

  89. JC

    This is precisely the situation we face here.

    That only applies to refugee policy. It doesn’t apply to regular economic immigration. I think this needs to be clearly defined.

  90. Aristogeiton

    Email him, wreckage.

  91. Gab

    Wreckage, we will have to wait and see the actual wording in the bill, but on 2GB tonight Leyonhjelm said “religious and civil celebrants”. No mention of business people such as bakers, photographers. florists however.

  92. Aristogeiton

    JC, yes I understand the distinction. I’m writing from my phone so being economical.

  93. Matthew

    Open borders is nonsense. Not one person here supports open borders. Not a single person supports foreign soldiers ‘migrating’ to Australia, for example. In ‘real’ open borders there would be nothing to stop that happening.

  94. wreckage

    I think we should have open-er borders, sure. But not totally open. I believe that a nation can exercise that right, on behalf of its citizens, who corporately enjoy a collective property right to the land therein.

  95. JC

    I tend to agree with Friedman on this, but I don’t believe illegals situation in the US isn’t a simple matter.

    1. it’s clear to my mind that overall the economic lot of a large number of people (approximately 12 million illegals) was improved with the move across the border. Not only were their economic lives improved but their remittances helped their poor families in South America.

    2. It’s a testament to the American jobs machine (of earlier times) that it could accommodate so many people while maintaining a healthy participation rate and unemployment rate (pre GFC at least)

    3. What I find difficult to come to grips with is that the wages of the bottom quintile of the US labor forces wasn’t impacted by the onslaught of the illegals. Of course it was.

    Now one can say that overall the economic living standards of millions of people improved. But you can also say that the wages at the bottom 1/5 for American citizens possibly stagnated. The stagnation is now being used as a cudgel by the left to argue for a higher legislated wage rate. Great.

  96. oldsalt

    Border control isn’t Libertarian because carving up the oceans with borders isn’t. Read Grotius’ Mare Liberum, on which free ocean trade is based. As soon as the Lords of Pom did, they moved to scuttle it. They wanted monopolies not free trade. What did they do? They imposed the world’s first 3 nm territorial limit. So began the Statist project to carve up the seas. Maritime borders are State monopolies.

  97. Stephan

    Border control isn’t Libertarian because carving up the oceans with borders isn’t. Read Grotius’ Mare Liberum, on which free ocean trade is based. As soon as the Lords of Pom did, they moved to scuttle it. They wanted monopolies not free trade. What did they do? They imposed the world’s first 3 nm territorial limit. So began the Statist project to carve up the seas. Maritime borders are State monopolies.

    Could it be argued then that since states are an inevitable, emergent property of human relations hitherto, some libertarians are really after a one-world government, like some green-leftists?

  98. JC

    Mathew

    Open borders with no welfare and a flexible labor market would reach an equilibrium point on its own.

    Stop being a fucking statist and think a little.

    What would happen is that people who thought they could make a go of it would show up here. They would also have to bring their own financial resources to tide them over while looking for work. Remember, they would have absolutely no assistance. Would we have undesirables come over? Of course we would like we do now in a controlled environment. But even in an open borders system we would still maintain the rigorous examination of individuals and criminal would be rejected and ejected.

    So you would have an immigration system essentially left to market forces and self regulating instead of the present system with quotas and prohibitions.

    Stop being afraid of markets.

    Let me also hazard that in the even of open borders /No welfare you would not have a large number of these boat people coming over under the ref program because they wouldn’t likely find work and would therefore be destitute.

  99. Matthew

    JT, nonsense. In a democratic system the migrants would just vote themselves whatever benefits they require to live in Australia.

  100. oldsalt

    Borders enclose the seas which have been carved up by the State. The current Statist trend is to manage them as prescribed by the Texan racist Malthusian Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, by which the individual isn’t to be trusted to manage business with other individuals and the State is reluctant to even confer legal property rights.

  101. wreckage

    The Tragedy of the Commons, properly understood, demands property rights as the obvious and most effective solution.

  102. JC

    JT, nonsense. In a democratic system the migrants would just vote themselves whatever benefits they require to live in Australia.

    Not if there were strong constitutional safegards preventing the creation of a welfare state.

    markets work better than bureaucrats.

  103. JC

    Could it be argued then that since states are an inevitable, emergent property of human relations hitherto, some libertarians are really after a one-world government, like some green-leftists?

    No. Stop being an imbecile. It’s unpleasant having to deal with it.

  104. wreckage

    Not if there were strong constitutional safegards preventing the creation of a welfare state.

    And who would enforce that, once a HYPOTHETICAL culture of entitlement THEORETICALLY dominated the courts and the parliament? I mean, just hypothetically, what might happen? Maybe they’d ignore the constitution? Outrageous to contemplate, but…. it just might happen.

  105. JC

    Well yea wreckage. Nations go off the rails. It’s been heard of.

  106. oldsalt

    Stephan, Grotius is often referred to as the founder of Internationalism, so your query re World Govt is a pertinent one. Libertarians like to bang on about Locke and property rights as if this automatically led to wealth. Of course, without free distant water trade and an accurate chronometer to facilitate it, the fruits of private property couldn’t have been exchanged. What passes for Mare Liberum now are pathetic sealanes, grudgingly offered up by States, which have to be protected by the States’ Navies.

    The Cold War was fought over private property v the collective. If tensions in NE Asia continue to deteriorate, the next one will be fought over interpretations of Grotius and Mare Liberum.

  107. Matthew

    JC, in the USA the constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper”. No reason to believe it should be any different here. No need to believe that the demands of the people will not be met by the government of the day.

    I am perfectly willing to engage in a ‘what if’ discussion with you as long as you are willing to concede that it may not occur as you hope it will.

  108. oldsalt

    Wreckage, agreed – if you accept that there’s a tragedy of the commons in the first place or it’s just a Malthusian delusion. The PRC used Hardin to enforce its one child policy, which it’s now backing away from. Hardin however remains triumphant on the seas and the Statist project to carve them up and manage them as monopolies, enclosed by borders, continues apace. It’s something that Australia is very good at and leading the world in. Led by a puritan.

  109. wreckage

    Yes, the tragedy of the commons exists, but whether it applies to the oceans is in question.

    Managing fish stocks has been successfully privatized via ownership formalization, for example. Basically TOC exists where there’s a resource no-one formally owns, AND it’s getting run down. it’s hard to imagine a scenario where trade lanes on the open ocean would get so cluttered that property rights needed to be assigned, but if they were, it would be via some kind of privatization. State owne monopolies only trade TOC for… well, state owned monopolies.

  110. .

    Matthew
    #1384480, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:53 am
    JT, nonsense. In a democratic system the migrants would just vote themselves whatever benefits they require to live in Australia.

    Not if they can’t vote, genius.

  111. .

    wreckage
    #1384452, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:25 am
    Wait only clergy? What about sects and religions that have a religious injunction against ordination or heirarchy?

    Does he know anything about religion?

    No.

    Marriage celebrants.

    I’ve cited sources for this with direct quotes and people use words interchangeably until they create panic in their own minds. This shit is on you guys.

  112. Peter

    Open borders with no welfare and a flexible labor market would reach an equilibrium point on its own.

    JC…

    I understand this, and agree with you given the conditions.

    What I question is how the relevant conditions – no welfare and a flexible labour market – are going to be achieved when a very significant proportion of voters benefit from regulated labour and lavish welfare systems….. And politicians are willing and able to buy votes by offering such largesse.

    It would take something in the order of a revolution, and they tend to be very painful indeed.

    How, in practice, do you suggest that we bring the desired state of affairs about?

  113. Peter

    Open borders with no welfare and a flexible labor market would reach an equilibrium point on its own.

    Thinking on it, I have to amend my position.

    Open borders does allow interest groups and/or parties to move their own people into an area, then use those people as an excuse for political influence or intervention by force. Ask the Boers how well it went letting Uitlanders into the Transvaal.

    How would we deal with the hypothetical movement of several million government sponsored immigrants moving into one of our resource-rich and sparsely populated areas as a prelude for demanding secession from Australia and integration with their “mother country”.

  114. Aristogeiton

    Peter
    #1384791, posted on July 17, 2014 at 11:47 am
    [...]
    How would we deal with the hypothetical movement of several million government sponsored immigrants moving into one of our resource-rich and sparsely populated areas as a prelude for demanding secession from Australia and integration with their “mother country”.

    With a non-hypothetical civil war that we’d win. “Open borders” refers to the fact that they are permeable, not that they don’t exist.

  115. Matthew

    With a non-hypothetical civil war that we’d win. “

    With a non-hypothetical civil war that we may or may not win. Corrected that for you.

    Open borders” refers to the fact that they are permeable, not that they don’t exist.

    As you define it. It isn’t the way people are talking around here.

  116. oldsalt

    Wreckage, some sealanes like Malacca Straits are already as a packed as a Freo Eagles Derby. Traffic separation exists and littoral States patrol their carve up. Any further carve up is not privatisation, it’s just another Statist carve up.

    States confer access rights on the seas Commons not spatial property rights like freehold land title. The access rights can and are vicariously withdrawn and changed from year to year.

    A few closed fisheries exist where private stakeholders manage resources with the State. It’s not Libertarian and it tends to Cartelism and market fixing. It kills social mobility, without which Democracy is in trouble. An expanding commercial middle class, a growth economy and social mobility underpin stable Democracy.

  117. oldsalt

    Defined sealanes create chokepoints. War gamers love them because trade can be blocked. An example of what can happen when Mare Liberum is ignored is the Archipelagic Principle maintained by Jakarta in which the connecting waters between islands are treated as land. The resulting designated sealanes and their chokepoints make free trade vulnerable. Ours in particular.

  118. Aristogeiton

    Fuck off Matthew. You add nothing, and lie.

  119. Matthew

    Fuck off Matthew

    Make me. Tell the internet what a tough guy you are.

    Most people on catallaxyfiles are well behaved. You are one of the vulgar, uncouth and unintelligent people bringing it down.

  120. Aristogeiton

    What’s your last name, son?

  121. Matthew

    What’s your last name, son

    What do you intend to do with it? Don’t be coy.

  122. Aristogeiton

    What a ponce… So you don’t really want me to “make you” at all, do you? You’re just a blowhard.

  123. Matthew

    What a ponce… So you don’t really want me to “make you” at all, do you? You’re just a blowhard.

    Why don’t you give out your name and address?

    Am in wrong not to give my details to the kind of loon that threatens someone on the internet?

  124. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1384345, posted on July 16, 2014 at 11:13 pm
    [...]
    Says the guy on the on the internet. Your anonymity and the resulting credibility awesome me. Accept my non apologies.

    Lol. Go away troll.

  125. Matthew

    It is a unique sort of cowardness that makes one person threaten another through the cloak of anonymity. You are a true loser, Aristogeiton.

  126. Aristogeiton

    Give me your name and I’ll come threaten you in person whenever I get the opportunity. Or shut the fuck up, whichever. You’re the one that invited me to “make [you shut up]“, remember? So I guess next time you’ll learn not to bluff, huh?

  127. Matthew

    I don’t see you handing out your name. Lets see it, hypocrite.

  128. Aristogeiton

    Fuck off troll. It was your invitation; don’t make this about me you streak of piss.

  129. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1384345, posted on July 16, 2014 at 11:13 pm
    [...]
    Says the guy on the on the internet. Your anonymity and the resulting credibility awesome me. Accept my non apologies.

    Matthew
    #1384966, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    Fuck off Matthew

    Make me.

    The tosser that blows twice as hard, blows half as long. Looks like you’ve fizzled out, mate. What happened to all the swagger? Ponce.

  130. Matthew

    Make your threat open, loser. Don’t be coy. What exactly do you think you can do to me if you knew my identity. Lets hear it, coward.

  131. srr

    Matthew
    #1384480, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:53 am
    JT, nonsense. In a democratic system the migrants would just vote themselves whatever benefits they require to live in Australia.

    Not if they can’t vote, genius

    That’s a big “if”.

    Too big to assure Americans that the Democrats aren’t out to permanently change their Country with the floods of future Voters the Obama Govt is importing from South America.

  132. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1385026, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    Make your threat open, loser. Don’t be coy. What exactly do you think you can do to me if you knew my identity. Lets hear it, coward.

    So I guess you’re the kind of little bitch who goes around making ultimatums, giving no thought to the fact they are rejected? Then has a little panic about it, and tries to cover her shame by issuing further ultimatums? That’s cowardice son. Now crawl back to your hole of shame.

  133. Aristogeiton

    s/fact they are/fact they may be/

  134. srr

    JT, nonsense. In a democratic system the migrants would just vote themselves whatever benefits they require to live in Australia.

    Not if there were strong constitutional safegards preventing the creation of a welfare state.

    markets work better than bureaucrats

    mmm…yes, lucky for lots of markets that slave labourers can’t vote in so many Islam dominated countries.

  135. Matthew

    Aristogeiton you are an anonymous person threatening someone on the internet. You are a loser, period.

  136. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1385043, posted on July 17, 2014 at 1:50 pm
    Aristogeiton you are an anonymous person threatening someone on the internet. You are a loser, period.

    My “threat” consisted of nothing more than offering to take you up on your offer. Don’t be a blowhard next time and you won’t embarrass yourself.

  137. .

    oldsalt
    #1384930, posted on July 17, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    Defined sealanes create chokepoints. War gamers love them because trade can be blocked. An example of what can happen when Mare Liberum is ignored is the Archipelagic Principle maintained by Jakarta in which the connecting waters between islands are treated as land. The resulting designated sealanes and their chokepoints make free trade vulnerable. Ours in particular.

    That’s what the Navy is for.

  138. .

    That’s a big “if”.

    Too big to assure Americans that the Democrats aren’t out to permanently change their Country with the floods of future Voters the Obama Govt is importing from South America.

    If they can’t vote, it isn’t.

    The LDP policy is 10 years of PR before you are eligible for citizenship – only citizens can get welfare.

  139. Matthew

    I’m not embarrassed at all. You have been doing this internet tough guy shtick for some time now. The barrier for entry to be an internet tough guy is zero so it is you that should be embarrassed. Now… You may be a genuine psychopath, it is possible of course. Or you might just anonymously harass me by calling my place of work. Either way I would have to be a greater fool than you to give you my details.

  140. .

    This “poor baker” scenario is bit of a crock.

    Why?

    It can happen now – under STATE law, with or without gay marriage.

    Yes the State laws ought to be repealed but David L doesn’t have the power to make this happen. If he did – likely we wouldn’t be a fan of him in any way shape or form.

  141. Matthew

    The LDP policy is 10 years of PR before you are eligible for citizenship – only citizens can get welfare.

    The LDP isn’t in government. David Leyonhjelm is in parliament right now, and will be casting his legislative vote on immigration issues right now, not in some future hypothetical LDP government. We want to know how he is going to be voting on the issues during the current term of government.

  142. .

    Aren’t we talking about LDP policy as well?!

  143. Aristogeiton

    Already answered above Matthew, you continually lying twat; he will not repeal OSB if put forward by Labor. If you want confirmation, e-mail him yourself, but at least do the man the courtesy of not continually lying about him and his policies here. You disgusting, weak individual.

  144. Gab

    This “poor baker” scenario is bit of a crock. Why? It can happen now – under STATE law, with or without gay marriage.

    Except it doesn’t happen now becuase gays can’t get “married”. The opposition is not towards gays, it would be towards the “marriage” of such.

  145. .

    Gab

    Gays wanting a commitment ceremony could ask for catering or otherwise and be refused, which would currently be illegal under the various State level Acts.

    Perhaps there is scope for such legislation as a matter of the Federal Government being the protector of human rights. The feds don’t really have much scope when it comes to general police.order powers, there is no specific head of power for it. We’d be relying heavily on s 109 of the constitution and the external affairs power for this to work out however.

  146. Matthew

    In relation to David Leyonhjelm, all I have are the comments that he made in the media. I don’t have any personal relationship with him at all. I am not his penal, or anything like that.

    Based on his public statements I deem him in favor of dismantling OSB. Many people think exactly the same thing, based on his public statements. If this is incorrect then Leyonhjelm should make a definite public statement about the subject. I don’t not want any private assurances from a politician.

  147. Aristogeiton

    Gab, actually the problem exists now in Victoria. They have civil unions, and discrimination in relation to goods is prohibited under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 s. 44.

  148. Aristogeiton

    Based on your comments I deem you a lying, cowardly, weak-kneed prick. Unlike yours, however, my assessment is correct.

  149. .

    I don’t not want any private assurances from a politician.

    Public ones aren’t much better!

  150. .

    Aristogeiton
    #1385105, posted on July 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm
    Gab, actually the problem exists now in Victoria. They have civil unions, and discrimination in relation to goods is prohibited under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 s. 44.

    Exactly what I’m talking about.

    I want that to go but I would baulk from abusing Federal power to get it done. The constitution is trashed as it is.

  151. Gab

    The objection is to “marriage” not civil unions, people. Changing the definition of an institution that has existed for eons to accommodate the absurdity that it encompasses people of the same sex pretending to have the exact same relationship as heteros in a marital union.

  152. Matthew

    Public ones aren’t much better!

    Yes, not much better, but better. Because a politician that lies may face the wrath of the electorate. That is why I want a public assurance. Being told to email someone makes me very suspicious. Why can’t he make a public statement?

  153. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1385126, posted on July 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm
    The objection is to “marriage” not civil unions, people. Changing the definition of an institution that has existed for eons to accommodate the absurdity that it encompasses people of the same sex pretending to have the exact same relationship as heteros in a marital union.

    I agree Gab. The point I was making was in response to you comment:

    Except it doesn’t happen now becuase gays can’t get “married”.

    Practically speaking, a similar thing is possible in Victoria (for example, if the baker refuses to sell you a civil union penis cake or whatever).

  154. .

    Why can’t he make a public statement?

    Maybe you should ask him to make a specific one clarifying his position on the issue that concerns you. He has made a lot of public statements previously.

  155. Aristogeiton

    Lol, Dot. If he makes a statement, Matthew will just “deem” him to have made another one. This guy makes Bloviacre seem like an honest bloke.

  156. Gab

    Practically speaking, a similar thing is possible in Victoria (for example, if the baker refuses to sell you a civil union penis cake or whatever).

    Like I have already said, the objection is not about civil unions.

  157. Aristogeiton

    Gab, you said that adverse action against a baker for refusing service to a gay couple getting married cannot happen because gay marriage is impossible. I was pointing out that, in Victoria at least, the same adverse action can be taken against a baker for refusing to serve a gay couple having a civil union.

  158. oldsalt

    Yes dot. And RAAF. And boots on the ground when that doesn’t work. And increased insurance costs passed on to customers. Mare Liberum is still better, but States don’t want it and I don’t expect libertarians to grapple with it. I just wanted to point out that the secure our borders cheersquad are Statist.

    In any case, securing borders is a nonsense. We want to secure the continent, and manmade structures. So long as we can defeat a threat in the air sea space before it reaches the continent or structure, it matters not a jot if the border is breached by low level intrusions.

    Borders originally were for people to sleep safely behind, not to carve up resources. If we can suck in the zeds happily we have a good border, if people on both sides are happy we have a great border, if not we have trouble. It seems a lot of people are losing sleep over the scale of unregulated Muslim immigration, and for them the border isn’t working to secure the continent. So we secure the continent for them, not the border.

    Ah well, it’s all cyclical anyway. As soon as we build a wall to hide behind we start wondering what’s on the other side. The crowning glory of leaking sovereignties was the Growth Triangle, a grand internationalist experiment in free trade. In our region the Johor Singapore Riau GT cut Gov red tape and brought together complimentarities. Precisely the sort of thing economic libertarians would approve of. It worked so well that this it’s highway one for asylum seekers en route to Oz.

  159. Aristogeiton

    Grotius was right; JC, how is my position in the Dutch East India Company looking. I have £4 3s in them.

  160. oldsalt

    You should immediately demand your share of Gulden from the WA Maritime Museum

  161. Aristogeiton

    oldsalt, you’re a classic.

  162. Aristogeiton

    For those responding to Stephanie, who I think is a Python script, save time and try this:

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-liberal-insults.htm

    Please excuse the American abuse of the term ‘liberal’.

  163. Aristogeiton

    Homosexual marriage is totally gay.

  164. Peter

    With a non-hypothetical civil war that we’d win. “Open borders” refers to the fact that they are permeable, not that they don’t exist.

    We would be facing a war on two fronts. One with the invaders that we had already and very stupidly permitted to establish de facto residency, supported by the forces of their nation-of-origin. (And it just so happens that one of the nations most interested in our resources in a burgeoning superpower)….. And the other with the same section of our own politics that likes to imagine that we “westerners” are always the bad guys.

    Then there will be the section who dislike any expenditure on things other than their own fancies, arm-in arm with those who claim that the only beneficiaries are eeeeevil foreign corporations that pay no tax at all so we may as well give the resources away anyway.

    They will have one point. Fighting a war is (expletive deleted) expensive. We have better things to do with our money than inviting needless conflict.

  165. Peter

    People do not sleep securely when their resources are not secure.

    Have you not noticed that wars are fought over resources, but people get killed.

  166. Aristogeiton

    This is lunacy, Peter.

  167. Matthew

    They will have one point. Fighting a war is (expletive deleted) expensive. We have better things to do with our money than inviting needless conflict.

    Indeed why invite these problems?

    There are people here with ideas far worse than the major parties. It’s very disheartening.

  168. wreckage

    There are people here with ideas far worse than the major parties. It’s very disheartening.

    You weep for society when SOME random anonymous blow-ins are worse at policy and politics than the people running the country?

    Shouldn’t that be the other way round? It’s sad that even some of the majors can be bested by even some random dudes and dudettes commenting bullshitting and kibitzing in their lunch break?

  169. tomix

    Senator David “Leyonhjelm” Lyin’melon still lyin’ his fucking melon off.

  170. Aristogeiton

    You people make me sick. Why don’t you return to Bolt’s blog from whence you came?

  171. JC

    Have you thought about heading back to Mumbles site, Ari. It’s good there and the hours are less strenuous for you.

  172. tomix

    Sorry, pard. Bolt’s too far left, even for me.

  173. tomix

    Steve from Brisbane could be seeking a soulmate, Aristogeiton.

  174. Aristogeiton

    JC
    #1385664, posted on July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm
    Have you thought about heading back to Mumbles site, Ari. It’s good there and the hours are less strenuous for you.

    Not sure I’m welcome there JC. Last time I posted there he was forced to add a caveat to his article since I so comprehensively butchered him in the comments:

    http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/race_in_constitution/

  175. Matthew

    Shouldn’t that be the other way round? It’s sad that even some of the majors can be bested by even some random dudes and dudettes commenting bullshitting and kibitzing in their lunch break?

    Not when they are commenting on a libertarian blog. You assume that people that self describe themselves as libertarians would have at least some knowledge of libertarianism.

    The comments on the ABC thread are instructive. You have people saying sell the ABC but not JJJ and vice versa. If they started with first principles then the answer to just about any question is immediately apparent.

  176. Aristogeiton

    Here comes the rock-ribbed libertarian himself. Progenitor of the “technical retardation” theory of refugees. The man who accused Kevin Rudd of war crimes because he proposed intervention in Libya. Initiator of the civil society/police state dualist theory or Islamic relations. I wish I was as libertarian as you, champion. Cower in fear, lesser men! The original libertarian is here!

  177. wreckage

    It’s Libertarian and CENTRE RIGHT. At least some of the regular bloggers, let alone combox dwellers, are conservative. I’m surprised there’s as much agreement as there is, given that it is LIBERTARIAN AND CENTRE RIGHT.

  178. tomix

    So it’s okay for Kevin Rudd to call for the bombing of a country we aren’t at war with? A campaign that saw Libya’s infrastructure obliterated and massive loss of life.

    Any other Rudd actions you want to splash the LDP holy water over, Poindexter?

  179. tomix

    Correction:

    Any other Rudd actions you want to splash the LDP AND CENTRE RIGHT holy water over, Poindexter?

  180. A Lurker

    What would happen is that people who thought they could make a go of it would show up here. They would also have to bring their own financial resources to tide them over while looking for work. Remember, they would have absolutely no assistance.

    That could work JC, if you had a Libertarian Government in office, in perpetuity. However the moment the Left got into power, changes would be made due to minority group/bleeding heart pressure to reinstate welfare right across the board – and suddenly those open, yet controlled borders would be as permeable as fly screen, and our economy would face a massive and unrelenting drain on it.

    All Libertarian legislation must be considered with the understanding that at some point in time the Socialists will be back in power and able to undo or wreck everything that has gone before.

  181. Clam Chowdah

    You guys make it sound like it’s just based on the content of this thread that makes me believe they hate homos.

    It’s more that gay-bashing has been the #1 sport at Catallaxy for years now. Every open forum, gay slurs. Every topic eventually gets down to sodomy and all gays are paedophiles. It’s like The Cat’s version of Godwin’s law. The longer a comment thread goes, the higher the chance of someone gratuitously insulting gays.

    I’ve been calling you guys out on it for years. Don’t act stupid.

    People trash all sorts of dumb ideas on the cat. This is your hobby horse, so you filter out the rest and see it as a unique evil crusade. Grow up, you mono-track bore.

  182. Matthew

    All Libertarian legislation must be considered with the understanding that at some point in time the Socialists will be back in power and able to undo or wreck everything that has gone before.

    This! And something I have mentioned time and time again. Yet this is too hard for the LDP supporters here to understand.

1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>