Question Time

One of Spartacus’s pleasures in posting on Catallaxy is to read the comments.  I always try to read comments and always learn something.

It seems that there are supporters of both the Liberal Democrats and the Australian Conservatives out in Cat land.  Now, not being a member of a political party, I would like to know what is the difference between the 2.  Is it simply about social policy?  Spartacus is not trying to pick a fight.  This is a genuine question.

I have listened to and read both Leyonhjelm and Bernardi and personally think that Leyonhjelm is a better advocate for his policies.  But this is a difference in communication not policy.

Any thoughts any one?  An election is coming.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to Question Time

  1. Entropy

    On social policy LDP are definitely progressive to the pint of autistic denial of the fruits of such policies
    .on the other hand AC and other Breakaways on the ‘right’ have an element of agrarian socialism to their economic policies.
    The gripping hand is either is better than the decaying mainstream parties.

  2. Mother Lode

    An election is coming.

    Wasn’t that in Game of Thrones?

    They are all pretty spineless: Lame of Stones?

    They are little hideous creatures scrabbling for all they can get: Claim of Gnomes?

    They libs are all blaming the only guy in the party who talks in Liberal values: Blame of Tones?

  3. Tim Neilson

    Entropy
    #2427459, posted on June 30, 2017 at 9:09 am

    Good summary.

    Sane voters should have both of them in the small numbers on their Senate ballots.

    (But vote informal in the HoR if you’re in a Labor or Termite supporter’s seat.)

  4. Cato the Elder

    The gripping hand is either is better than the decaying mainstream parties

    This.

    Neither is my ideal party, either is better than what we have. Time for some creative destruction.

  5. Haidee

    Leyonjhelm does really well advocating his policies, that can’t be denied.
    Bernardi is criticised for the ‘slow and steady’ (a midWestern Baptist shopkeeper similarity tossed at him, to get a laugh, I guess).
    Please remember Aesop

    Bernardi it is

  6. Haidee

    “Blame of Tones” lol

  7. incoherent rambler

    I am guessing that the impact of both Leyonhjelm and Bernardi will be minimal.
    The ALP will spend little or none their election budget on dissing Leyonhjelm, a minimal amount on Bernardi.
    If Trumble is leader at the next election, the Libs will spend more than the ALP to rid themselves of conservative/libertarian senators.

    Senate seats are now hard to win for a minor party. If both were up for election, they would lose their seats.
    Bernardi is not due until 2019 (methinks).

    The ALP/GRN coalition will win in a canter with a majority in both houses. Small party senators become irrelevant.

    Shorten knows that you only get one Mick Trumble in a lifetime. The Liberal gift to the ALP.

    Then we have the media influence. There is no conservative media. There is the ABC and the MSM all in the ALP/GRN camp.

    I love the smell of an electoral thrashing the morning.

  8. Baldrick

    Australian Conservatives will always be tougher on Immigration/ Border Protection. That’s the clincher for me:
    LDP policy- The Liberal Democratic Party believes the free movement of people, within and between countries, generally contributes to greater prosperity.
    ______
    AC policy– Australian Conservatives will cut immigration in half and ensure that immigration serves in Australia’s best interests.

  9. Marcus

    Leyonjhelm does really well advocating his policies, that can’t be denied.

    Well … he does kind of suck at campaigning, although that may be the LDP generally. My brother volunteered for them in the last Federal campaign and showed me some talking points from the LDP state president (who I think was also the lead Senate candidate) along the lines of, when advocating for the LDP, just talk about their economic policies such as lower taxes and less regulation, and don’t mention the firearms and smokers’ rights stuff unless you’re very confident that person will feel the same way. It was very good advice, but … the very next day Leyonjhelm made national headlines for his election stunt in Sydney where he took out a billboard pledging to “save the Malboro Man.”

    So, basically there’s a reason he went backwards in New South Wales, and it’s probably the same reason that there are very few successful Libertarian parties anywhere in the world.

    In fact, I’m pretty sure that their strategy for the WA election was to run dead, hope to get on the left hand side of the Liberals in at least one upper house regional ticket, and then hope that enough people got confused that a Liberal Democrat would be elected by accident. This is pretty much what happened in South Metro.

  10. OldOzzie

    I am Spartacus,

    I support both, I am impressed with David Leyonhjelm and Cory Benardi, but do not necessarily agree with everything they articulate.

    Having grown up in a Single Parent Household and watched my Mother work her backside off bringing up 2 kids and sending us to Catholic Schools, then at the end not getting a Pension (all she wanted was the pension card to get cheap haircuts -go figure)

    The Golden Rule my Mother taught me was ,”the World does not owe you a Living”.

    I started off Liberal (notwithstanding winning the first ballot for Vietnam),then following the dictum that if you are under 30 and don’t vote Socialist you have no heart, was seduced by the It’s Time Campaign and Voted for Whitlam (I Know shallow).

    After that disaster voted for Fraser – followed the dictum “if you are over 30 and don’t vote Conservative, then you have no Brains” – Yet another mistake.

    Then after the Malcolm Fraser Disaster (Malcolm Turnbull 1), I voted for Hawke and Keating, and after Hawke (when Keating took over), voted Liberal up to the last election where in HOR, I still like Tony Abbott my Federal Rep, but put him No 2 after Christian Democrats in HOR, whilst in NSW Senate Jim Molan Liberal 1, LDP then every Conservative Group with Labor, Greens, rest of Liberals last -151 places below the line.

    In next Federal Election HOR will be as before, but if I was in a Photios Selection, eg Jason Falinski, Trent Zimmermann, Julian Lesser , I would put Liberals last in HOR.

    In NSW Senate will be between Australian Conservatives and LDP depending on policies with Liberals last after Labor and Greens

  11. A Lurker

    My opinion only, take it or leave it.

    The major difference to me is that the LDP have liberal (as in ‘progressive’) social policies such as support for SSM. Australian Conservatives, on the other hand, are social conservatives, and are opposed to SSM.

    Both parties state they desire small and unobtrusive Government, but given that SSM has the potential to grow the power and reach of the State, I think only Australian Conservatives’ policies actually reflect small government principles.

    Both parties state they want to protect our fundamental freedoms, but given that SSM has the potential to reduce our fundamental freedoms, I think only Australian Conservatives’ policies actually protect our freedoms.

    LDP appears to me to be a party too focused on small boutique issues, whilst Australian Conservatives’ focus is on the bigger cultural battles that the West is currently embroiled in.

  12. Marcus

    Senate seats are now hard to win for a minor party.

    Really? It’s probably easier now than it ever was. Under the old system, it was pretty much inevitable that your vote would end up with the majors eventually, but now you don’t have to vote for either of them at all if you don’t want to. A lot of people will probably just bounce their vote between six minors and say “screw the majors,” so I expect at least one minor party (not the Greens) will get up in each state.

  13. Mark Young

    Gday Spartacus
    Haven’t posted before and have been compelled to break the drought to answer you!

    The left wants to be in Government so they can improve us because we need it.
    Conservatives want to be in Government so they can maintain our institutions and values because we are just fine!
    Lib Democrats want to be in government so they can stop the government interfering with our lives because we’re grown ups, more then capable of making our own decisions.

  14. struth

    This is a good question.

    I fear different things from different parties.
    Mostly on the immigration and social side.

    Anything these parties throw up as economic policy will be far better than the socialist bullshit we are putting up with now.

    However, Bernardi would get my vote over D.L. due to immigration policy.

    D.L. is too far off in theory land on a number of issues, and seems to follow libertarian theory at all costs, and in the face of all reality, where Bernardi is a principled guy, but has as much leadership qualities as a dead fish.
    I sense he would cave and eventually be another Abbott.
    All D.L. would have to do is grow a brain when it came to immigration, and he would sway me over to his side.
    He has already decided to get a bit more animated, so changing that one “theory over common sense” policy would see his party do very well.

  15. The Hunted Mind

    just talk about their economic policies such as lower taxes and less regulation, and don’t mention the firearms and smokers’ rights stuff

    This is really good advice that the LDP (and the Libs) should have followed. I think small govt politicians underestimate how popular a promise of tax cuts would be.
    It’s a promise of free stuff where they can actually compete with the Left.
    In fact, make it a competition. Every time a Left politician promises something, cost it up and match it with a tax cut somewhere in the middle band of income tax so nearly everyone gets it.

  16. Akhenaten II

    Leyonjhelm’s problem is that he is libertarian ideologue. Liberty only works for all if there is an overarching moral quality applied to the narrative. Unfortunately, like most radical libertarians, Leyonjhelm suffers from the ‘Rafferty’s Rules’ version of liberty. Everyone is free to do ‘anything’ to ‘anyone’ so long as it is consensual or anything to themselves so long as they don’t harm others. This position ignores the moral obligation one should have to society, specifically to the children who are the future of that society. If one adopts the radical libertarian position nothing is verboten, even the most heinous of acts. For example, recent case of consensual homosexual sex followed by agreed to termination and human cannabilism of the victim in Germany shows the extent a radical libertarian philosophy can be used to justify such acts if drawn to its logical conclusion.
    No, liberty has limits and those limits are bounded by the moral order. Abandon the moral order, abandon reason and ultimately chaos rules. So, in regards to the children radical libertarianism sets a very bad example as it sets only arbitrary boundaries that can be stretched to justify virtually any type of consensual behaviour, including pedophilia. I mean, if it is consensual between an adult and a 12y/o who is to get in the way of their choice?

    In this respect, Bernardi is a far more intelligent choice whereas Leyonjhelm is blinded by his ideology.

  17. Dr Faustus

    At the moment conservative diners are being offered ersatz socialist cabbage soup by the Liberals, cabbage soup with fatty meat by the Nets/LNP, and a Chinese meal of libertarian/conservative/off-planet policies by One Nation, LD and AC.

    None of this is likely to deliver seats in the Lower House.

    Hopefully there is enough momentum to increase the conservative cross bench in the Senate.

    Otherwise Australia will be lost to the tsunami of Green-Left-Union-SJW rubbish coming down the pipes.

  18. Nato

    LDP definitely get points for an overall policy position. 99% awesome, 1% deal breaker. That 1% wins. The state is to put its nose into the bedroom with gay marriage, execute people for the crime of being old and sick with euthanasia etc. I can’t see how a small state libertarian with morals could support the libertarian parties.

  19. Haidee

    Leadership qualities. “dead fish” says Struth.
    I see two “dead fish” in those eyes of Turnbull’s, up there on the banner.

    To me, Howard was “nearly-dead fish”. He made an okay leader. But I agree these are different times.

  20. Akhenaten II

    As to parties and voting I would add:

    While the parties dictate our democracy, the people have no power to get what they want. Nothing is left for them but to choose the least of three evils. In a really democratic government the initiative would come from the people. They would ask for certain things, and would send men to Parliament to represent their wishes. There is no machinery at present by which the people can raise a particular political question, however it may interest them., unless it is included in the programme of one or other of the political parties.

    The Party System – 1912 Hilaire Belloc and Cecil Chesterton

    As Plato said, democracy (demos) is the system used by the oligarchical class to rule the masses, affording them the cover to let the masses think they have a choice not realising it is manufactured.

  21. Fisky

    LDP policy- The Liberal Democratic Party believes the free movement of people, within and between countries, generally contributes to greater prosperity.

    They might believe that, but there is very little evidence of it being true. For example, EU growth rates fell after the Schengen free movement pact was signed. There was no open borders growth bonanza that libertarians are always promising.

  22. Fisky

    Anyway, the main difference is the LDP have some nice, punchy cut through ideas (as well as some loopy ones that they fortunately don’t talk about much) and a clear brand.

    The Conservatives are still a check-box conservative party with low energy. They need to really sharpen their image, pick a couple of big issues to run hard on, and find some candidates/leaders with a sense of humour. Bernardi reminds me of Rick Santorum a bit.

  23. OldOzzie

    I am Spartacus

    This today from Defence Minister Marise Payne is why I won’t be voting Liberal – What Thick Headed Pratts are she, Christopher Pyne and Malcolm Turnbull.

    Tony Abbott submarines proposal would harm sovereignty: Payne

    Defence Minister Marise Payne has strengthened her rebuke against Tony Abbott after he called for a nuclear submarine fleet, as she urged her colleague to get on the government’s “team”.

    Senator Payne, a senior NSW moderate, chose to take on Mr Abbott’s latest intervention yesterday in the first sign of a firmer response to his demands for more conservative policies.

    In an address to the Centre for independent Studies in Sydney, the former prime minister said his biggest regret while in the top job was that he did not more vigorously challenge the “nuclear ‘no-go’ mindset”.

    But his proposal for nuclear submarines was quickly rubbished by Senator Payne, who pointed out the Turnbull government was delivering on the plan to acquire future submarines as set out by the Abbott government.

    She also said Australia lacked the staff and infrastructure to design and build the nuclear submarines, which would take “far longer than a decade” to do.

    Today she went harder, telling ABC radio that the move would damage Australian’s sovereignty.

    “One of the decisions which we have made, and it comes from the experience of the development of a Collins class submarine, is that we want to ensure we have sovereign capability over this extraordinary important strategic military capability,” she said.

    “To lease that or to trade that out to another entity as has been suggested I think would be very, very deleterious to our own sovereign capability.”

    While acknowledging all government backbenchers had the right to engage in public debate, Senator Payne said Mr Abbott had not canvassed his idea with her personally and it was a subject she had previously addressed.

    Asked if the former PM was “behaving like a team player”, Senator Payne said: “The most important thing I know about team is there is no ‘I’ in team. It is all about being on the team. You’re either on it or you’re off it and as far as I’m concerned we all need to be on it to make sure that Australia is governed by the Coalition, not by the Labor Party.”

  24. Bruce of Newcastle

    LDP immigration policy is a vote preventer.

    SSM policy is a double vote preventer – because of Christianity and because the LDP appears to be disinclined to protect Christians from the Waffen SSM.

    I am pleased that after much discussion the LDP seems to be coming around to a view of removing Federal marriage altogether* and leave marriage to society. On the other hand there’s been no substantial pushing of that position as far as I can tell.

    One or two other policies are no-noes, but I can’t recall what they were. The marriage and immigration policies are sufficient that they won’t be getting a vote from me, sadly.

    Lastly I’ll say there is a distinct move to the left by the LDP, as in Conquest’s 2nd Law. There is nothing to stop it, so I suspect they’ll end up like the Australian Democrats – who were centrists, even with a slight flavour of centre-right under Chipp, but who were basically Greens by the time they folded. I see the LDP potentially going the same way. Like the Libs are doing too.

    * whilst maintaining the effective defacto protections of the Marriage Act.

  25. H B Bear

    Baldrick is right – LDP position on immigration rules them out. Maybe not on immigration per se but unless you are going to take the next logical step and rule out the Mohammedans explicitly then you have to rule out everyone.

  26. jupes

    The two most important policies facing Australia at the minute are Muslim immigration and ‘climate change’.

    The LDP are ideological libertarians and ignore the obvious results of policies such as open borders immigration. Blind Freddy can see where that leads but not the LDP. More alarming is their policy of not prosecuting members of terrorist groups which would result in terrorist groups operating legally here. They are also cool with (an albeit smaller) RET.

    The AC would never allow open borders so that puts them above the LDP for a start, though they haven’t gone as far as supporting a ban on Muslim immigration yet. I would think (though they haven’t mentioned it – it goes without saying) that they would prosecute members of terrorist groups. Cory Bernardi is on the record as saying that AGW is crap (or words to that effect).

    However let’s not forget PHON. On the two most important issues of the day, they set the gold standard. Until the ACs can match them on these two, then PHON has my 1 vote, AC my 2 vote and the LDP down with Labor and the Greens.

  27. NormaP

    Labor are going to win the lower house in the next election. No way this can be avoided. so we need to make sure Shorten gets the most horrific senate possible. Easier now Turnbull has changed the rules to make below the line voting far less error prone. Bernadi’s team will be first in my senate, followed by David. Then Hanson. She is big in Qld where I am, but Family first is also, and I”m hoping Cory will be able to gather all of these into his camp. If not, FF will be 3rd, Hanson 4th. 12 are needed. Should be able to fill that number without resorting to Libs or Labs. If I can identify the Nats in Qld’s LNP list, they’ll get a tick.

  28. Roger

    Is it simply about social policy?

    Social policy and economic policy are related; both are derived from one’s political philosophy. This is Libertarianism’s weak point. It’s basic unit, so to speak, is the individual, rather than the family, the local community and ultimately the nation (whose relations should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity). Libertarianism is Western liberalism on steroids – an unnatural development and ultimately unsustainable as a project; a philosophical cul de sac, so to speak. Of course the individual and his rights are important, but he is not sovereign. Libertarianism is thus not the answer to what ails Western societies, it is an aspect of the problem.

  29. A Lurker

    +10000 to what Bruce of Newcastle wrote at 10.23am

  30. Rob MW

    LDP’s social policies – immigration & ssm – stretches the friendship just a bit too far but probably the biggest drawback for LDP imo is a lack of starters for lower house seats particularly in NSW country seats.

    IMO, I think that there are good reasons for AC, LDP and ON to get together as a block instead of trying to pinch votes off one another.

  31. OldOzzie

    Rob MW
    #2427565, posted on June 30, 2017 at 10:50 am

    IMO, I think that there are good reasons for AC, LDP and ON to get together as a block instead of trying to pinch votes off one another.

    Agree, something I suggested to Cory Bernardi

  32. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Both parties are 1000 times better than what’s currently on offer. Either of them could make sex illegal or sodomy mandatory and I will vote for them.

  33. PoliticoNT

    Spartacus

    I was Liberal Party (in Fremantle, a great collection of older/’fuck-you’ members, disinclined to swallow modern party bullshit), then Liberal ACT (deluded, policy free, up-their-bum land), then CLP NT (great members, idiot MLAs), then Liberals Brighton (VIC, all fighting till the death….over the edge of the cliff and seemingly unable to find something to hang onto). Apart from the Fremantle mob – all basically gutless and disinclined to take on economic reforms that will strengthen us.

    I’ve been to an LDP meeting in Canberra, and provided some talking points into Leyonhjelm’s office (around Trump dumping the Paris Agreement). Don’t know if the TPs went anywhere. I found the LDP guys switched on, but very ACT focused. Am still in the trying/buying stage. My main concern with the LDP though is their whole schtick seems a bit of a one-man show.

    As for Bernardi – I’m not seeing the public traction. And let’s face it – Hanson is far better organised than both of them. If it’s true and her online forums are reaching up to 500,000 – then there’s something else going on that electorally will be far more important than LDP/CBAC. The question I’m asking myself is ‘do I continue to pursue alternatives, or do I rejoin the Liberals and fight to turn them into something decent?’

    The only thing stopping me is my understanding of what it would cost me personally. I can do it, but am I willing to pay the price? I too like to read the comments on this site and I am sure many other Cats feel very similar.

  34. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    BTW Ricky Muir has joined the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.

    If he hadn’t been led so badly by his Greenist staff he may still be in parliament.

  35. .

    jupes
    #2427539, posted on June 30, 2017 at 10:25 am
    The two most important policies facing Australia at the minute are Muslim immigration and ‘climate change’.

    The LDP are ideological libertarians and ignore the obvious results of policies such as open borders immigration. Blind Freddy can see where that leads but not the LDP. More alarming is their policy of not prosecuting members of terrorist groups which would result in terrorist groups operating legally here. They are also cool with (an albeit smaller) RET.

    You’re a despicable lying fuckwit.

  36. Fisky

    You’re a despicable lying fuckwit.

    Oh? Which of Jupes’ statements are lies? They look factual to most of us.

  37. Iampeter

    The LDP offer a more consistent defence of individual rights, while the Conservatives chnage depending on the issue in question.

    But as some other commenters here have mentioned the LDP have strange priorities and are nor getting the kind of publicity they should be getting for the right reasons.

    E.g. They should focus on highlighting that they don’t want the state in your business OR your bedroom which makes them a clear alternative to the other major approaches but instead they focus on cigarettes, so they come off like some single issue party instead of the actually far more ideologically consistent group that I think they are.

  38. I do not like any party that has socialist aims leading to elitist or dictatorial control. PHON has citizen initiated referendum (as in Switzerland) in their policy but not sure how genuine. I do not like central control. I disagreed with Howard on that. He said that GST was a states tax and he should have given it all to each state in the proportion of their collection. I believe if the voters in a state elect an incompetent government then they should suffer the consequence. States like Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory should not be propped up. The Federal government should have no role in environment, or in energy generation, or in mining and use of resources. Maybe there should be more states. Queensland could easily be split into 4 states. There is a need to reduce the influence of the large cities (Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney). In USA each state has only two senators. Something similar in Switzerland. On the ballot I put the most socialist/communist candidate last (Greens or Social Alliance) and work up to the least socialist and the one who wants to give people the most say. Going by policy that has to be PHON at this stage.

  39. Andrew M

    They are different on the social values, in the way the Taliban are different to hippies. AC are more theocratic dinosaurs.
    It’s not just the social dimension, it’s economics too. The LD will never vote for a tax increase, but you cannot make the same guarantee about the AC.

    On social policy LDP are definitely progressive to the pint of autistic denial of the fruits of such policies

    Waiting for a supporting quote from Hansard…. (crickets)…

  40. The question I’m asking myself is ‘do I continue to pursue alternatives,
    or do I rejoin the Liberals and fight to turn them into something decent?’

    I have contact details for a really full-on S&M club in Canberra if you’re interested, Politico.

  41. Dr Fred Lenin

    Usually parties dont really win elections , they may get more votes but thats because the orher gang threw away the power , Howard gave us krudd ,krudd gave us giliard ,okeshit and wanker gave us giliard again the comrades gave us krudd again ,krudd gave us Abbott the comrades of the liberals left gave us ruddbull twice ,now ruddbull is giving us shortass ,the voter has little to do with career politics . Career politics is really a bitchfight of incompetant legal failures with egos bigger than their abilities .Abolish career politics. Preferntial and compulsory voting and see what happens ,coukdnt be any worse than now , and cost a lot less

  42. Anthony Park

    I’m pro-LDP, I prefer the social policy and the degree of internal coherence on a philosophical level. I think the LDP position on SSM, drugs etc is a result of a view of ‘we don’t care what you do in private’ as opposed to radically transforming social institutions. As many other commenters have pointed out, the LDP philosopy does tend to end up in some, uh, interesting niches. However, I prefer to be consistent, and being intellectually challenged is no bad thing.

    With the AC, my concern with the integration of FF and DLP is that we may end up with another conservative party with a decent streak of agrarian socialism.

  43. PoliticoNT

    I have contact details for a really full-on S&M club in Canberra if you’re interested, Politico.

    Thanks MemoryVault. S&M’s a bit of a fluffy fourth-tier past-time compared to pushing our political culture in the right direction. Mind you, not half as bad for your reputation.

  44. S&M’s a bit of a fluffy fourth-tier past-time compared
    to pushing our political culture in the right direction.

    I know.
    That’s why I thought you might enjoy a bit of a break, without losing your edge.

  45. Faye

    From a Conservative’s point of view: Out of the two men, I would trust Cory more. I think he is loaded with commonsense and practicality. He should surround himself with quality advisers. He is authentic, has integrity and is a true conservative.
    David is more complicated. Is he liable to do something rash(?) He is a very clever man, an original thinker and speaks plainly but falls short of being a true conservative.
    Neither men are the charismatic types to be PM celebs but don’t we have one now who is hopeless?
    All Australians want is strong leadership with down to earth policies to make Australia greater than ever before.

  46. Anthony Park

    With regards to the LDP immigration policy, it has been criticized as a lazier faire pay-to-enter policy. The initial price is supposed to be set by auction – see policy here. So, with a bit of tweaking, you could make every immigration slot an item for auction, then increase/decrease the supply of slots according to economic growth or some other indicator.

    Migrants who come via LDP policy wouldn’t get welfare or passports and can still be deported for criminality. So, there is little incentive to come to Australia and be a dole bludger.

  47. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Yes, with a few tweaks the LDP immigration policy could be very good.

  48. OldOzzie

    Bernie Sanders a Typical Hypocritical Socialist – “Don’t do as I or my wife do”

    Sen. Sanders’ Wife Tried Evicting Disabled Group Home Residents after Closing Shady College Deal Under FBI Probe

    Amid a deepening federal investigation of Jane Sanders, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ wife, Judicial Watch has obtained records that paint a rather disturbing personal portrait of a heartless spouse—and longtime political advisor—of the Democratic Socialist candidate for president of the United States. During the Obama administration, the FBI began investigating Jane for falsifying documents to obtain a $10 million loan to expand a now-defunct liberal arts college in a town where her husband once served as mayor while she was the school’s president.

    The school, Burlington College, was in a small city with the same name in northwestern Vermont. It’s a quaint town of about 42,000 that sits on the eastern shoreline of Lake Champlain and prides itself on having “diverse, forward-thinking citizens” that are “steeped in arts and culture.” Jane was president of the troubled college from 2004 to 2011 and in 2010, she had an ambitious plan to expand the campus by 33 acres, despite low enrollment and financial difficulties. The then-president of Burlington College drastically overstated donation amounts in loan applications, according to the Vermont news website that broke the story, to obtain a $10 million loan. Jane indicated there was $2.6 million in pledged donations but the school only got $676,000 in four years.

    The loan went through, some allege after her husband’s senatorial office pressured the bank to approve it, and Jane masterminded a deal to purchase an undeveloped, 32-acre parcel of land and a 77,000-square-foot facility from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The purchase included a facility that served as a group home for disabled people and, under the terms of the deal, Jane was supposed to negotiate the transfer of the disabled residents before the school took over the property. Instead Jane tried to kick the disabled people out of their group home, records obtained by Judicial Watch show. The records, part of an ongoing Judicial Watch investigation into the Jane Sanders fraud case, include electronic mail exchanges between Jane when she was president of Burlington College and two former mayors of the city of Burlington.

    In a lengthy letter to the attorney (Todd Centybear) representing the group home for the disabled Jane indicates that she’s having trouble evicting the 16 residents from their building on the newly purchased property after the college had acquired the land. She writes: “It is simply not fair to expect the College to continue to carry the burden of the expenses associated with housing both your population and ours until February 2012.” The home for the disabled was being leased from the diocese and Jane was supposed to help relocate the residents, not evict them. The exchange shows, not only Jane’s heartlessness, but also her incompetence as the college president for not ensuring the negotiated transfer of those disabled people before the school took over the property.

    In a separate email to then Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss, Jane forwards a laughable press release issued by the college announcing her resignation. “I wanted you to hear it from me,” she writes to the mayor. “It’s a good decision.” The press release announced that “In honor of her significant accomplishments, the College has given Sanders the title of President Emerita…” It adds that “The Board credits Sanders with negotiating the acquisition of its beautiful new 32-acre lakefront campus, a transformative achievement for the College.” In reality, the acquisition of that property bankrupted the College, and Sanders is now being investigated for bank fraud by the FBI for misrepresentations she made on loan documents to purchase the land for the campus.

    Senator Sanders, who is up for reelection this year, hit the media circuit this week to defend his wife, assuring that she’s the most honest person he knows and that the investigation is politically motivated. “When you go after people’s wives that is really pathetic,” he said in a recent interview, adding that “it’s fairly pathetic that when people are involved in public life, it’s not only that they get attacked, but it’s their wives and their families that get attacked. That’s what this is about.” The couple lawyered up this week, hiring two prominent attorneys, one in Burlington and the other in Washington D.C. Also, this month, Jane launched a nonprofit organization, the Sanders Institute, to “revitalize democracy” with progressive policies aimed at racial and social justice as well as environmental and economic issues.

  49. OldOzzie

    Apologies to all – wrong Tab slip with totally out of place post above – thought I was on Foum

  50. Peter Greagg

    Agree with Jupes and others, our two biggest public policy issues are climate fraud and Muslim immigration.
    So PHON beats both the LDP and Cory’s outfit.
    That said, if I had to choose between the LDP and Cory’s, it would have to be Cory as he understands that the West is under sustained attack by the Marxists and our culture needs to be defended.

  51. PoliticoNT

    MemoryVault – but will I still have wifi access in the club so I can read the Cat in-between lashes? (It’s the small things that count.)

  52. I think the LDP position on SSM, drugs etc is a result of a view of ‘we don’t care what you do in private’ as opposed to radically transforming social institutions.

    Funny then that SSM requires the redefinition and transformation of marriage.

  53. .

    Oh right Fisk.

    What do you think electricity prices would be like now if hydro was still excluded from the RET?

    jupes tried to say not indicting kids for declaring for ISIS after watching some online propaganda was the same as allowing the shooting of Curtis Cheng to be ignored.

    Absolute piffle.

  54. PoliticoNT

    If I had to choose between the LDP and Cory’s, it would have to be Cory

    Peter, yes, but he needs to stop evolve his public speaking persona away from a constipated Michaelangelo’s David to something a little more lively.

  55. PoliticoNT

    …evolve his public….

  56. .

    At the end of the day, Cory and David are good men with fairly good policies (both the ACP and LDP).

    If you don’t like them and can’t find an alternative (ALA and PHON); the TEA Party will not become an actual party, the FFP are part of the ACP and the “libertarian-conservative Christianist populist nationalist climate sceptics fusion party” doesn’t exist. If you are not prepared to make it exist, tough shit.

  57. mh

    I had a look at Filthy Rich and Homeless on SBS last night – the studio forum where everyone tried to put forward a strategy on how to address the homeless problem covered in the earlier episodes. One of the glaring solutions is to cut immigration numbers, a PHON policy. Unfortunately I did not hear the word ‘immigration’ mentioned once, although I may have missed it.

    I want conservative, common-sense solutions. We have a Treasurer that argues that the key to our prosperity is GDP growth, and he says that a large immigration intake is part of that because they all have to eat and have a roof over their head.

  58. but will I still have wifi access in the club so I can read the Cat in-between lashes?

    As I understand it, Politico, their internet service broadcasts rather than receives.

  59. Fisky

    Funny then that SSM requires the redefinition and transformation of marriage.

    And of all the LDP-supported gay marriage bills in parliament, NOT ONE actually proposed to get the state out of marriage!

    This is another dishonest bait-and-switch!

  60. Fisky

    The reality of the libertarian movement is that whenever their ideological positions conflict with Leftism, Leftism always wins.

  61. Bruce of Newcastle

    Dot – You forget the SFF, who have very good conservative policies coupled with pretty good libertarian credentials. They advocate gun ownership of course: hard not to be at least somewhat libertarian when you are pushing a individualist platform.

  62. .

    That’s right Bruce, if you can’t find someone to vote, for now, you’re not trying.

  63. Bruce of Newcastle

    Dot – the biggest problem is how to avoid voting for idiots in the HoR.
    I had to colour in all the boxes last election.
    The twelve-below-the-line in the Senate at least allowed me a meaningful vote.
    If DL could advance a private members’ bill for NSW style exhaustion he’d be admired.

  64. woolfe

    Pity Corrie cannot entice Malcolm Roberts from PHON. He is articulate and sensible.

    As most say here the Open Borders is a deal breaker so I would vote AC, then PHON then LD.

  65. mh

    Australian Conservatives would be more suited to Vic and SA because Cory Bernardi can argue the case against renewables and the consequences for what’s left of industry down there.

    Pauline Hanson’s One Nation are more suited to conservative Queensland because of their reach into the heartland.

    DLP has a very limited appeal, unless Mark Latham is going to go into bat for them.

  66. mh

    Sorry, I meant Liberal Democrats not DLP.

  67. .

    We’d have to change the policy, but I’d welcome optional preferential voting, even if David did so without official approval.

    So far as policy, what we have that way is voluntary voting and recall elections.

  68. Louis Hissink

    The trick is to destroy the present monolithic party system. Getting a coalition in order to govern should reduce the political tendency to pillage the taxpayers. So I joined Bernardi’s party.

  69. max

    “We The People” don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is a rigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact.

    “Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. senators and congress members.”
    Jimmy Carter

  70. Dr Fred Leni

    The housing problem could easily be solved by deporting all muslims and ” refugees ” soon as possible ,now dont tell me all yhose empty houses wouldnt solve that problem . There would be lots of screams from the negative gearing gang and the alp vote rigging gang, but stuff them .

  71. Just Interested

    The LDP and the Australian Conservatives have similarities (smaller government; commitment to federalism; genuine commitment to market economics) but sufficient differences in largely the ‘social stuff’ to make them identifiably different, yet clearly with sufficient similarities to get along in a coalition.

    (One Nation covers ‘blood and soil’ nationalists, who have limited overlap with the LDP, and not much really with the ACs apart from the Muslim/Halal hang up).

    Because each overall world view are really only held firmly by about 5-10% of the electorate (maximum 20% coverage), they will never do much good in a single seat constituency with mandatory voting and compulsory preferential voting for the reason Crissy Pyne said in Q&A: at least for the time being the majors will still ultimately win, even if they get your second last preference.

    The Senate: a different kettle of fish, as the electorate clearly votes more on identifiable personal philosophy rather than on who should govern in upper house elections.

    If both parties genuinely wanted to be a party of government (with all the compromise that entails) they could (notionally, anyway) amalgamate to form something pretty similar to the US Republicans.

    That could give the centre left a shake up, and the centre right a new hope.

  72. Pingback: Question Time | Catallaxy Files | Cranky Old Crow

  73. Broadly, the LDP is economically dry and socially wet, whereas AC is economically wet and socially dry.

    The Cory Tories are far more like the DLP, so much so that their latest convert came from the DLP and wanted a merger of the two.

  74. Dauf

    I will vote for either before the main parties…and even the One Nation protest party. However, the problem remains; which one first or should one just go informal in HoR as many are proposing…a serious dilemma.

    Both major parties want to spend money on everything and everyone to seem like they care. But, we will no longer have money to help people who genuinely need it. As someone entering their mid 50’s and starting to consider funds for life after work, i think the policies of the big two are despicable. To me this is exemplified by the notion (in The Australian today) that a retired couple may now be better off with $400k in super than those with $1 million. What moronic policy

    If the two alternative parties (LDP & AC) can provide hope of some ‘reward for effort’ then they may have big traction, at least with the 50% of Australian who pay net tax, and have not given up.

  75. iampeter

    but sufficient differences in largely the ‘social stuff’ to make them identifiably different, yet clearly with sufficient similarities to get along in a coalition.

    See I agree with you but I think these “social stuff” differences are where the entire problem lies. Market economics is also “social stuff” so if you’re movement wants to “genuinely” support market economics (and the corresponding limited government), it has to support individual rights as a matter of principle, across all the issues or none.

    This is the key difference between the two: LDP are consistently on the side of individual rights across all the issues. Are they perfect? No. But we aren’t going to go back to classic liberalism overnight.
    Aussie Conservatives on the other hand have all the same issues as the LNP they are breaking away from in that their claim of supporting limited government and capitalism is undermined by their rights violating positions on SSM and immigration.

    It’s an irreconcilable contradiction in their ideology and is why Conservatives never shrink government. They can’t even make the case for it.

  76. a reader

    There is a place for LDP but I could never vote for them to get them into a governing position. I’ve seriously considered joining Australian Conservatives. But I need to see where they go with their expansion. Brokenshire was a good pick-up. I don’t know enough about the former DLP woman to know if she’s a help or a hindrance.

    I see both as limited government types and both don’t seem to believe in increasing taxation. AC seem to be genuinely conservative which is what I’ve believed in my entire life. That for me is a vote clincher. I couldn’t in all conscience touch PHON because it attracts all manner of nutters and has quite a few bonkers policies.

  77. a reader

    their claim of supporting limited government and capitalism is undermined by their rights violating positions on SSM and immigration.

    You have to be bloody joking, particularly on that first issue. Redefining marriage leads to bigger government not lesser! It also leads to less freedom for everyone except the less than 4% of the population in homosexual relationships.

  78. Iampeter

    This is what I mean. If you think getting government out of marriage is increasing the size of government then is your plan to fight for free markets by expanding the welfare and regulatory state?

  79. a reader

    The LDP doesn’t want the government out of marriage. At least their voting record suggests not.

  80. a reader

    Let me add to that…redefining marriage requires:
    -New marriage legislation
    -New anti discrimination legislation (conscience clauses)
    -Never ending tribunal/court cases against conscientious objectors.
    -Discrimination against Christians.

    NONE of that reduces government. The LDP has shown me no evidence that they actually believe in getting the government out of marriage despite policy protestations.

  81. .

    The LDP doesn’t want the government out of marriage.

    Yes, that is the preference. SSM is a halfway house. READ THE POLICY.

    -New anti discrimination legislation (conscience clauses)

    This partly repeals the Sex Discrimination Act. Do you know what that is?

    -Never ending tribunal/court cases against conscientious objectors.

    No, you object and the government can fuck off.

    They cannot use administrative law to take an exemption to legislation away.

    -Discrimination against Christians.

    Which is not feasible under the conscience clauses you oppose.

    Private discrimination may otherwise be illegal under the SDA, but that doesn’t exist but for SSM.

  82. Fisky

    It’s an irreconcilable contradiction in their ideology and is why Conservatives never shrink government. They can’t even make the case for it.

    But this is also true of libertarians. When was the last time libertarians shrank government? All I can remember is libertarians furiously opposing Operation Sovereign Borders, which alone cut the deficit by at least 10%!

  83. Fisky

    Operation Sovereign Borders is the single most effective classical liberal program in history, cutting over $12 billion off the forward estimates, but libertarians were against it! What is the point of this movement???

  84. .

    We give out 15 bn a year to non-citizens in welfare. We should do stop doing that.

    OSB should continue as a policy on a costs-benefits test basis.

    OSB was better than the cruel policies Gillard installed and David Leyonhjelm supported it.

    The problem is Fisk you believe actually asking the CBA question is part of some weird and wicked plot to go back to no border control and welfare for everyone. You are seriously paranoid and deluded.

  85. Fisky

    But as a matter of fact, you don’t hear libertarians asking the Merkel government for any kind of cost-benefit-analysis at all. It’s a given, for the majority of libertarians, that the Merkelian open borders policy is a massive boon to the German economy.

    So I think we should be very suspicious when libertarians start playing the “cost” card against strong border policies. You only have to look at the CATO Institute – they oppose Trump’s $10 billion wall, while supporting the much more expensive refugee resettlement program!

    Very dishonest!

  86. .

    I’m not German and no one in their right mind would support what Merkel did, subsidising one million unvetted migrants/refugees to settle on top of generous benefits. This has been brought up repeatedly.

  87. Infidel Tiger

    Australian libertarians all supported the carbon tax. They thought it was brilliant market driven policy.

  88. Infidel Tiger

    They also creamed themselves over Obama.

  89. Fisky

    Hey Infidel, you going to the thing tomorrow morning?

  90. .

    Infidel Tiger
    #2428239, posted on June 30, 2017 at 10:44 pm
    Australian libertarians all supported the carbon tax. They thought it was brilliant market driven policy.
    Infidel Tiger
    #2428240, posted on June 30, 2017 at 10:44 pm
    They also creamed themselves over Obama.

    LOL! These old chesnuts.

  91. iampeter:

    Aussie Conservatives on the other hand have all the same issues as the LNP they are breaking away from in that their claim of supporting limited government and capitalism is undermined by their rights violating positions on SSM and immigration.

    Um, no. Re immigration, no one’s rights are violated by their immigration policy. No foreigner has a right of entry to Australia. Australians, through their government, are perfectly entitled to regulate entry in their jurisdiction just as a private owner of property can invite or refuse entry on their own property.
    Re SSM, no one’s rights are violated by refusing to recognize a relationship between the same sex as possibly constituting a marriage. I’ll also point out again, that you have done nothing to demonstrate that refusing such recognition constitutes a violation of their rights.

    dot:

    Yes, that is the preference. SSM is a halfway house.

    Not at all. You cannot reasonably argue that legislation that expands the definition of marriage is a ‘halfway house’ on the road to “getting the state out of marriage”. It achieves quite the opposite. It emboldens the state to do what it pleases with marriage because it would now have the example of completely erasing the feature of marriage being a relationship between the sexes. And given the arguments of academic liberals like Elizabeth Brake or the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage crowd, all it will do is embolden them to include other types of relationships in the ambit of marriage.

    Moreover, even the first preference is impossible. As I said to Sinc on another thread, you cannot at once both want a retreat from the state exercising authority re marriage but nevertheless also approving state intervention to prevent this or that group from exercising long established customs viz marriage (i. e. child marriage. So, at best, the only policy available to libertarians is a ‘minimal state involvement’ re marriage, not a ‘ no involvement’ policy at all. That they haven’t cottoned on to this after some many years of talking about marriage, state, and law, is not promising.

  92. .

    So, at best, the only policy available to libertarians is a ‘minimal state involvement’ re marriage, not a ‘ no involvement’ policy at all.

    Which is part of (and the final aim of) the policy.

  93. In other words, the policy is not a ‘get the government out of marriage’ policy at all. It is a policy that is prepared to transform marriage to assuage the grievances of this or that group that feels discriminated against, all the while pretending this is a ‘minimal state involvement’ policy viz. marriage.

  94. .

    Formal and substantive equality before the law are legitimate reasons to me.

  95. Formal and substantive equality before the law are legitimate reasons to me.

    Begs the question. You are only required to recognize the equality of things that are the same.

  96. .

    No it doesn’t. Equality before the law.

  97. It does, indeed, beg the question, because ‘what marriage is’ is in dispute. Further, quality before the law is not violated, unless your also arguing that other restrictions, as to age, consanguinity, and the like, also violate equality before the law.

  98. .

    Amazing that you think marriage doesn’t exist in a bubble but you ignore succession etc.

  99. struth

    Children can’t drink alcohol.
    Are their rights being violated?
    Marraige by definition is between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a family.
    It’s all about sex……
    Unless a penis enters a vagina it is not sex.
    It is not sexual intercourse.
    You can call it what you like but it isn’t sexual intercourse two men are having.
    If people these days get married just for companionship in old age etc, as the argument goes, they still are not allowed to marry their sibling.
    Why not?
    Because the tradition of marriage was and is to this day, not between two people, but a declaration and agreement between those two people and their community.
    A declaration and agreement that all is above board, especially regarding the consequences of the intercourse expected.
    Marriage has nothing to do with individuals of the same sex.

  100. Amazing that you think marriage doesn’t exist in a bubble but you ignore succession etc.

    wtf?

  101. Deplorable

    However let’s not forget PHON. On the two most important issues of the day, they set the gold standard. Until the ACs can match them on these two, then PHON has my 1 vote, AC my 2 vote and the LDP down with Labor and the Greens.

    Could not agree more Jupes and if those 2 parties add reduction of government spending, departments and NGO’s then what’s not to like.
    LDP is just theoretical claptrap.

  102. iampeter

    The LDP doesn’t want the government out of marriage. At least their voting record suggests not.

    The LDP’s position is to reduce governments involvement in marriage to that of maintaining a register.

    The point is that their position on government involvement in an issue like marriage is consistent with their position on other types of government regulation in that it comes at it from the point of view of protecting individual rights.

    With AC on the other hand they change depending on the issue, so they claim to be for free markets but not SSM. Which means in principle they don’t support individual rights, which means in practice they are unlikely to ever implement any free market policies.

    The history of the Liberal Party of the last thirty years also supports this.

    You either support individual rights which means you are consistent in getting government out of peoples affairs on all the issues or you don’t. But you can’t have both in one movement and achieve anything.

    This is the biggest difference IMO between the LDP and the AC.

  103. The LDP does not want the ‘state out of marriage’. I’ve clearly demonstrated that above.

  104. iampeter

    Actually just thinking about it some more, I’d break down the difference as follows:

    The LDP have consistent individualist, right-wing politic policies but poor PR/brand recognition.
    The AC have inconsistent and poor political policies but much better PR/brand recognition.

    If we took the LDP policies and combined them with the AC’s PR/brand recognition, we would have the makings of an actual right wing political party in this country.

  105. Which means in principle they don’t support individual rights, which means in practice they are unlikely to ever implement any free market policies.

    You have not yet demonstrated the former and the latter is a non sequitur.

  106. Fisky

    I’m pretty sure most Western countries had much freer markets in the hateful deplorable olden days when gays were shut in the closet…

  107. Fisky

    What a bizarre claim – you can’t cut taxes or deregulate the economy, unless you first legalise gay marriage. I’m never disappointed by libertarians, they always live up to their reputation for autism.

  108. They really make it easy for you, Fisky.

  109. iampeter

    What a bizarre claim – you can’t cut taxes or deregulate the economy, unless you first legalise gay marriage.

    No, what’s been said is that you can’t both support protecting individual rights AND violating individual rights at the same time. These are the fundamental alternatives of politics. It’s one or the other.

    As a Conservative you reject the very notion of political principles and ideology and so you end up looking at things issue by issue and will be all over the place on them. In your case it’s worse than that as you are literally a one/two issue voter. You’d support a Socialist as long as he bans SSM and immigrants.

    Anyway, in the absence of any principles or ideas all you have in order to guide your random positions on random issues are appeals to collectivist notions of religion or tradition. As we saw during the Howard and Abbott years, that’s not going to bring about limited government or capitalism, quite the opposite in fact. It’s hard to support capitalism when you don’t agree with it in principle.

    Also I think you know I’m right on some level and that’s why you resort to ad hominems so quickly. Actual political ideas and principles are terrifying to leftist collectivists of all types, including you religious/traditionalist Conservatives who have no arguments and ideas of your own to offer.

  110. To repeat, you haven’t demonstrated that opposing SSM violates anyone’s individual rights.

  111. Fisky

    No, what’s been said is that you can’t both support protecting individual rights AND violating individual rights at the same time. These are the fundamental alternatives of politics. It’s one or the other.

    But this is an even bigger problem for libertarians – they support the right to immigrate and gay marriage, but offer no explanation when these policies lead to even greater violations of rights. There is something inherently wrong with a philosophy that destroys itself.

  112. iampeter

    To repeat, you haven’t demonstrated that opposing SSM violates anyone’s individual rights.

    Individual rights are your freedom to think and act in a social context. In other words it’s the political concept that needs to be recognized and protected by the state if we are going to live among each other freely and peacefully.
    If the state can tell you what type of contracts you can or can’t engage in then it is violating your individual rights. It’s violating your ability to go about your life as you see fit because this or that collective decided they don’t approve of your life choices.

    And if you think the state can act on behalf of this or that collective to violate your individual rights how are you going to support capitalism? You’ve already disagreed with it on a fundamental level and agreed with all of it’s opponents in principle.

  113. Tel

    Gay couples can sign onto any contract they want, right now. There’s no need to change the law in any way.

  114. iampeter

    But this is an even bigger problem for libertarians – they support the right to immigrate and gay marriage, but offer no explanation when these policies lead to even greater violations of rights.

    I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. People cannot violate your rights by merely engaging in activities you disapprove of. Rights can only be violated by force or fraud which in a free country are what constitutes illegal activity and are the only types of activity that should be illegal. Neither SSM nor immigration in and of themselves fall into that category and therefore cannot be illegal in a free, rights-respecting country.

  115. .

    dover_beach
    #2428529, posted on July 1, 2017 at 10:45 am
    The LDP does not want the ‘state out of marriage’. I’ve clearly demonstrated that above.

    You’re lying and play dumb in lieu of conceding being wrong. Take down that ridiculous saint avatar.

    Read the policy. You are wrong.

  116. iampeter

    Gay couples can sign onto any contract they want, right now. There’s no need to change the law in any way.

    I would’ve agreed with you until 2004 but then the Howard Government decided to amend the marriage act to give it a judeao/christian definition and created this entire issue.

    This is nothing short of totalitarian, collectivist and rights violating, specifically targeting a certain group of people for discrimination by the state.

    Without trying to derail the thread I will add that given the Howard government created the entire environmentalist bureaucracy, middle class welfare as we know it and even went through a phase forcibly disarming Australia’s citizens, it is pretty small fry in comparison, so I’ll give you that.

  117. Tel

    I would’ve agreed with you until 2004 but then the Howard Government decided to amend the marriage act to give it a judeao/christian definition and created this entire issue.

    Which has nothing whatsoever with two people who want to sign a contract.

    If you happen to also want government to be involved, there’s this thing called “Civil Union”, don’t pretend you have not heard of this alread.

  118. Infidel Tiger

    It was about the only decent thing Howard did.

    I would still have him shot.

  119. iampeter

    Which has nothing whatsoever with two people who want to sign a contract.

    But we’re not talking about random people signing random contracts, we’re talking about the specific contract of marriage which via the regulatory act of the Howard Government in 2004 now specifically precludes a specific segment of the population from engaging in thus violating their individual rights.

    If you’re cool with the state doing this in the specific case of marriage why are you not cool with it doing it in other cases? I mean once you agree individual rights can be violated what grounds do you have to disagree with any big government leftists on anything?

    This is the achilles heel of the AC, the LNP and any other Conservative movement world wide. They just don’t support individual rights as a matter of principle, without which they are not likely to bring about any capitalist or government limiting policies.

    I mean what does one even limit government to if not specifically the protection of individual rights? Slightly less rights violation than the alternative rights violating government?

    Just think about it.

  120. Tel

    But we’re not talking about random people signing random contracts, we’re talking about the specific contract of marriage which via the regulatory act of the Howard Government in 2004 now specifically precludes a specific segment of the population from engaging in thus violating their individual rights.

    Now you are changing your story, up above you said this exactly:

    If the state can tell you what type of contracts you can or can’t engage in then it is violating your individual rights.

    So explain to me in detail how the state prevents two gay people writing whatever they want and signing off on the contract. They can even write “This is Marriage” at the top of the paper.

  121. iampeter

    That’s not changing the story, that is the story.

    The argument I’m making is that if the state can violate individual rights of a segment of population with regards to one contract then there is no reason it can’t do it for others.

    That’s it.

    So explain to me in detail how the state prevents two gay people writing whatever they want and signing off on the contract. They can even write “This is Marriage” at the top of the paper.

    That’s not the point. The point is you’ve agreed the state can violate individual rights. Sure we can get around relatively small-fry rights violations like this, but you aren’t going to be bringing about any capitalist or limited government policies until you don’t support individual rights on ALL issues, not just some.

    So bringing it back to the point of the thread, this lack of principled support for individual rights is the key difference between the LDP and the AC.

  122. Tel

    The point is you’ve agreed the state can violate individual rights.

    What?!? After you have pointed out why two gay people cannot sign a contract (which you still have failed to do, despite asserting this) you can then go and point out where I made any such agreement.

    Sure we can get around relatively small-fry rights violations like this, but you aren’t going to be bringing about any capitalist or limited government policies until you don’t support individual rights on ALL issues, not just some.

    So now you accept that SSM really is not an issue at all? Like seriously, where is this mystical rights violation? Just step me through it. Start with the place where your theoretical gay couple decided they would get a Civil Union, and just really slowly explain which of their rights were violated after that.

    Personally I support removing the word “marriage” from the Australian Constitution completely, but I think it’s difficult to achieve, and I doubt the SSM supporters would be happy about it. They want more government involvement, not less.

  123. iampeter

    Tel, what are you actually confused about? As of 2004, thanks to the Howard government a certain segment of the population has been precluded from engaging in marriage as defined by the marriage act. This is a violation of their individual rights.

    Whether they can still engage in other contracts or not, does not thing to address the issue that the state has violated their individual rights.

    And anyone supporting rights violating policies is not going to be supporting rights protecting policies, hence capitalist and limited government was a pipe dream under Howard and Abbott and will be with the AC as well.

  124. Fisky

    Neither SSM nor immigration in and of themselves fall into that category and therefore cannot be illegal in a free, rights-respecting country.

    Unfortunately, mass immigration has led to significant violations of people’s rights all throughout Europe, which as we know is your open borders utopia. Clearly, there is a basic conflict between individual “rights”, if allowing one directly leads to others being infringed. Maybe viewing the world through the prism of “rights” is a dumb idea to start with.

    but you aren’t going to be bringing about any capitalist or limited government policies until you don’t support individual rights on ALL issues, not just some.

    But there have been lots of countries that have succeeded in doing just that – limiting the size of government and having a very free economy, in spite of having numerous restrictions on individual rights. Singapore and Chile being the best examples. And Australia had a much freer economy back in the days when gays were banned and Aborigines/women/etc weren’t allowed to vote.

    I think the core problem with libertarianism is that it is not simply self-defeating, but it is actually unable to account for reality. Libertarians are constrained by their ideology from being able to confront basic facts, and I think it’s even more serious for them than it was with Marxists.

  125. iampeter

    Maybe viewing the world through the prism of “rights” is a dumb idea to start with.

    LOL.
    Not on a political blog it’s not. You don’t know what politics is about do you?
    Do you also go on motorsports blogs and tell people that talking about cars in that forum is dumb?

    You have no idea what you’re saying, I can’t stop laughing.

    And Australia had a much freer economy back in the days when gays were banned and Aborigines/women/etc weren’t allowed to vote.

    Bahahahahaha.

    We had more freedoms when we had LESS freedoms! Ofcourse! How could we have been so blind?!
    Also slavery IS freedom after all! All this time, we didn’t listen. If only we’d listened.

    Why are you here Fisk, you are not centre-right nor do you know anything about politics, history, basic words…

    😀 I can’t stop laughing.

  126. Fisky

    Not on a political blog it’s not. You don’t know what politics is about do you?

    Yes, I do know what politics is – it’s what people can grab at any given time, using whatever justification suits. No one cares about your “rights”. They are meaningless.

    Why are you here Fisk, you are not centre-right nor do you know anything about politics, history, basic words…

    But this, again, is the problem. You obviously hasn’t read anything outside the Ayn Rand Institute publishing house. You asserted that it was not possible to have low regulation and a capitalist economy unless we allowed full civil rights in other areas. The reality is that a great number of countries have already done that. Singapore has a much freer economy than Australia despite having fewer rights.

    So the problem with libertarianism is not that it doesn’t work (although it certainly has a very high failure rate), but that it fails to describe reality. Sad!

  127. Fisky

    Dotty, do you agree with your buttboy Iampeter, that it is impossible to have a free, low-regulation, capitalist economy unless we legalise gay marriage? Yes or no!

  128. Tel

    Tel, what are you actually confused about? As of 2004, thanks to the Howard government a certain segment of the population has been precluded from engaging in marriage as defined by the marriage act. This is a violation of their individual rights.

    No it is not. It’s a definition of the word “marriage”.

    Individuals still have all the rights they always had. You keep getting asked for details as to exactly which rights have been taken away and you can never answer, so you simply repeat the assertion. That means you have no argument. End of story. Please stop wasting everyone’s time.

  129. iampeter

    Yes, I do know what politics is – it’s what people can grab at any given time, using whatever justification suits. No one cares about your “rights”. They are meaningless.

    HAHahahahahahaha.

  130. iampeter

    That means you have no argument. End of story. Please stop wasting everyone’s time.

    Your point has been answered numerous times. I can’t help you.

  131. iampeter

    So those are your choices Spartacus:

    LDP – consistent, individualist, rights respecting and capitalistic approach to government.

    OR

    Conservatives 2017 – “grab whatever you can at any given time, using whatever justification suits. No one cares about your “rights”. They are meaningless.”

  132. iampeter

    Wait, wait I have another one:

    Conservatives 2017 – “grab whatever, grab em by the pussy, at any given time, using whatever justification suits. No one cares about your “rights”. They are meaningless.”

    I want to include the immigrant slaying El Presidente’s legendarily presidential remarks as well.

  133. Tel

    Anyone who scans back over the thread can see that all you do is repeat the same assertion. That’s not evidence of anything other than your own opinion.

  134. Fisky

    Anyone who scans back over the thread can see that all you do is repeat the same assertion. That’s not evidence of anything other than your own opinion.

    There is a reason why no libertarian government has ever existed anywhere. It would fall apart in 5 minutes!

  135. iampeter

    Anyone who scans back over the thread can see that all you do is repeat the same assertion. That’s not evidence of anything other than your own opinion.

    Or, anyone who scans back over the thread will see that I’ve patiently restated a very simple fact in as many ways as I can think of, that it shouldn’t be possible to still not get it.

  136. As of 2004, thanks to the Howard government a certain segment of the population has been precluded from engaging in marriage as defined by the marriage act. This is a violation of their individual rights.

    Sorry Peter, but that is utter bollocks. Nothing precludes any segment of the population from engaging in marriage. Any two or more people can “engage in marriage” any time they like, regardless of gender. They can even sign a “Marriage Certificate” if they so wish. Here, take your pick.

    All the Marriage Act does is define which of those written contracts the law will recognise as “lawful marriages”, with whatever that implies under existing legislation, which these days, is pretty much nothing. As Tel has pointed out (often) there is no legal arrangement which exists today within a “legal marriage” that can’t be legally duplicated by other agreements.

    So the State won’t recognise the marriage between you, your boyfriend, his girlfriend, Spot, the Jack Russel, and the Banksia tree out in the front yard? So what? The State will not recognise a whole lot of contracts without violating anybody’s rights. The sale of a daughter into slavery, a contract to kill somebody, even between yourself and the hitman, or a contract to supply 100,000 contraband cigarettes, all spring readily to mind.

  137. iampeter

    So what?

    It violates individual rights, that’s what. That’s what I keep trying to say. Preventing a group of people from getting recognized under the Marriage Act is a rights violation.
    I don’t disagree that the scope and scale of the rights violation might not be that big.
    I don’t disagree that there are other legal alternatives.
    My point is that it is still a rights violation as is anything a government does because “gays” or because “women” or because “immigrant”, etc. The function of government is to protect rights, that’s it.
    And a political movement that is happy to violate rights will not be bringing about capitalist policies as history bears out.

    The State will not recognise a whole lot of contracts without violating anybody’s rights. The sale of a daughter into slavery, a contract to kill somebody, even between yourself and the hitman, or a contract to supply 100,000 contraband cigarettes, all spring readily to mind.

    Those aren’t examples of contracts, those are examples of rights violations and therefore things that should be crimes.
    Contracts are agreements that people freely enter into, and if used to engage in force or fraud against each other then the state should rightfully step in to adjudicate. SSM is not a rights violation and so doesn’t fall into that category.

  138. Infidel Tiger

    It violates individual rights, that’s what. That’s what I keep trying to say. Preventing a group of people from getting recognized under the Marriage Act is a rights violation.

    Damn straight.

    This is why I am lobbying to be able marry my brother and sister.

  139. It violates individual rights, that’s what. That’s what I keep trying to say. Preventing a group of people from getting recognized under the Marriage Act is a rights violation.

    This isn’t only illogical, it’s stupid. By this definition the QLD Traffic Act, which defines the speed limit as 100 klm/hour, “violates” peoples’ right to go 160 klm/hour. Total nonsense.

    Those aren’t examples of contracts, those are examples of rights violations and therefore things that should be crimes.

    If I wish to sell myself as a sex slave, whose “rights” are violated?
    If I wish to end it all, and engage somebody to bump me off, whose “rights” are violated?
    If I contract with the local mafia to buy 100,000 contraband fags, whose “rights” are violated?

    You’re just making it up as you go along.

  140. Fisky

    And a political movement that is happy to violate rights will not be bringing about capitalist policies as history bears out.

    But this is completely wrong. Pinochet and Lee Kwan Yew were epic rights-violators, and they still presided over the most successful and freest economies outside the G7.

    You have no idea what you are talking about, you weird autist Iampeter.

  141. Fisky

    Also, Deng Xiao Ping, General Park, Chiang Kaishek. So many examples of dictators who ran free market economies without first needing to legalise gay marriage.

    Libertarians have no idea how they managed it!

  142. iampeter

    Pinochet and Lee Kwan Yew were epic rights-violators, and they still presided over the most successful and freest economies outside the G7.

    HAhahahahaha

  143. Fisky

    Beep boop, goes the autistic bot!

  144. .

    Fisky
    #2428775, posted on July 1, 2017 at 3:13 pm
    Dotty, do you agree with your buttboy Iampeter, that it is impossible to have a free, low-regulation, capitalist economy unless we legalise gay marriage? Yes or no!

    I dunno Fisk. Do you think it is impossible to have gay marriage without you developing an urge to marry your beagle?

    I said it before. If you are conservative, vote ACP. If you are libertarian, bote LDP.

    Arguing over something dumb as trying to convert each other is stupid. Both are small government and worthy causes.

  145. iampeter

    Beep boop, goes the autistic bot!

    You’re like an Alex Jones-level nut who keeps wandering into the Cat when you’d probably be more at home at Stormfront.

    You’re just making it up as you go along.

    No MV, I’m not making anything up. You don’t understand the concept of individual rights, without which you can’t even tell the difference between a crime and a legitimate contract or what a proper function of a government is and why.

    In short it’s like you’re on a motorsports blog and you’ve never heard of such a thing as a car. Why would you be there? To discuss what?

    Like with Fisk, I have no idea what you are doing on a blog, the subject matter of which you know nothing about and aren’t interested in.

  146. iampeter

    You’re just making it up as you go along.

    No MV, I’m not making anything up, you are just not clear on the concept of individual rights without which you have no way to tell the difference between a crime or a legitimate contract, or what the proper functions of a government should be and why.

    It’s like you’re on a motorsports blog but you have never heard of a car. Why would even be there? What would you be discussing?

    Like Fisk, I have no idea why you spend time on a blog the subject matter of which you have no understanding of nor any interest in.

  147. No MV, I’m not making anything up, you are
    just not clear on the concept of individual rights

    No, Peter, I am well aware of what “individual rights” are. They are the “rights” that we, as a society, grant each other via the parliamentary process. There is no other kind. They are not something granted by a God, or something we are intrinsically born with.

    At the moment society – the collective if you will – has decided, via the Marriage Act, that “marriage” is defined as the union between a man and a woman. A man and a woman legally married have the “right” to consider themselves legally married. Nobody’s “rights” are being violated.

    The current debate is about whether the “right” to use that definition – who can and cannot describe themselves as legally married – should be expanded to include other couplings and groupings. This is how the process works. If the SSM crowd win, then the “right” to use the descriptor “married”, will be expanded. If the conservatives win, it won’t. At no point is anybody’s “rights” violated.

  148. a reader

    And guess what…any person (male, female, straight, homosexual, >18) can be legally married to another person that is the opposite sex and 18 or over. That is what marriage means-what it has always meant. If you want to redefine it put forward a proper reason why. Then explain to me how you’re “rights” are being violated as it stands now. They are not. Every adult in Australia has EXACTLY the same right.

  149. iampeter:

    If the state can tell you what type of contracts you can or can’t engage in then it is violating your individual rights. It’s violating your ability to go about your life as you see fit because this or that collective decided they don’t approve of your life choices.

    You are begging the question. Marriage is, as I argue, a relationship between the sexes as well as being something voluntarily entered into. If you want to dispute the former you cannot assume the latter. If, as I argue, the former is true, it is not a violation of individual rights if marriage remains as such because marriage simply isn’t a voluntary agreement between members of the same sex. Just as, for instance, marriage cannot be a voluntary agreement between members of the same family. That is, unless, you’re arguing that this also is a violation of individual rights too.

    dot:

    You’re lying and play dumb in lieu of conceding being wrong. Take down that ridiculous saint avatar.

    Read the policy. You are wrong.

    You sound like the communist pointing to the Soviet constitution when criticized about the political situation in the USSR. I showed, firstly, that the claim that SSM was a ‘halfway house’ on the road to ‘getting the government out of marriage’ was bumpkin, and, secondly, that your claim re formal and substantive equality was question begging.

  150. I would’ve agreed with you until 2004 but then the Howard Government decided to amend the marriage act to give it a judeao/christian definition and created this entire issue.

    This is nothing short of totalitarian, collectivist and rights violating, specifically targeting a certain group of people for discrimination by the state.

    This argument is one of the silliest I’ve come across. As far as I understand, the 2004 amendment simply incorporated the common law definition. That the 1961 Act did not contain a definition of marriage only makes sense to the extent that marriage was commonly understood precisely in terms of the common law definition. So to say that an amendment that simply formalized what was already the case at law smacked of totalitarianism, etc. is overwrought.

  151. iampeter

    You are begging the question. Marriage is, as I argue, a relationship between the sexes as well as being something voluntarily entered into. If you want to dispute the former you cannot assume the latter.

    But all that a rights-respecting government concerns itself with is the “voluntary” component, hence as far as legality is concerned only “the latter” matters and the former is a personal preference, which rights-respecting governments don’t get to dictate.
    So, I’m afraid it’s you who is begging the question because you are operating on the predetermined conclusion that marriage is some kind of voluntary arrangement, different to other voluntary arrangements and requiring the state to preclude certain segments of the population from practicing by force.

    As far as I understand, the 2004 amendment simply incorporated the common law definition.

    So? The amendment prevented SSM, which is a rights violation for people who don’t agree with the traditional definition of marriage. So if there was silliness in that argument you haven’t shown it with your post, you just raised a point no one was disputing.

    So to say that an amendment that simply formalized what was already the case at law smacked of totalitarianism, etc. is overwrought.

    If it was just formalizing it then no formalizing would’ve been needed as SSM would not have been recognized anyway. So clearly this was a deliberate action of state discrimination against people wanting to engage with each other voluntarily. I agree it’s trivial compared to the other big government, rights violating, left wing policies of the Howard government but my point is Conservatives don’t care about any of that.
    As I said above many Conservatives would vote for socialists if they promised banning SSM and immigrants, which in turn brings us back to the differences between AC and LDP.

    The LDP is trying for a principled, individualist approach to politics in Australia, while the AC is just more of the same Conservatism that we’ve always had and that’s nothing but rights violating, big government and left wing. I’ve seen nothing to suggest they’ve changed and in fact many of them would think like many of the posters here, which means they are either OK with rights violating government or don’t even understand the concept of rights in the first place. Wouldn’t be voting for them if you want limited government, but they are definitely the choice for you if you are just a one or two issue voter above anything else.

  152. But all that a rights-respecting government concerns itself with is the “voluntary” component, hence as far as legality is concerned only “the latter” matters and the former is a personal preference, which rights-respecting governments don’t get to dictate
    So, I’m afraid it’s you who is begging the question because you are operating on the predetermined conclusion that marriage is some kind of voluntary arrangement, different to other voluntary arrangements and requiring the state to preclude certain segments of the population from practicing by force.

    You clearly don’t understand what begging the question entails. If you’re denying one element of marriage you cannot simply assume the other elements. Further, you cannot simply assert that one of those elements is a personal preference without any argument, while again assuming the others are not. What you have to do is argue by reference to the thing itself that this element is not a part of marriage but that the other elements are a part of marriage. Now, so far as I’m concerned, I haven’t simply predetermined that marriage is some kind of voluntary agreement; I’ve looked at marriage as we have found it and concluded that marriage is a type of relationship that involves an agreement between the spouses. The other thing to be noticed is that it has historically also been a relationship between the sexes. This isn’t conclusive of anything just yet, but it is certainly indicative of the nature of marriage. So, to repeat, nothing you have said to date demonstrates that refusing to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’ violates individual rights.

    So? The amendment prevented SSM, which is a rights violation for people who don’t agree with the traditional definition of marriage. So if there was silliness in that argument you haven’t shown it with your post, you just raised a point no one was disputing.

    Not at all. You suggested that you had no problem with the situation pre-2004 and yet all the 2004 amendment did was include in the 1961 Act the common law definition of marriage which already informed the 1961 Act but now did so, formally, following the 2004 amendment. You went on to describe this ‘change’ as totalitarian, collectivist, whatever, and yet the situation was no different so far as marriage was concerned pre-2004 or post-2004.

    If it was just formalizing it then no formalizing would’ve been needed as SSM would not have been recognized anyway. So clearly this was a deliberate action of state discrimination against people wanting to engage with each other voluntarily. I agree it’s trivial compared to the other big government, rights violating, left wing policies of the Howard government but my point is Conservatives don’t care about any of that.

    Again, not at all. Common law definitions can be changed by decisions of the court. The 2004 amendment removed that possibility from an activist judiciary. A very wise move.

  153. iampeter

    You clearly don’t understand what begging the question entails.

    Sorry but you have this backwards and like Tel further up you seem to be confused by things no one is disputing.

    Marriage is a voluntary association, therefore it cannot be illegal to any people who voluntarily choose to engage in it. That’s it. Everything else is personal belief and cannot be forced on people by the state in rights-respecting countries. I can’t make this any clearer.

    Again, not at all. Common law definitions can be changed by decisions of the court. The 2004 amendment removed that possibility from an activist judiciary. A very wise move.

    It’s not judicial activism to strike down rights violating legislation – that’s its job – and if the Howard government did nothing, this may have all been resolved via the court system which is how the system is supposed to work.
    E.g. people have decide to try things not done before, this gets denied by the state on those grounds, goes to court where it is determined no rights are violated and all parties are entering into it voluntarily and rights-protecting precedent is set moving forward.

    Instead the Howard government simply imposed their beliefs on everyone and all the people who claim to be against big government, simply love him for it and forgive him all his other, far more serious, rights violating policies.

  154. Sorry but you have this backwards and like Tel further up you seem to be confused by things no one is disputing.

    I don’t have ‘question begging’ backwards at all. You’re continuing to commit it (see below).

    Marriage is a voluntary association, therefore it cannot be illegal to any people who voluntarily choose to engage in it. That’s it. Everything else is personal belief and cannot be forced on people by the state in rights-respecting countries.

    So you’re just repeating your error. Marriage is not just voluntary association otherwise all types of voluntary associations would be marriage. Further, you cannot just say marriage is voluntary association and every other element is mere personal belief without an argument. Why exclude the element of voluntary association from the charge of personal belief? You could have no obvious reason why this and not the other elements are free of this charge.

    Moreover, you are now arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, that marriages involving any number of spouses, 2 to ∞, should be legal, or people that have never meant nor intend to live together, should be allowed to marry too, and so on. Talk about nonsense on stilts.

    It’s not judicial activism to strike down rights violating legislation – that’s its job – and if the Howard government did nothing, this may have all been resolved via the court system which is how the system is supposed to work.

    You said earlier you had no problem with the situation pre-2004 even though it was governed by the same definition that was adopted by the 2004 amendment. If you had no problem with the former, even if, by your own lights, it violated individual rights, your only reason for objecting to the latter is that it removed the possibility of activists judges simply concocting a new definition and foisting it on the 1961 Act on thereby on the public.

    Instead the Howard government simply imposed their beliefs on everyone and all the people who claim to be against big government, simply love him for it and forgive him all his other, far more serious, rights violating policies.

    The parliament overwhelmingly adopted the 2004 amendment which simply adopted the existing common law definition of marriage, and which violated no one’s rights. BTW, how is a decision of a activist judge any less ‘imposing’ than a decision of the Parliament? The common law definition ‘imposed’ that definition, which was adopted by the 2004 amendment, on all persons in Australia since time Federation, and before that in each of the colonies.

  155. iampeter

    I don’t have ‘question begging’ backwards at all. You’re continuing to commit it (see below).

    All I’ve done is make the following statement:
    “Marriage is a voluntary association”.
    I have then concluded, as a right-wing individualist that because it is voluntary it cannot be illegal.
    That’s not “begging the question”, that’s just a simple, logical, argument.

    You on the other hand are making a few different arguments:

    Marriage is not just voluntary association otherwise all types of voluntary associations would be marriage.

    Which is a non-sequitur fallacy. I.e. marriage is a type of voluntary association but that doesn’t follow that ALL associations are therefore also marriage.
    You are also arguing:

    Further, you cannot just say marriage is voluntary association and every other element is mere personal belief without an argument.

    Which is a begging the question fallacy as you have assumed a conclusion with your statement that some argument is needed to support the statement of fact that marriage is “voluntary”. No further argument on my part is needed.

    You then ask:

    Why exclude the element of voluntary association from the charge of personal belief?

    Because the “personal belief” component is not relevant to the legal question, only the voluntary nature of the association is what matters. The fact that others have a traditional definition of marriage, that most people share it, that it has always been that way historically (and I agree with on all that btw), is not reason for the state to exclude a segment of the population from access to the same legal recognition under the Marriage Act because they have a different definition. Such an action is a violation of their rights.

    You said earlier you had no problem with the situation pre-2004

    I don’t know if I had a problem, it was never tested in courts because the Howard government just arbitrarily regulated. If the courts protected rights I would have no problem, if they violated rights then I would’ve had a problem.

    Moreover, you are now arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, that marriages involving any number of spouses, 2 to ∞, should be legal, or people that have never meant nor intend to live together, should be allowed to marry too, and so on. Talk about nonsense on stilts.

    This is also a series of non-sequiturs and are similar to what we hear from leftists who oppose individualist policies. E.g. you can’t have the right to bear arms because then you must want everyone to just be shooting everyone. No, that doesn’t logically follow, but having said that, even if that is what it meant it STILL couldn’t be illegal because owning a gun is not violating anyone’s rights.

    This is the price of freedom and you have to choose between accepting lots of crazy crap from different people but respecting their right to their ideas as long as no rights are violated or abandoning freedom.

    You can’t have both.

  156. Let me just address the following (the rest I’ll get to tomorrow):

    All I’ve done is make the following statement:
    “Marriage is a voluntary association”.
    I have then concluded, as a right-wing individualist that because it is voluntary it cannot be illegal.
    That’s not “begging the question”, that’s just a simple, logical, argument.

    No, that is begging the question, because ‘what marriage is’ is in question; you brought it into question when you denied marriage the element of being a relationship between the sexes. The further premise you added above, “as a right-wing individualist that because it is voluntary it cannot be illegal”, is neither here nor there at this point because you can no more assert the element ‘voluntariness” when denying the other ‘between the sexes’. If one is dispute, all are in dispute.

  157. iampeter

    No, that is begging the question, because ‘what marriage is’ is in question; you brought it into question when you denied marriage the element of being a relationship between the sexes.

    How could I have done so when I have explicitly stated the definition isn’t relevant?

    Maybe before you answer anything else you can explain to me why you think one persons definition of marriage means that two other people engaging in another definition of marriage are no longer doing so voluntarily?

  158. iampeter

    Actually better yet, maybe you can actually just explain your thinking on the issue end-to-end. For example here is my argument in full:
    As a right-winger/individualist, I believe that the only way people can live freely and prosperously with each other is in the absence of force and fraud. To that end we institute a government for only one function: protecting our individual rights (our freedom to live our lives) from force and fraud.
    Applying this to the issue of SSM, since marriage is a voluntary interaction between two people, there is no role for the state to play.
    That’s it.

    Maybe you can explain what you actually think the role of government is and why and then explain how you’ve applied that to the issue of SSM to determine that it IS something that should be regulated by the state.

  159. Finishing up from yesterday:

    You on the other hand are making a few different arguments:

    Marriage is not just voluntary association otherwise all types of voluntary associations would be marriage.

    Which is a non-sequitur fallacy. I.e. marriage is a type of voluntary association but that doesn’t follow that ALL associations are therefore also marriage.

    I’m not committing a non sequitur at all. I exposed the error in your earlier assertion that marriage was just voluntary association by means of a reductio ad absurdum. If you’re now saying it is a type of voluntary association then there has to be this or that other element or set of elements that distinguish it from other types of voluntary association.

    Because the “personal belief” component is not relevant to the legal question, only the voluntary nature of the association is what matters. The fact that others have a traditional definition of marriage, that most people share it, that it has always been that way historically (and I agree with on all that btw), is not reason for the state to exclude a segment of the population from access to the same legal recognition under the Marriage Act because they have a different definition. Such an action is a violation of their rights.

    More question begging. Your assuming that these other elements that distinguish this type of voluntary association from other types is just ‘personal belief’ even though they in fact distinguish this type, marriage, from other types, business partnership. If they do that sort of work they are not matters of personal belief.

    I don’t know if I had a problem, it was never tested in courts because the Howard government just arbitrarily regulated.

    The Howard government did not ‘arbitrarily regulate’ anything in this regard. It included the existing common law definition of marriage, that already governed the Act, into the legislation itself. Nothing more.

    This is also a series of non-sequiturs and are similar to what we hear from leftists who oppose individualist policies.

    No, they’re not non sequiturs. I have simply exposed the absurdity of your claim, and you haven’t provided a single argument that defends your claim from this charge. If, as you said, marriage is just voluntary association and everything else is personal belief, then what objection could there be to incestuous marriages, or marriages between a thousand spouses, or marriages between persons that never live together or rarely communicate with each other? There is none.

  160. Response to your two later replies:

    How could I have done so when I have explicitly stated the definition isn’t relevant?

    Maybe before you answer anything else you can explain to me why you think one persons definition of marriage means that two other people engaging in another definition of marriage are no longer doing so voluntarily?

    How could the definition of marriage be irrelevant? How could I know that these other people are or are not purportedly engaging in marriage without a definition or idea of marriage already in my mind? How could you specify marriage as a type of voluntary association without a definition?

    Applying this to the issue of SSM, since marriage is a voluntary interaction between two people, there is no role for the state to play.

    Your definition is in bold. So, you’re begging the question again and contradicting your above claim. But leave that aside, why two people?What happens when two siblings voluntarily want to ‘marry’? Why must the state recognize this arrangement?

    Actually better yet, maybe you can actually just explain your thinking on the issue end-to-end.

    The order of the argument would be as follows. Determine what is marriage. Having done that, you can determine who can marry, and what arrangements are not marriage, and what rights and duties are appropriate to those who are married. The first step is, of course, the most important.

  161. iampeter

    Determine what is marriage.

    Who gets to determine this and by what right?

    Having done that, you can determine who can marry,

    Who gets to determine “who can marry” and by what right?

  162. Who gets to determine this and by what right?

    How can you be denied anything that is undetermined? Apparently, you believe that you can complain about being denied X while having no idea what X is.

  163. Iampeter

    It’s not undefined, you’re disagreeing with the definition.

    What I’m “complaining” about is the definition of an interaction held by some to be used as justification to violate the rights of those holding a different definition, by force, by not granting then the exact same legal recognition.

  164. It’s not undefined, you’re disagreeing with the definition.

    Your definition is hopelessly equivocal.

    What I’m “complaining” about is the definition of an interaction held by some to be used as justification to violate the rights of those holding a different definition, by force, by not granting then the exact same legal recognition.

    This makes no sense. If B is not A then denying persons engaging in B the same legal recognition as A is not a rights violation. In order to argue that it is a rights violation, you have to demonstrate that B is indeed A.

  165. It’s not undefined, you’re disagreeing with the definition.

    BTW, this has it backwards. I’m defending the current definition as found in common law and statute. Surely the person proposing we redefine marriage is the one disagreeing.

  166. iampeter

    This makes no sense. If B is not A then denying persons engaging in B the same legal recognition as A is not a rights violation.

    It is a rights violation if it is done by state force.
    Whether you understand that marriage is between a man or a woman or you think it should be between a man and a man or whatever other combination some people might cook up, ALL must get equally recognition under the law or else their rights are violated. This is a good reason as to why there shouldn’t be a Marriage Act in the first place to avoid this entire mess.

    BTW, this has it backwards. I’m defending the current definition as found in common law and statute. Surely the person proposing we redefine marriage is the one disagreeing.

    No because they aren’t disagreeing with you on anything, or trying to force you to do anything, they are simply after equal recognition under the law, the denial of which is a violation of their rights.

  167. .

    So stop being a stupid bumpkin dover beach. You play dumb and then crack the shits when your bluff is called.

  168. It is a rights violation if it is done by state force.
    Whether you understand that marriage is between a man or a woman or you think it should be between a man and a man or whatever other combination some people might cook up, ALL must get equally recognition under the law or else their rights are violated.

    This is just absurd. People don’t have a right to redefine marriage and then expect the state recognize their redefinition of marriage as marriage. What people who want equal recognition must do is make an argument that what they purport to be marriage is indeed marriage.

    This is a good reason as to why there shouldn’t be a Marriage Act in the first place to avoid this entire mess.

    Not at all. As you’ve already conceded, the common law definition of marriage had already defined marriage as the current Act describes for centuries.

    BTW, this has it backwards. I’m defending the current definition as found in common law and statute. Surely the person proposing we redefine marriage is the one disagreeing.

    No because they aren’t disagreeing with you on anything, or trying to force you to do anything, they are simply after equal recognition under the law, the denial of which is a violation of their rights.

    Firstly, given that they disagree with the current definition of marriage they are disagreeing with me. Secondly, since they are proposing that the state redefine marriage they are forcing me to accept the new definition because it will be the way the state would describes marriage. Thirdly, it can only be a violation of their rights if the two relationships were in fact the same ,and you’ve provided no argument at all to this effect. You simply boldly and repeatedly make assertions about this or that, believing this to constitute an argument.

  169. So stop being a stupid bumpkin dover beach. You play dumb and then crack the shits when your bluff is called.

    Ah, a drunk is shouting drivel from the outer.

  170. Whether you understand that marriage is between a man or a woman or you think it should be between a man and a man or whatever other combination some people might cook up, ALL must get equally recognition under the law or else their rights are violated.

    In a previous comment, you accused me, wrongly, of having perpetrated a non sequitur when I said: Moreover, you are now arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, that marriages involving any number of spouses, 2 to ∞, should be legal, or people that have never met nor intend to live together, should be allowed to marry too, and so on.
    And yet what you say above is that the state must grant equal recognition to these arrangements too, in fact to any arrangement, or be guilty of violating individual rights. You are simply making things up as you go along in order to maintain a position you’ve never reasoned to yourself. That is now perfectly clear.

  171. iampeter

    In a previous comment, you accused me, wrongly, of having perpetrated a non sequitur when I said: Moreover, you are now arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, that marriages

    That IS a non-sequitur.
    “You are simply making things up as you go along in order to maintain a position you’ve never reasoned to yourself” is a description of what you have done this entire time.
    You’re argument for why you think the state should regulate marriage IS begging the question.
    You’re posts are constantly engaging in equivocation as you dance around your rights violating position. Basically everything you’ve accused me of doing has been what you’ve done in post after post lol.

    What are you even trying to convince anyone of?
    That denying equality under the law to everyone regardless of their personal beliefs is not a rights violation?
    That the state defining peoples voluntary associations and imposing that by force is not a rights violation?
    That marriage is not a voluntary association regardless of definition lol?
    That definition (idea) is the same as action (marriage)?

    It’s just endless word games for you to try and justify a rights violating position and if this is the lengths you’d go to, to make sure SSM doesn’t happen how on earth would you even begin to fight AGAINST right violations on larger issues? You can’t and Conservatives don’t, as we see all the time.

    Sorry as Dot said you are just playing dumb at this point.

  172. That IS a non-sequitur.

    No it isn’t. This was clear when I first stated it, and was made even clearer when you said,

    Whether you understand that marriage is between a man or a woman or you think it should be between a man and a man or whatever other combination some people might cook up, ALL must get equally recognition under the law

    You’re argument for why you think the state should regulate marriage IS begging the question.
    You’re posts are constantly engaging in equivocation as you dance around your rights violating position.

    No, no, you can’t just accuse someone of begging the question or equivocating without presenting just how I did one or the other.

    What are you even trying to convince anyone of?
    That denying equality under the law to everyone regardless of their personal beliefs is not a rights violation?
    That the state defining peoples voluntary associations and imposing that by force is not a rights violation?
    That marriage is not a voluntary association regardless of definition lol?
    That definition (idea) is the same as action (marriage)?

    You really lack focus but let’s just focus on one of these accusations, “That marriage is not a voluntary association regardless of definition”. I’ve never said anything of the sort. What I’ve said is that calling marriage a type of voluntary association is already to define it in some manner. Fair enough, but why should we stop at that? Nothing about marriage as an institution suggests that it is nothing more than ‘voluntary association’. I can look at the institution as it has existed in different times and places and I can notice other features or elements beyond mere ‘voluntary association’, features or elements like voluntary association that are not mere personal beliefs but actual features of the institution as it has existed. Now, you have given no reason why I must ignore all these other features apart from voluntary association when defining marriage.

    It’s just endless word games

    Where have I engaged in word games? Alternatively, I demonstrated here,

    In a previous comment, you accused me, wrongly, of having perpetrated a non sequitur when I said: Moreover, you are now arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, that marriages involving any number of spouses, 2 to ∞, should be legal, or people that have never met nor intend to live together, should be allowed to marry too, and so on.
    And yet what you say above is that the state must grant equal recognition to these arrangements too, in fact to any arrangement, or be guilty of violating individual rights. You are simply making things up as you go along in order to maintain a position you’ve never reasoned to yourself. That is now perfectly clear.

    that you couldn’t even follow your own argument consistently. Not surprising, your argument is a hopeless botch, and no amount of barracking by dot from the outer will change that.

  173. Nato

    Woah.
    Talk about keeping the flame (war) alive! Commendations to you both for your dedication to the cause.

    I’m going to use this thread as an example to show that the state cannot legislate for liberty.
    To prove a point that governments are set up as the biggest, baddest social predator of all in order to repress social predators. Governments are agents of oppression. Good government and bad government is distinguished by who is repressed.

    You’re both right a bit. You’re both wrong a lot. Take Nanny Down.

  174. Nato, I haven’t engaged in ‘flaming’, and your judgments are worthless without the argument behind them. If I’m wrong, show me where the error intrudes, otherwise, STFU.

Comments are closed.