Guest post, David Leyonhjelm: Open the front door

From The Financial Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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

1 4 5 6 7 8 10
  1. Matthew

    Dot’s stats:

    Arguments made: 586

    Convincing arguments made: 0

    David L’s stats:

    Members converted to LDP by this policy: 0

    LDP members quitting because of this policy: plenty

    Absolutely. The LDP is deaf, dumb, and blind. Where are you, David L? Come and engage with the public.

  2. .

    tomix
    #1332121, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    What were the numbers that arrived via people smugglers between 2007 and 2013?
    Not an invasion?

    No. It is insignificant comapred to immigration figures and natural births.

    Regardless, it isn’t an invasion.

  3. tomix

    Yes, far left wing- viz

    Immigrants are going to behave in an ideal manner in an ideal world, and if they don’t, they’ll be deported. How much more intellectual can your policy get?

  4. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1332121, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    […]
    That’s a zinger. Got anything to add to the discussion

    Do you dumbshit? That is besides misrepresenting the LDP policy, and predicting a tidal wave of FGM (the laws criminalising FGM being, you assert without a shred of evidence, ‘not enforced’)?

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    This policy has nothing to do with processing illegal immigrants. stop being stupid.

    Yes it is. Fifty grand is easy for illegals to raise via loan sharks. Read what I wrote.

  6. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1332143, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:35 pm
    […]
    How much more intellectual can your policy get?

    If it bears an inverse relationship to your level of intellect, then not much, dumbass.

  7. the problem with this thread is that those opposed to the article don’t seem to understand it.
    I’ve come to the conclusion that tomix, jupes, Mathew, and company don’t actually comprehend the proposed policy. They seem to think it applies to boat arrivals.

  8. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332140, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:34 pm
    […]
    Where are you, David L? Come and engage with the public.

    I don’t think he wants to be associated with you.

  9. .

    People generally not in the LDP are saying the LDP is collapsing.

    We had one person say they’d resign.

    David L is on the radio and TV (ABC and TEN), published an alternative budget in the AFR but also The Land online and here.

    You can always email him in his official capacity as an LDP official if you really need to contact him.

  10. tomix


    Where are you, David L? Come and engage with the public.

    Probably rereading Gramsci, Marcuse, and Alinsky while he comes up with his next policy.

  11. Yes it is. Fifty grand is easy for illegals to raise via loan sharks. Read what I wrote.

    In that case your main objection is that the price is too low. I am inclined to agree.

  12. Matthew

    This policy has nothing to do with processing illegal immigrants. stop being stupid.

    Yes, as I have been saying many times. It is a policy that will exist in addition to asylum seekers policy, and will not stop asylum seekers receiving welfare as Dot and David L claim it will. On the contrary it does away with OSB and opens the floodgates to asylum seekers claims.

    In addition the denial of welfare benefits will not survive a change in government. This policy is fraught with risk and will not work as stated. I don’t know what the intention behind this policy is and if criticisms are buy adequately answered then the policy will have to be considered open borders by stealth.

  13. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1332157, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm
    […]
    Probably rereading Gramsci, Marcuse, and Alinsky while he comes up with his next policy.

    How can so much stupidity inhere in one individual?

  14. .

    Bruce

    What stops people using loan sharks facilitating entry under our current tourism/work/investment modes of entry and a quicker route to citizenship and welfare (perhaps paying immigration layer fees with money lent from loan sharks) with no transfer pricing?

  15. Demosthenes

    How can so much stupidity inhere in one individual?

    Tomix is special.

  16. Bruce of Newcastle

    They seem to think it applies to boat arrivals.

    Aussiepundit, are you thick? There is a large demographic of people in the Middle East and Siri Lanka who already can raise sufficient money to buy a boat ticket to Oz (except when Morrison is around).

    Therefore they have the same ability to raise a piddly fifty grand to buy their way in via David’s naïve policy. The only way you stymie these people fleeing from leaders worse even than RGR is to raise the price to something they cannot scrape up from the payday loan guys.

    Half a mill, no less. A full mill would be better. And no Muslims, I value my neck*.

    * included to annoy Dot especially.

  17. .

    David L leading the LDP into Alinsky and communism?

    Tomix – being ridiculous isn’t an argument. Don’t make it a way of life.

  18. Aristogeiton

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1332146, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:37 pm
    […]
    Yes it is. Fifty grand is easy for illegals to raise via loan sharks. Read what I wrote.

    If you, with a job and prospects (I assume generously), can raise $AUD50,000.00 from a loan shark without security, then you have met the dumbest loan shark in Christendom, and said does not deserve either money nor profession.

  19. tomix

    Aussiepundit

    #1332152, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm

    and company don’t actually comprehend the proposed policy. They seem to think it applies to boat arrivals.

    That’s the policy. Everyone who wants to come here will pay $50,000 and there will be no more boat arrivals, so OSB can be shut down.

    It’s Rudd- esque in it’s otherworldliness.

  20. .

    It is a policy that will exist in addition to asylum seekers policy, and will not stop asylum seekers receiving welfare as Dot and David L claim it will.

    No.

    Some will pay the fee and be denied welfare.

    Others will be assessed in an open tribunal process with only one appeal short of appeals to the High Court.

    This is fairer and more robust than the process under Howard save for tribunals under excision.

    On the estimates Morrison notes, if only 10% are genuine (and some will pay the fee) then very few will be on welfare.

    The perhaps underestimated ongoing cost of OSB of $1 bn per year is more than enough to administer and pay for the backlog of 30,000 refugees accumulated over the last decade.

    One suggestion I have is perhaps to make asylum end when it is no longer necessary and they must pay the PR fee and/or apply for citizenship.

  21. jupes

    I’ve come to the conclusion that tomix, jupes, Mathew, and company don’t actually comprehend the proposed policy.

    LOL

    There you have it. We’re too dumb to understand LDP policy.

    The problem you have though Aussiepundit, is that the percentage of people in Australia with brains big enough to see the LDP’s brilliance is only 0.0000001%. At some point you are going to have to come up with policies that us dumb rubes actually like.

    ‘Opening the front door’ will never cut it.

  22. tomix

    Matthew @ 9.40pm

    If the policy is open borders by stealth, then it’s treachery.

  23. Bruce of Newcastle

    What stops people using loan sharks facilitating entry under our current tourism/work/investment modes of entry and a quicker route to citizenship and welfare (perhaps paying immigration layer fees with money lent from loan sharks) with no transfer pricing?

    Documentation. To enter via an airport you need either a genuine visa and Australian issued tourist visa or very good fakes. And Customs and Immigration will chase the fakes if detected.

    Then once you are here you need the usual documentation. The illegals go straight onto welfare via the refugee system but those who successfully evade detection through an airport or via overstaying don’t get welfare. They are in the shadows until they build themselves a legend in the le Carré sense.

    Of course on of the problems with the illegals is they chuck their travel docs overboard and smile to the Navy saying I’m a 17 year old Hazara. No way to disprove this until they stuff up their cover story.

  24. .

    3/22,700,000 = 99.9999999%

    ???

  25. jupes

    … then you have met the dumbest loan shark in Christendom …

    The problem is the loan sharks – or their clients – won’t be from Christendom.

  26. Bruce of Newcastle

    Meant “genuie passport”. Bum. They are a species not grown on trees.

  27. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1332186, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:51 pm
    […]
    If the policy is open borders by stealth, then it’s treachery.

    I think you mean “Rudd-esque in its treachery”. Nice use of the apostrophe.

  28. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332191, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:53 pm
    […]
    The problem is the loan sharks – or their clients – won’t be from Christendom.

    SAVE ME CHRISTIAN JESUS!

  29. .

    Bruce,

    So what, the AFP and APRA check foreign bank details? What do they do if a loanshark has a front company?

    You are applying standards to judge the LDP policy which you are not prepared to scrutinise the current or previous policy.

  30. Bruce of Newcastle

    If you, with a job and prospects (I assume generously), can raise $AUD50,000.00 from a loan shark without security, then you have met the dumbest loan shark in Christendom, and said does not deserve either money nor profession.

    Aristogeiton – These are people with family in Pakistan (or etc) who give security for the loan.

    Why do you think so many illegals are single young males eh? It is a family investment. People borrow to invest all the time.

  31. Matthew

    There is going to be a tremendous number of refugees in detention. All of them have due process, so processing their claims will take time. In the meantime the detention infrastructure will be so overloaded that there will be no option but to release the overflow into the community.

    This is worse than Rudd’s policy, if that could be imagined. The LDP policy gives an incentive for asylum seekers to take their chances.

  32. Aristogeiton

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1332201, posted on June 3, 2014 at 9:57 pm
    […]
    Aristogeiton – These are people with family in Pakistan (or etc) who give security for the loan.

    Why do you think so many illegals are single young males eh? It is a family investment. People borrow to invest all the time.

    “People borrow to invest all the time”. Well isn’t that the entire fucking point?

  33. .

    The problem is the loan sharks – or their clients – won’t be from Christendom.

    This seems like the plot of a Shakespearean play.

  34. jupes

    Seriously Ari, I know you’re trying your best but that judge humour just doesn’t cut it amongst us proles.

    Nobody laughs but people think your on drugs or drunk. Try remember back to your undergraduate days. You were probably funnier then.

  35. Matthew

    At this point I am thinking that Dot is either consciously lying, or just obtuse.

    If this is what the LDP is about I hope they run with this policy front and center. It is important that the public be informed of LDP intentions.

  36. tomix

    Dot @ 9.52pm

    3/22,700,000 = 99.9999999%

    ???

    That’s right. You’ve got to be a very highly qualified intellectual to believe this policy.
    These people, fortunately are thin on the ground.

  37. Bruce of Newcastle

    You are applying standards to judge the LDP policy which you are not prepared to scrutinise the current or previous policy.

    No I’m not. I am saying as others have been saying. David’s proposed fifty grand is way too low. And if you raise it the policy is moot because we already have an investment visa which does exactly what is required. Let them qualify via s188. I don’t care what colour their skin is, since I work with people of, and have friends of, all colours already. The difference is they are all here honestly not illegally. (And yes one colleague of mine was Muslim from Malaysia).

  38. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332211, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:00 pm
    Seriously Ari, I know you’re trying your best but that judge humour just doesn’t cut it amongst us proles.

    Nobody laughs but people think your on drugs or drunk. Try remember back to your undergraduate days. You were probably funnier then.

    Is that the best you’ve got?

  39. .

    Matthew is lying again.

    There will be a small number of detainees in detention for a limited time where they can pay to get out short of necessary checks, they get approved or they get deported.

    One open hearing and one appeal then deportation.

    The policy is like what Howard and Ruddock had for onshore processing. Note there was only two boat arrivals in 2002 without OSB as a policy. The LDP policy effectively streamlines this process.

  40. jupes

    “People borrow to invest all the time”. Well isn’t that the entire fucking point?

    Yeah, let’s get more Pakis to immigrate here.

    Their wonderful culture has done so much to enrich the multicutural fabric of Great Britain. We need some of that over here.

  41. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332220, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    “People borrow to invest all the time”. Well isn’t that the entire fucking point?

    Yeah, let’s get more Pakis to immigrate here.

    Their wonderful culture has done so much to enrich the multicutural fabric of Great Britain. We need some of that over here.

    Did Islam rape you as a child? Because that may provide a partial explanation.

  42. Bruce of Newcastle

    “People borrow to invest all the time”. Well isn’t that the entire fucking point?

    So why, exactly, should people who have borrowed from Pakistani loan sharks to enter Australia on the cheap be allowed to do this? When they will tend to be sucked into the Brothers For Life so they can pay back their loans, thereby saving Mum from being given a halal throat slitting?

  43. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332220, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    […]
    Pakis

    Nice, by the way. You are either a British expat or a well-researched bigot.

  44. .

    Bruce – then answer my question please.

    How does the AFP/APRA currently know that applicants which require significant transactions now are not dodgy? In the past? Do you realise the level of overreach required to satisfy this.

    I’m under the impression you want to be assured under the LDP policy the same level of probity occurs, which doesn’t happen now.

  45. Aristogeiton

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1332224, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:07 pm
    […]
    When they will tend to be sucked into the Brothers For Life so they can pay back their loans, thereby saving Mum from being given a halal throat slitting?

    Holy fucking shit, do you have any idea how insane you sound?

    So far as enforcement of the ‘means to support yourself’ policy goes, I would imagine that an income would be required consistently over the 10 years. Since the person would have a TFN, this would be pretty easy to verify.

  46. .

    Jesus.

    Any decent criticism of the policy has been undone by the last 30 minutes of conservative brain farts.

    Come on guys, you wouldn’t say that shit on TV.

  47. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1332234, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:11 pm
    Jesus.

    Any decent criticism of the policy has been undone by the last 30 minutes of conservative brain farts.

    Come on guys, you wouldn’t say that shit on TV.

    I almost gave up at “halal throat slitting”. And these same dumbshits want to know why David Leyonhelm won’t appear here to be interrogated. You can see the headlines now: “SENATOR ELECT LINKED TO VIOLENT RACE HATE FORUM”.

    Precedent:

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1717547/charlton-liberal-candidate-kevin-baker-quits-over-lewd-website-content/

  48. jupes

    Islam isn’t a race Ari. You should know that.

  49. Snoopy

    Gay marriage and immigration. The LDP, fixing the things that matter most.

  50. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332244, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:17 pm
    Islam isn’t a race Ari. You should know that.

    The distinction won’t matter for shit in the media.

  51. tomix

    Dot @ 10.03pm:

    One open hearing and one appeal then deportation.

    You forgot the appeal to the High Court. And where are you going to deport them to. They destroyed their I.D., remember?

    So- to sum up: Abandon OSB, because the possibility that even if one of the turned back people would have been granted refugee status, that persons rights trumps Australias security.

  52. Gab

    The distinction won’t matter for shit in the media.

    So what? You’re still wrong.

  53. jupes

    Gay marriage and immigration. The LDP, fixing the things that matter most.

    Don’t forget legalising drugs. Got to reach out to the stoner demographic.

  54. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1332250, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    The distinction won’t matter for shit in the media.

    So what? You’re still wrong.

    About what? Leyonhelm being right not to post on this cesspit thread?

  55. .

    FFS Snoopy, Leyonhjelm and Humphreys wrote an alternative budget in the AFR.

    Leyonhjelm appeared on Lateline regarding tax cuts and the budget.

    Leyonhjelm was on News Radio regarding when Abbott met with him to discuss the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax, IR reform.

    He re-stated his mantra on Lateline and NewsRadio “I will never vote for an increase in taxes or a decrease in liberties”. He also criticised big government on Lateline.

    Gay marriage might be a first world problem but don’t push the idea the LDP ignored the budget etc.

  56. Bruce of Newcastle

    How does the AFP/APRA currently know that applicants which require significant transactions now are not dodgy? In the past?

    Dot – Villawood is full of people who have overstayed their tourist visas. They riot occasionally same as the guys on Manus and Chrissie do.

    The difference is the tourist visa rorters have got documentation. Therefore if their documentation is/was fake they have broken the law and under international conventions may be immediately deported. Of course they too can claim asylum and do the whole rigmarole. Nothing I can do about that.

    But to arrive on our doorstep means they must (a) have a passport which gets them onto an international flight to Oz and (b) have a visa to get them through Customs. If they proclaim asylum they still have the passport – which the boat people can chuck overboard. Its much more difficult for a Paki with a Paki passport at Kingsford Smith to get asylum than a Paki with no passport on a boat at Ashmore Reef.

    As for David’s $50 gees, well that is the ticket to enter as I read the post. You buy your ticket you gets in. You may not qualify for welfare, but we do know there are plenty of business opportunities for entrepreneurial people in Lakemba and Bankstown, until some guy double taps them in the head.

  57. .

    You forgot the appeal to the High Court

    You don’t understand how the High Court works.

  58. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1332211, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:00 pm
    […]
    Nobody laughs but people think your [sic] on drugs or drunk.

    jupes
    #1332251, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    […]
    Don’t forget legalising drugs. Got to reach out to the stoner demographic.

    I’ll add that to your list of obsessions.

  59. Gab

    Leyonhjelm and Humphreys wrote an alternative budget in the AFR.

    Yes and it was pretty good except for a couple of points. However I don’t recall that it was posted here, which is a pity as it warranted discussion.

  60. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1332261, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:23 pm
    Leyonhjelm and Humphreys wrote an alternative budget in the AFR.

    Yes and it was pretty good except for a couple of points. However I don’t recall that it was posted here, which is a pity as it warranted discussion.

    It was.

  61. Gab

    It was? I don’t recall. Can you link to it, please?

  62. Infidel Tiger

    Please let this thread die with whatever dignity it can muster.

  63. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1332264, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm
    It was? I don’t recall. Can you link to it, please?

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/05/12/ldp-budget/

  64. .

    You are not answering my question/s Bruce.

    You expect the LDP policy to scrutinise foreign transactions to fund an entry visa.

    Do you understand the level of overreach this requires?

    Why are you not applying it to current and previous investment etc visas or anyone else who could game the current/previous system/s?

  65. Gab

    Oh yeah, I do remember now. Thanks.

  66. Aristogeiton

    Infidel Tiger
    #1332265, posted on June 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm
    Please let this thread die with whatever dignity it can muster.

    I am waiting for ‘peak post’, which will involve some manner of “drug-fucked halal throat-slitting Paki muzzos FGMing a doe-eyed Aryan child bride”.

  67. Notafan

    Becker, as quoted yesterday, has no idea what effect putting a $50,000 price on legal migration would have on illegal migration so given that Australia is still a signatory to the refugee convention if OSB is dismantled there is no reason why the boats wouldn’t start again. In fact dismantling OSB would be very encouraging to smugglers hankering for those $10,000 handshakes. Have smugglers ever cared what happens at the end of the journey?
    Becker was also as I read it suggesting exchanging a.million a year humanitarian and family reunion intake for a million a year fee paying intake to raise 50 billion a year to pay down US debt.
    As discussed upthread health and education are not included in the Australian welfare carve out so it doesn’t look like a value for money proposal for Australian taxpayers.
    For all it does to potentially allow thousands more in, that are unskilled and non.English speaking to put a lot of pressure on.our existing infrastructure without a sufficiently high corresponding increase in economic activity. The family investment is going to come into play and you risk causing the kind of social problems being seen across Europe, for what benefit, exactly?
    I cannot see how this is superior to our current skilled migrant programme given that either way the numbers are capped.
    I assume LDP will stop family reunions under their policy as well.
    It isn’t good enough for a party policy to assume you can dismantle OSB and boats will not start again, we want our detention centres empty like they were at the end of the Howard era.
    Lack of access to welfare has no influence on illegals in Europe or north America.

  68. Bruce of Newcastle

    You are not answering my question/s Bruce.

    You expect the LDP policy to scrutinise foreign transactions to fund an entry visa.

    You are not understanding my answers Dot. Because the passage cost for illegal boat people is on the order of fifty grand the financing option which is now available to the people boarding boats would also be available for people purchasing entry via the LDP policy. Of course they would not say where the money was coming from.

    But in the Middle East and Pakistan these people cannot borrow $500 grand. It is just not possible. $50 grand would be possible if there was a fair certainty of repayment and security of family back home.

    But if you put the ticket price up to $500 grand you basically have the s188 visa that is already available. Perhaps with less scrutiny as the s188 visa is pretty damn tight.

    So this policy idea of the LDP’s is stupid: if the fee is as proposed you’ll get zillions of people coming through the door with measurable increase in illegality because of the financing, or you raise the fee and its moot because the policy then is what we already have.

    My recommendation to the LDP is quietly deep six this silly idea and find something useful to propose, like a balanced budget law.

  69. .

    Lack of access to welfare has no influence on illegals in Europe or north America.

    As long as law enforcement is impartial, background checks can be made and some basic quarantine can be done, this is actually a good thing.

    As discussed upthread health and education are not included in the Australian welfare carve out so it doesn’t look like a value for money proposal for Australian taxpayers.

    No. Please stop making mistakes like this. They pay a transfer fee plus in the least, indirect taxes. The taxpayer is unambiguously better off, as noted in the original article by about $10 bn per year.

  70. .

    Of course they would not say where the money was coming from.

    …and right now, there is no way the AFP or APRA can tell if dirty money fronted through a foreign legitimate business is used for legal immigration.

    You are applying double standards and don’t realise it.

  71. Demosthenes

    Please let this thread die with whatever dignity it can muster.

    Don’t like finding out what your fellow travellers really think?

  72. Bruce of Newcastle

    No I’m not Dot. I said if people arrive via an airline without valid documentation they can be deported immediately under international agreements. Ditto if they overstay.

    So there is no problem now except for classic policing.

    But if they can hand over 50 big ones and get an LDP issued visa, the door is wide open. There are perhaps 2 billion people in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia who could conceivably raise $50 grand to send a son to earn money in Oz.

    Why should those people be so easily able to come here? Why do you think they would be law abiding once they got here? Especially if the lender was monstering the family back home for payment and they needed quick money. Should Customs look for human ears send by mail from those countries?

    As for s188 the conditions are much tougher. And the dollars are much higher. I doubt there is much rorting of it because if you have the werewithall to rort it you also have the legit ability to qualify for it anyway, so why would you attempt to fake it?

  73. .

    Bruce – I’m pretty sure that many people at that price would be $100,000,000,000,000 or one hundred trillion dollars.

    Global GDP is about 75 trillion USD, and the bulk of that is USA, Japan, EU, Canada – China is about 7% of global GDP. The fee is many times higher than the median annual pre tax salary of a Chinese worker.

    What you are saying is just wrong and impossible.

    If you have an immigration target, you adjust the price, like how CB interest rates (as the price of credit) determine monetary growth net of FI multipliers.

    The price of $50k can be adjusted up or down.

  74. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1332329, posted on June 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
    Bruce – I’m pretty sure that many people at that price would be $100,000,000,000,000 or one hundred trillion dollars.

    Lawl. Unhinged.

  75. Matthew

    LDP = Cultural Marxists disguised as libertarians.

    The more I see, the more I am disturbed. A statists plan for another immigration program, and opening the borders to a flood of refugees.

    Gay marriage: the objectionable part of this is not homosexuals getting married but the affirmation that the state is to be involved in marriage at all by providing a register, and then discriminating by treating married couples and single people differently under various laws. The only way to end this discrimination is to end government registration of marriage altogether.

    The deeper one gets the more one tends to see that the LDP is here to co-opt and neuter a genuine libertarian movement rather than advance liberty. When you look past the rhetoric and see the certain results of LDP policies there is much to be disturbed about.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332397, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:41 am
    LDP = Cultural Marxists disguised as libertarians.
    […]
    The deeper one gets the more one tends to see that the LDP is here to co-opt and neuter a genuine libertarian movement rather than advance liberty

    Yeah. You’re the ‘genuine libertarian’ here.

  77. Matthew

    Yeah. You’re the ‘genuine libertarian’ here.

    Do you have anything of substance to say? I wrote three paragraphs.

  78. Aristogeiton

    Just because you can bloviate for three paragraphs doesn’t mean you are contributing anything of substance.

  79. Matthew

    So the statism in the immigration policy and the gay marriage policy is not legitimate criticism?

    I love these LDP backers. Any criticism is the fault of the critics not the policy. You and Dot should go for a job in LDP public relations.

  80. Aristogeiton

    No, the LDP are all cultural Marxists and you are the only libertarian around; a fact borne out by your comments upthread.

  81. Fisky

    Is there a way to assassinate an internet thread? Anyone tried it before?

  82. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332416, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:11 am
    Is there a way to assassinate an internet thread? Anyone tried it before?

    I think we should sticky this one.

  83. dover_beach

    Why all the fuss about people talking?

  84. Nicholas E

    I think we should sticky this one.

    File it under: it’s amazing race denialism is still alive in 2014.

  85. Fisky

    Why all the fuss about people talking?

    It’s a terrible thread, which started out with the proposal of a ridiculous pie-in-the-sky policy that will never happen, and it only got worse from there. At least the policy (which is truly awful) has been mortally wounded, I’ll say that much, but that was in the first 100 comments.

  86. Fisky

    File it under: it’s amazing race denialism is still alive in 2014.

    Race denialism???? Who is denying race, FFS?

  87. Nicholas E

    …Who is denying race, FFS?

    The ‘skin pigmentation’ commenters who hurl around the slur ‘bigot’.

  88. Fisky

    That doesn’t mean anyone is denying race. It does mean they are opposing racism. If you are proposing to categorise and then downgrade someone’s citizenship on racial grounds, then it’s hard to think of a better term than “racist”.

  89. Nicholas E

    Putting race down to a difference in skin pigmentation is race denial. Common sense and the science is out on that one.

    Arguing that a nation should, broadly, be an extension of a race is racism. Though I think that nothing is wrong with that. I’d further add that the thought that there was something morally wrong with this idea has only been in play since the ascendency of liberalism (classical and cultural-marxist).

  90. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332436, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:48 am
    Putting race down to a difference in skin pigmentation is race denial. Common sense and the science is out on that one.

    Arguing that a nation should, broadly, be an extension of a race is racism. Though I think that nothing is wrong with that. I’d further add that the thought that there was something morally wrong with this idea has only been in play since the ascendency of liberalism (classical and cultural-marxist).

    You pricks keep covering yourselves with glory. Please, continue…

  91. Nicholas E

    You pricks keep covering yourselves with glory. Please, continue…

    I find your arguments very pro-Zeitgeist.

  92. Fisky

    Arguing that a nation should, broadly, be an extension of a race is racism.

    Most nations are an extension of a race or ethnic group and originally started out that way. The real question is whether those who do not conform to or are a part of that identity should be equal before the law. I would hope the answer is “yes”, because the bureaucratic implications of “no” are uniformly terrible.

  93. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332440, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:54 am
    You pricks keep covering yourselves with glory. Please, continue…

    I find your arguments very pro-Zeitgeist.

    Zeitgeist; quod erat demonstrandum. Expound some more on classical liberalism, please. I’ll prepare the popcorn.

  94. Fisky

    Again, this thread was supposed to be about the merits of a policy that aims to replace Operation Sovereign Borders. The fact that we are now discussing the taxonomy of race (and have already debated the merits of banning mosques and halal food) suggests that the topic has been diverted somewhere along the way.

    I say, kill the thread.

  95. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332443, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:56 am
    Again, this thread was supposed to be about the merits of a policy that aims to replace Operation Sovereign Borders. The fact that we are now discussing the taxonomy of race (and have already debated the merits of banning mosques and halal food) suggests that the topic has been diverted somewhere along the way.

    I say, kill the thread.

    Let’s not forget the ‘practical retardation’ of most refugees…

  96. Nicholas E

    Zeitgeist; quod erat demonstrandum. Expound some more on classical liberalism, please. I’ll prepare the popcorn.

    Be careful with the microwaves, they may alter your skin pigmentation and cause you to change race.

  97. Fisky

    Let’s not forget the ‘practical retardation’ of most refugees…

    I mean, truly. Perhaps keeping the thread open is supposed to discredit the opposition to the LDP’s unworkable immigration policies, but I think it’s doing more harm to the blog.

  98. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332446, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:58 am
    Zeitgeist; quod erat demonstrandum. Expound some more on classical liberalism, please. I’ll prepare the popcorn.

    Be careful with the microwaves, they may alter your skin pigmentation and cause you to change race.

    Aethiopem lavas. A fitting way to describe this thread.

  99. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332449, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:00 am
    Let’s not forget the ‘practical retardation’ of most refugees…

    I mean, truly. Perhaps keeping the thread open is supposed to discredit the opposition to the LDP’s unworkable immigration policies, but I think it’s doing more harm to the blog.

    The contributors are doing harm to the blog; let’s be clear about that.

  100. Nicholas E

    The real question is whether those who do not conform to or are a part of that identity should be equal before the law. I would hope the answer is “yes”, because the bureaucratic implications of “no” are uniformly terrible.

    I’m on the side of majority rights. I think the focus on minority rights has been disastrous for West Civ.

  101. Fisky

    You mean the commenters, or the above-the-line posters?

  102. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332454, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:03 am
    The real question is whether those who do not conform to or are a part of that identity should be equal before the law. I would hope the answer is “yes”, because the bureaucratic implications of “no” are uniformly terrible.

    I’m on the side of majority rights. I think the focus on minority rights has been disastrous for West Civ.

    Majoritarianism ochlocratia and classical liberalism/libertarianism are eminently compatible.

    Perhaps Matthew, proponent of the ‘practical retardation theory of refugees’, could intervene to outline how Dot and I are not true libertarians.

  103. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332455, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:03 am
    You mean the commenters, or the above-the-line posters?

    Sorry; commenters of course.

  104. Fisky

    I’m on the side of majority rights. I think the focus on minority rights has been disastrous for West Civ.

    No, Nicholas, the problem is that if you are advocating denying a group of people the equal protection of the law, and/or the ability to contribute to making of said law, then doing so on the basis of ancestry is going to open up all kinds of issues of procedure that have already been stress-tested and found wanting in regimes that have already tried.

    One of the more ridiculous applications was when the apartheid-era South African goverment put a colour bar on people, including those of mixed race, who could trace their origins to that territory back hundreds of years, but then conferred “honorary white” status on Japanese investors. It’s rubbish, and it makes individuals of good standing hostage to any adverse or unexpected finding somewhere up their family tree.

  105. Fisky

    Sorry; commenters of course.

    Well, this thread has been the absolute pits. Really embarrassing.

  106. Nicholas E

    So Fisky, opening up western nations to mass immigration from utterly unrelated races and cultures will work out just fine we shall assume?

  107. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332463, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:14 am
    Sorry; commenters of course.

    Well, this thread has been the absolute pits. Really embarrassing.

    I thought there were more libertarians about. I understand how you can have differences of opinion about the policy, but the hateful, illiberal bent of many posters has surprised me. Since the policy is compatible with Friedman’s libertarianism at least in form, the most surprising thing, however, have been the accusations of cultural Marxism and the ‘no true libertarian’ arguments of many above. What precisely the fuck?

  108. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332467, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:20 am
    So Fisky, opening up western nations to mass immigration from utterly unrelated races and cultures will work out just fine we shall assume?

    Let’s get into race theory; that will settle this.

  109. Nicholas E

    Let’s get into race theory; that will settle this.

    Lets ignore mass immigration, it’s not like it’s a current political issue or anything, and what could possibly go wrong?

  110. Nicholas E

    What precisely the fuck?

    My opinion, fwiw, is: some on ‘your’ side are hiding behind a label. They are really paleoconservative but would rather present themselves as libertarian because it gives them cover.

    To present as conservative would expose them to being labeled as ‘raciss’ or whatever, from both the left and the faux-right. Jobs have been lost over less in our current police state.

  111. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332474, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:41 am
    What precisely the fuck?

    My opinion, fwiw, is: some on ‘your’ side are hiding behind a label. They are really paleoconservative but would rather present themselves as libertarian because it gives them cover.

    To present as conservative would expose them to being labeled as ‘raciss’ or whatever, from both the left and the faux-right. Jobs have been lost over less in our current police state.

    Well this is the dumbest thing I’ve read today.

  112. Nicholas E

    Well this is the dumbest thing I’ve read today.

    You’re quite a banal commenter for a libertarian. I’m used to better.

  113. Aristogeiton

    So I’m a cultural Marxist and paeloconservative simultaneously; you’re a true libertarian who believes in ‘majority rights’, is wedded to race theory and wants to protect our culture from racial and religious difference. Got it.

  114. Nicholas E

    I originally thought you were a libertarian, however now I’m reconsidering due to your lack of intelligence. The fatal flaw of most libertarians is they assume everyone is as intelligent as they are (if you weren’t a double digit IQ’er you may have heard of this before as it’s a quite common knock on libertarianism).

    Many conservatives hide behind the ‘libertarian’ label in today’s climate (again if you weren’t a…).

  115. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332485, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:59 am
    I originally thought you were a libertarian, however now I’m reconsidering due to your lack of intelligence.

    I see. So I was a cultural Marxist a few posts ago, then presumably I was upgraded to libertarian, but now I have been downgraded to paleoconservative because I have been adjudged to to be intelligent enough for libertarianism. Good to know. Luckily for you the views you have espoused are entirely compatible with libertarianism, so you are well placed to decide.

    The fatal flaw of most libertarians is they assume everyone is as intelligent as they are (if you weren’t a double digit IQ’er you may have heard of this before as it’s a quite common knock on libertarianism).

    The disappointment must be terrible for you. I wish I could live up to your high standards.

    You fucking moron.

  116. Aristogeiton

    s/adjudged to to be/adjudged not to be/

  117. Nicholas E

    Where did I call you a cultural marxist or paleconservative?

  118. Fisky

    I’m sorry, Nicholas, but I’m still not clear on what you’re arguing for. Australia has a number of minorities from diverse backgrounds. If you are arguing for taking away their equal protection under law, as well as their passports, you haven’t even attempted to argue for that yet.

  119. Fisky

    It has just hit me that I am actually debating racial theories with a far-right internet crank in the early hours of the morning. Why on earth am I wasting my time on this rubbish?

  120. Nicholas E

    If you are arguing for taking away their equal protection under law, as well as their passports, you haven’t even attempted to argue for that yet.

    Fisky, I think abandoning the White Australia policy was a dumb idea.

    I argue for European only (ancestry, ie white people) immigration from here on in.

  121. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332490, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:08 am
    Where did I call you a cultural marxist or paleconservative?

    Why demean yourself talking to someone with a double-digit IQ, genius?

    Nicholas E
    #1332436, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:48 am
    […]
    I’d further add that the thought that there was something morally wrong with this idea has only been in play since the ascendency of liberalism (classical and cultural-marxist) [by implication since libertarianism and classical liberalism are compatible doctrines, I don’t subscribe to race theory, and am according to you not a libertarian].

    Nicholas E
    #1332474, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:41 am
    What precisely the fuck?

    My opinion, fwiw, is: some on ‘your’ side are hiding behind a label. They are really paleoconservative but would rather present themselves as libertarian because it gives them cover.

    Nicholas E
    #1332485, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:59 am
    […]
    Many conservatives hide behind the ‘libertarian’ label in today’s climate (again if you weren’t a…).

  122. Nicholas E

    far-right internet crank

    Way to win the argument. Take the moral ‘high ground’. Just like the left.

  123. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332493, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:14 am
    It has just hit me that I am actually debating racial theories with a far-right internet crank in the early hours of the morning. Why on earth am I wasting my time on this rubbish?

    Perhaps you, like me, have a double-digit IQ; or maybe you are of mixed race?

  124. Fisky

    Fisky, I think abandoning the White Australia policy was a dumb idea.

    I argue for European only (ancestry, ie white people) immigration from here on in.

    OK, so you are NOT saying, for the record, that people who don’t fit into a particular racial category should be downgraded as citizens (please affirm this if I understand you correctly).

    What you are saying is that an immigration policy that did not even pretend to be founded on any objective or transparent criteria should have been retained. That’s a position. It’s certainly not one I share, but you are welcome to it.

  125. Fisky

    Perhaps you, like me, have a double-digit IQ; or maybe you are of mixed race?

    Well, I suppose it’s not all the time you get an opportunity to debate racial theories with cranks. It’s not a particularly constructive use of one’s life, but I do take an interest in ideas, including those I believe are thoroughly misguided.

    This thread has nearly run the full encyclopedia of stupid ideas. I’d like to get some Trotskyists on here if we can find any.

  126. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332502, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:25 am
    […]
    Well, I suppose it’s not all the time you get an opportunity to debate racial theories with cranks. It’s not a particularly constructive use of one’s life, but I do take an interest in ideas, including those I believe are thoroughly misguided.

    I admire your commitment.

    This thread has nearly run the full encyclopedia of stupid ideas. I’d like to get some Trotskyists on here if we can find any.

    It has been pretty epic, though in fairness these debates have been hashed over in previous threads. Islamic immigration is to ‘cohenite’ as gun control is to ‘Numbers’.

  127. Nicholas E

    I think that’s fair enough, but the type of policy I espoused would lead to some type of social downgrading, a libertarian may describe it as a negative externality. Life’s hierarchical after all.

  128. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332505, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:31 am
    I think that’s fair enough, but the type of policy I espoused would lead to some type of social downgrading, a libertarian may describe it as a negative externality. Life’s hierarchical after all.

    Is this some kind of apartheid we’re talking about here, or would you just generally treat non-whites like shit? Your command of libertarianism is masterful, by the way.

  129. Oh come on

    This Nicholas E character has been very derisive of the intellectual prowess of others, yet has demonstrated precious little himself. What an oblivious blowhard. Fools like him are simply not worth one’s time.

  130. Nicholas E

    Is this some kind of apartheid we’re talking about here, or would you just generally treat non-whites like shit? Your command of libertarianism is masterful, by the way.

    lol

    I’m ‘meh’ about interracial marriage, for example. But you’d have to assume with a whites only immigration policy certain societal attitudes would prevail.

  131. Nicholas E

    This Nicholas E character has been very derisive of the intellectual prowess of others, yet has demonstrated precious little himself. What an oblivious blowhard. Fools like him are simply not worth one’s time.

    My 666 word policy PDF shall be released tomorrow old chum.

  132. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332510, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:40 am
    […]
    I’m ‘meh’ about interracial marriage, for example. But you’d have to assume with a whites only immigration policy certain societal attitudes would prevail.

    You can tell that to my wife while I break you to pieces you little prick.

  133. Nicholas E

    You can tell that to my wife while I break you to pieces you little prick.

    Don’t quite understand. I was intoning interracial relationships don’t bother me and shouldn’t be the business of the state, unlike say immigration.

    Though i’d be surprised if anyone of any race was unlucky enough to copulate with you lol.

  134. Aristogeiton

    Nicholas E
    #1332514, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:47 am
    […]
    Though i’d be surprised if anyone of any race was unlucky enough to copulate with you lol.

    We’re done here fuckstain; you’ve served your purpose. Take your massive IQ and fuck off anywhere that will have you.

  135. Nicholas E

    Are you the blog proprietor?

    If so I will happily leave.

  136. Fisky

    I’m ‘meh’ about interracial marriage, for example. But you’d have to assume with a whites only immigration policy certain societal attitudes would prevail.

    You’re putting the cart before the horse – FIRST you would need certain societal attitudes to preval, THEN you might get your whites only immigration policy. Both are most unlikely.

  137. Fisky

    We’re done here fuckstain; you’ve served your purpose. Take your massive IQ and fuck off anywhere that will have you.

    I don’t think our friend Nicholas is ever in danger of serving any purpose.

  138. Nicholas E

    I don’t want to be a burden on this blog.

    Thanks for having a chat.

    Farewell.

  139. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1332519, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:54 am
    […]
    I don’t think our friend Nicholas is ever in danger of serving any purpose.

    Well, I have come around to the LDP’s policy, but realise that it’s a hard sell. The more unhinged the opposition to it is, the better I hope the policy will appear 🙂

    My wife would have this little shit for breakfast, by the by. She is an exceptional intellect and a take-no-prisoners libertarian.

  140. Matthew

    I do not support a policy that will in effect lead to ever increasing numbers of asylum seekers making claims, and obtaining welfare. This is aggression against Australians. I and others gave substantive examples of why this policy will not work as stated. Whatever the intention is the outcome is open borders by stealth and unprecedented refugee numbers numbers.

    I also criticised the statism implicit in the policy for gay marriage. Instead of getting rid of government marriage the policy simply extends the current statist law to homosexuals. Instead of going for the libertarian solution, which is no government marriage and no registration at all, the LDP affirms the statist approach. A mainstream libertarian wants to deny the government an opportunity to discriminate against married and single people. The only way to do that is to end government registration of marriage.

    Where ever a criticism has been made on this thread, there is never anything that approaches a rational answer from LDP supporters.

  141. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332528, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:21 am
    […]
    Whatever the intention is the outcome is open borders by stealth and unprecedented refugee numbers numbers.

    Looks like Matthew is calling you Numbers now, Dot.

  142. A Lurker

    Matthew is lying again.
    There will be a small number of detainees in detention for a limited time where they can pay to get out short of necessary checks, they get approved or they get deported.
    One open hearing and one appeal then deportation.

    So amazing that the supporters of the LDP can see so accurately into the future.
    If their powers of precognition are so developed, they might want to tell me the name of the winner of the 2016 Melbourne Cup, or the numbers for next Saturday week’s Gold Lotto draw.

    Come on guys, polish up your crystal ball, reshuffle your Tarot cards, and give us a reading. 😉

  143. A Lurker

    So- to sum up: Abandon OSB, because the possibility that even if one of the turned back people would have been granted refugee status, that persons rights trumps Australias security.

    If turned away, they could (if they were a legit refugee) still lob up to a UN refugee camp and ask to be processed there. After all, getting to safety is the usual primary concern of your average refugee. The whole country-shopping deal (with or without $50grand in the backpocket) belongs to another different kettle of fish.

    So the whole oh-woe-is-me-we-refused-a-refugee argument just doesn’t hold water, since for true refugees, there are still other protections in place.

  144. dover_beach

    deny the government an opportunity to discriminate against married and single people.

    The words themselves, married, and single, discriminate. Surely the question is whether discrimination in this or that instance is justified; not whether it is or is not discriminatory.

  145. Matthew

    The words themselves, married, and single, discriminate. Surely the question is whether discrimination in this or that instance is justified; not whether it is or is not discriminatory.

    It matters to libertarians because we only consider individual rights not group rights. To the extent that marriage registration results in the extension of privilege from one group or persons over another, and the technical means for a government to enact such privilege, libertarians are against it.

    Instead of going for broke and challenging the entire rotten system, the LDP policy is virtually identical to the other parties’ policy on gay marriage.

  146. Notafan

    Going back to the 50,000., the point of the fee is pricing entry into Australia at a much lower value than Becker proposed for the US where education and health at that time were not funded the same way. LDP need to come up with something to support the $50,000 as a starting point for Australia.

  147. Matthew

    Going back to the 50,000., the point of the fee is pricing entry into Australia at a much lower value than Becker proposed for the US where education and health at that time were not funded the same way. LDP need to come up with something to support the $50,000 as a starting point for Australia.

    It is a bad idea no matter the cost. A future government could decide to provide people that entered the country on this program with welfare benefits.

    Imagine if you will a immigrant that paid money to migrate to Australia and is currently homeless and living in Hyde Park being interviewed by a current affairs show. He says that Australians refuse to employ him, there is racism and so on, and he fears deportation.

    Is the LDP government going to round this guy up and deport him? If so the LDP will be under seige by the media.

    When the government changes the LDP policy that the migrants will not get welfare benefits for 10 years will not hold because no government can plan for more than 4 year periods.

    Thus this policy is fraught with risk and if essentially a poison pill. Everyone should oppose it on this basis and not get drawn into numbers.

  148. Notafan

    Its just another element that shows how Becker’s proposal can’t be shoe horned into a policy for Australia.

  149. Senile Old Guy

    It has just hit me that I am actually debating racial theories with a far-right internet crank in the early hours of the morning. Why on earth am I wasting my time on this rubbish?

    Fisky, I am wondering that. I gave up on this thread ages ago. I wandered back to see if it had improved. No. With the contributions of the idiotic Nick E, it had got worse.

  150. dover_beach

    It matters to libertarians because we only consider individual rights not group rights. To the extent that marriage registration results in the extension of privilege from one group or persons over another, and the technical means for a government to enact such privilege, libertarians are against it.

    It seems to me you’re simply assuming that discriminating between individuals on any grounds is always unjustified. On the latter point, I think you are right even though I disagree.

  151. .

    People make predictions without regards to incentives or process. I then note this and make a reference to incentives and process as to why they are wrong. Their “rejoinder” is ‘you are crystal ball gazing!’…arguing with such flat out duplicity is simply dishonest. I’m appalled by some of you who should know better.

    Bruce’s response was simply impossible and he never answered the fact he was applying double standards in as much that he wanted impossible background checks for this policy and not applying the same to similar circumstances to current and previous policy.

    This is patently ridiculous.

    Now some crank discusses racial intermarriage? Why do these people think they have any support in the last forty or so years? They have the hide to say the LDP policy is from a bubble? What fucking rock did they crawl out from?

    Matthew is simply a bigoted anti libertarian troll. He has no interest in LDP policy. His interests are in stopping migration and stopping gay marriage. He calls the LDP Marxists (how friggin’ absurd) but has never, ever turned up here to support lower taxes, less government spending or the protection of gun rights, free speech and civil liberties.

    He has no interest to reduce taxation, welfare or total government spending.

    He also reckons we shouldn’t let in refugees because they are “retarded”.

    Let’s see how far the “PR guru” would get if he said such racist bullshit on TV.

    He is simply a more refined and better liar than Nick E, he can hide his shameful nonsense slightly better.

    This thread is littered with lies, hypocrisy and racial cranks.

    Time of death for the thread was 10.01 am.

  152. .

    Matthew is a serial bullshit artist…

    “Inherent statism in LDP policy.”

    Yeah right. What Matthew supports:

    Operation Sovereign Borders?
    Closed borders?
    Unlimited welfare for citizens?
    Discriminating against refugees by origin because of presumptions about their mental development, written into policy.

    …and none of these are statist? Obviously they all are. It was a waste of time responding to Matthew, whose views on race, if made on TV, would make him less popular than the League of Rights, as he was never seriously arguing for any pro liberty policy.

    He’s really concerned that we don’t have statist policies, so he wants the Navy to regulate immigration. He supports Morrison creating a new bureaucratic empire. He supports sending refugees to UNHCR outposts, funded by governments around the world.

    What a transparent, ludicrous stooge.

    This is poor form on my behalf. This is akin to grave robbing. Let the thread have its big sleep.

    Bye.

  153. tomix

    So- anyone that opposes an open borders immigration policy is a racist.

    The LDP is adopting the modus operandi of the Socialist Left now in response to critictsm?

    How interesting.

  154. .

    I have not called you racist, Tomix – Nick E and Matthew were singled out because they said racist things.

    Surely I don’t have to explain this to you five times like some other issues.

  155. Matthew

    I have been over this with you before, Dot, yet you insist on knocking down a strawman rather than dealing with what I have said.

    Where did I support unlimited welfare for citizens? I even said that no taxes would be best.

    As for retarded refugees you have misrepresented what I wrote, which is why you refuse to quote me directly on it. It is dishonest.

    I didn’t say that the LDP are Marxists, as you well know. I said the LDP = cultural Marxists – there is a huge difference and you are also following a cultural Marxist strategy, saying that anyone that dissents is a racist or bigot.

    Your reply to me is complete nonsense as it deals with none of my arguments.

  156. .

    My response makes complete and utter sense. Calling the LDP cultural Marxists is so dumb and dishonest it makes you look illiterate.

  157. Matthew

    Here is what I wrote on asylum seekers.

    I do not support a policy that will in effect lead to ever increasing numbers of asylum seekers making claims, and obtaining welfare. This is aggression against Australians. I and others gave substantive examples of why this policy will not work as stated. Whatever the intention is the outcome is open borders by stealth and unprecedented refugee numbers numbers.

    It is a bad idea no matter the cost. A future government could decide to provide people that entered the country on this program with welfare benefits.

    Imagine if you will a immigrant that paid money to migrate to Australia and is currently homeless and living in Hyde Park being interviewed by a current affairs show. He says that Australians refuse to employ him, there is racism and so on, and he fears deportation.

    Is the LDP government going to round this guy up and deport him? If so the LDP will be under seige by the media.

    When the government changes the LDP policy that the migrants will not get welfare benefits for 10 years will not hold because no government can plan for more than 4 year periods.

    Thus this policy is fraught with risk and is essentially a poison pill. Everyone should oppose it on this basis and not get drawn into numbers

    And marriage –

    I also criticised the statism implicit in the policy for gay marriage. Instead of getting rid of government marriage the policy simply extends the current statist law to homosexuals. Instead of going for the libertarian solution, which is no government marriage and no registration at all, the LDP affirms the statist approach. A mainstream libertarian wants to deny the government an opportunity to discriminate against married and single people. The only way to do that is to end government registration of marriage.

    It matters to libertarians because we only consider individual rights not group rights. To the extent that marriage registration results in the extension of privilege from one group or persons over another, and the technical means for a government to enact such privilege, libertarians are against it.

    Instead of going for broke and challenging the entire rotten system, the LDP policy is virtually identical to the other parties’ policy on gay marriage.

    You wrote several paragraphs answering things that I didn’t write. I wonder what kind of ‘libertarian’ that you are supposed to be… One that thinks that an asylum seekers has a positive right to live in Australia, and one that enforces state orthodoxy on race. An odd creature indeed.

  158. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332819, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:09 am
    […]
    As for retarded refugees you have misrepresented what I wrote, which is why you refuse to quote me directly on it. It is dishonest.

    Once more, and for the record:

    Matthew
    #1328632, posted on June 1, 2014 at 8:55 pm
    The problem with this policy idea is that it doesn’t address the problem of illegal immigration.

    In the real world these illegal immigrants are still going to turn up on boats, will claim asylum, and will require welfare benefits as they have no other means of supporting themselves. Quite a significant percentage of them will have such low IQs that they would be considered technically retarded by Australian standards, and not suitable for any kind of 21st century work.

    I didn’t say that the LDP are Marxists, as you well know. I said the LDP = cultural Marxists – there is a huge difference and you are also following a cultural Marxist strategy, saying that anyone that dissents is a racist or bigot.

    Calling the LDP cultural Marxists really takes the cake. I love it how it is illegitimate strategy to point out the demonstrated bigotry of commenters here, and yet apparently howling down libertarians (real ones, not ‘libertarians’ like you Matthew) as cultural Marxists is legitimate. You hypocrite!

  159. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332824, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:18 am
    […]
    I wonder what kind of ‘libertarian’ that you are supposed to be… One that thinks that an asylum seekers has a positive right to live in Australia, and one that enforces state orthodoxy on race. An odd creature indeed.

    What the holy fucking fuck? Matthew, it’s official; you’re technically, demonstrably and comprehensively retarded.

  160. tomix

    The LDP policy doesn’t discriminate, then?

    So if 20 Urkas from the Moscow underworld turned up, each with $50,000, they’d be welcomed with open arms, no questions asked?

  161. .

    You’re full of shit Matthew.

    You attack the LDP for being statists, yet support Operation Sovereign Borders.

    You then call the LDP cultural Marxists, then say marriage shouldn’t even require registration.

    Both of the above outline how much of a phoney you are.

    You also make several howlers, like “refugees are retarded” and then note you “only care about individual rights, not rights as a group”.

    You’re a bullshit artist. Piss off.

  162. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1332838, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:29 am
    [….]
    You’re a bullshit artist. Piss off.

    I wonder how he reasoned that you were interested in ‘enforcing a state orthodoxy on race’; this one truly baffles me.

  163. .

    tomix
    #1332837, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:29 am
    The LDP policy doesn’t discriminate, then?

    So if 20 Urkas from the Moscow underworld turned up, each with $50,000, they’d be welcomed with open arms, no questions asked?

    We never said it didn’t. Clearly it allows for discrimination against an individual on good grounds.

    Are you illiterate Tomix?

    How many times have the terms “background checks” and “prove means to support themselves” been repeated to you?

    Are you really stupid or just really bellicose?

  164. tomix

    So you’d do background checks on each of the twenty Urkas to separate out the good ones from the unacceptable ones?

  165. .

    Most if not all them would be excluded, if they are serious criminal offenders, wouldn’t they?

    What is your point? That is how it is meant to work.

  166. Matthew

    You attack the LDP for being statists, yet support Operation Sovereign Borders.

    The LDP policy will require a bureaucracy to keep tabs on people, and will eventually have to try to deport some of them. OSB is a lot cleaner, and maintainance of OSB means that few asylum seekers will even attempt to come here on a boat from Indonesia. The LDP policy will be a nightmare and it will increase government. OSB is simply performing a basic function of our Navy.

    You then call the LDP cultural Marxists, then say marriage shouldn’t even require registration.

    No marriage registration means no ability for government to discriminate based on marital status. This is mainstream libertarianism. Are you supposed to be libertarian?

    You also make several howlers, like “refugees are retarded” and then note you “only care about individual rights, not rights as a group”.

    There are no group rights. No aboriginal rights or gay rights or fireman’s rights or anything else. All rights rest with the individual. This is mainstream libertarianism.

    I didn’t say that refugees are all retarded, as you have claimed many times. I did say that, for example, people from Afghanistan have an average IQ of 84 (as opposed to Anglo 100 IQ) and 50% of those Afghans are below average and even have lower IQs than that. It explains why so many have trouble finding a job and are on the DSP. Along this line of thiking I mention that a significant percentage of Afghan refugees could be considered ‘technically retarded’ by Australian IQ standards.

    I have already clarified this a number of times. If you cannot grasp the nuances at this point I would say that you are retarded and nothing technical about it.

    Anyway all of this is classic cultural Marxism. As another commenter said, go and read your Alinski, Marcuse and Gramsci.

  167. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332859, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:46 am
    […]
    Anyway all of this is classic cultural Marxism. As another commenter said, go and read your Alinski, Marcuse and Gramsci.

    You’re a fucking idiot.

  168. .

    Matthew I’m intrigued. What is “state orthodoxy on race”?

  169. Matthew

    Matthew I’m intrigued. What is “state orthodoxy on race”?

    Multiculturalism and it’s consequences (section 18c, state human rights boards, ‘equal opportunity commissions’, legal apparatus set up to punish people holding unorthodox thoughts [the persecution of Professor Andrew Fraser comes to mind]).

    Cultural Marxists throw around words like racist and bigot. They do so knowing that there can be consequences for the accused. You have been doing that throughout this thread.

  170. Matthew

    How about telling me why I am wrong on the issue of marriage?

  171. .

    The LDP is opposed to all of the above you whinge about.

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/news/108-admin1/1032-not-evil-just-wrong

    Freedom of speech is one of our most fundamental rights and central to a free, democratic society.

    The importance of free speech is not diminished by the fact that some speech is wrong, mean or causes some to take offence. The best response to bad ideas is to expose them to the scrutiny that can only exist in a free and open battle of ideas. Truth has nothing to fear from free speech, and neither does Australia.

    The Liberal Democratic Party unequivocally supports free speech and is opposed to government censorship of books, videos, games and the internet.

    We:

    • Support repeal of S18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and oppose any similar legislation

    • Oppose the establishment of any government overseer of the media

    Under the following policy:

    Equality before the law

    The Liberal Democrats would:

    · Abolish all affirmative action programs

    · Abolish all government funded programs and bodies that cater to particular ethnic, racial, religious or gender groups.

    · Abolish government funding for bodies that promote group discrimination such as the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia.

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

  172. .

    Matthew
    #1332883, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    How about telling me why I am wrong on the issue of marriage?

    I agree with you but you are insincere. You call us cultural Marxists but yet your idea here is more anti traditional than the official party line.

    It is like your nonsense remark that OSB isn’t statist.

    Your answer on “state orthodoxy on race” was dishonest. You don’t answer which horse won the race with by explaining what horse racing is. Your answer was not direct.

    Answer it now.

  173. tomix

    I’ll have a try.

    The “state orthodoxy on race” is:
    There shall be no discussion of race or nationality because that’s the way we like it and if you disagree we’ll call you a racist and a bigot.

    Isn’t that what the LDP says too?

  174. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1332932, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    I’ll have a try.

    The “state orthodoxy on race” is:
    There shall be no discussion of race or nationality because that’s the way we like it and if you disagree we’ll call you a racist and a bigot.

    Isn’t that what the LDP says too?

    Sure, dumbass:

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/news/108-admin1/1032-not-evil-just-wrong

  175. .

    I just posted the two relevant policies on an uncompromising support of free speech and ending affirmative action, and now Tomix tries to slander the LDP as being anti free speech and for affirmative action.

    FFS

    What a belligerent, stupid prick you can be at times, Tomix.

  176. tomix

    Dot @ 12.05pm

    • Support repeal of S18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and oppose any similar legislation

    Then further down-

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

    Does this mean there will still be racial vilification and anti discrimination laws?

    What about your commitment to free speech?

  177. tomix

    FFS

    What a belligerent, stupid prick you can be at times, Tomix.

    Are you saying that i’m emotionally qualified to be a member of the LDP?

  178. .

    It means the government must do things on merit and can’t treat employees or clients unfairly and affirmative action cannot stymie or corrupt that process as those laws would be abolished.

    It is amazing the amount of things which need to be spelled out to you, or be said to counter your persistent and vexatious concern trolling.

  179. Bruce of Newcastle

    Support for free speech, repeal of the RDA, and removal of all affirmative action is a good thing. I’m with you on that Dot. Its a pity that you have superglued yourselves to a stupid immigration policy.

    On the affirmative action issue, does the LDP oppose the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal superiority? My personal position is that all people in Australia should be perfectly equal before the law. No one should be more equal than anyone else due to the accident of their birth.

    But that is for people born or legally resident in Australia. Foreign residents have their own countries so they don’t qualify.

  180. .

    tomix
    #1332959, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm
    FFS

    What a belligerent, stupid prick you can be at times, Tomix.

    Are you saying that i’m emotionally qualified to be a member of the LDP?

    Don’t try to justify your pathetic behaviour with a snide remark.

    You lied about the LDP tax policy before and you have asked for multiple explanations of the same issue right after they have been directly quoted with an explanation.

    You actually tried to say the LDP would tax low income earners so that the difference between the minimum wage and DSP would be marginal (less than $50 a week). Under the LDP tax plan and not touching the DSP rate, it is several hundred dollars a week.

    Why you would be so dishonest or stupid with easily available information only serves to suggest you don’t like the LDP and are prepared to lie and obfuscate to score points.

    If you had any honour, you’d apologise.

  181. .

    On the affirmative action issue, does the LDP oppose the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal superiority?

    Jesus Christ, what do you think!?

    I’m shocked and chagrined that you are even asking such a dumb question.

    http://www.australiavotes.org.au/policies/index.php?election_id=13&topic_ids=all&party_ids=141

    Previous policies towards aboriginals have either aimed at forcing integration or forcing cultural separation. The LDP does not believe the government should be trying to integrate or separate any community in Australia. We support natural and voluntary multiculturalism but we oppose government funded or guided multiculturalism. Culture should be allowed to evolve naturally.

    The problems with Aboriginal society are not caused either by the Aboriginals or by society/history. The problem is the current incentives created by the government. The government needs to introduce secure private property rights for Aboriginals and then remove all race-based legislation and remove current regulations, taxes and restrictions that prevent Australians from achieving their goals.

    Aboriginal Australians should be treated like adults, not children.

  182. Matthew

    No again. Like gay marriage the LDP is just moving the deck chairs on the titanic.

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

    See that? Still laws on discrimination and ‘vilification’, and it just that it will be handled by the regular courts rather than human rights bodies. So under the LDP you are still not allowed to employ whoever you like for whatever reason, and you are still at risk of being held to state orthodoxy on race.

    Like the marriage policy it is a bait and switch. The establishment has not been undermined at all.

  183. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332976, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    […]
    The establishment has not been undermined at all.

    Lol. You reminded me of this idiocy:

    http://sirdave.com/match71.html

  184. .

    I’m sorry Bruce.

    I’ll be explicit:

    The answer is NO.

    The government needs to introduce secure private property rights for Aboriginals and then remove all race-based legislation and remove current regulations, taxes and restrictions that prevent Australians from achieving their goals.

    It doesn’t make indigenous Australians any better off. It transfers racist state powers to the Commonwealth who then can make racist laws. Right now, the Commonwealth can stop this in a roundabout way (human rights convention).

    If you could pick and choose what parts of a referendum to support, it might be some yes some no.

    But it is either YES or NO per the referendum rules.

  185. .

    See that? Still laws on discrimination and ‘vilification’, and it just that it will be handled by the regular courts rather than human rights bodies. So under the LDP you are still not allowed to employ whoever you like for whatever reason, and you are still at risk of being held to state orthodoxy on race.

    That’s bullshit and you know it. The courts can only apply law where there is legislation WHICH WOULD BE REPEALED…. Under common law, you have a right to freely associate. You are a scurrilous, libelous little shit.

    The state would have to treat people equally. There is nothing wrong with that. Private discrimination is fine. There is nothing wrong with that in a free society either.

  186. tomix

    Unfortunately, the LDP policies don’t pass the sniff test.

    The policy of the LDP spruikers to inquiry and dissent seems to be: “Shoot the messenger!”

  187. .

    The establishment has not been undermined at all.

    Anyway all of this is classic cultural Marxism.

    You are a liar and colossal fuckwit, Matthew.

  188. .

    tomix
    #1332992, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Unfortunately, the LDP policies don’t pass the sniff test.

    The policy of the LDP spruikers to inquiry and dissent seems to be: “Shoot the messenger!”

    You lied about LDP policy and refuse to apologise. No one should believe a word you say.

  189. Matthew

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

    There will be laws relating to discrimination and ‘vilification’. It is written there clear as day. Otherwise there would be no reason to write that sentence at all.

  190. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1332999, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    […]
    There will be laws relating to discrimination and ‘vilification’. It is written there clear as day. Otherwise there would be no reason to write that sentence at all.

    How modest, since this would require a referendum or a change to the laws of every State, Territory and of the Commonwealth.

  191. Matthew

    You are a scurrilous, libelous little shit.

    I am sure the LDP has a law to deal with people like me.

  192. .

    Yes you bloody moron, the government should be bound to treat people equally. We cannot freely disassociate ourselves from the state, so it is only fair that all are treated equally by it.

    Or are you seriously going to argue that legalising discrimination by government employees against each other or citizens is a libertarian principle?

    You want to legalise how Obama behaved towards the IRS do you?

    Because you are such a rock ribbed, hard-core libertarian?

    Fuck off you lying scum.

  193. Fisky

    Stop white genocide!

    Ban halal NOW!

  194. .

    Matthew
    #1333007, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    You are a scurrilous, libelous little shit.

    I am sure the LDP has a law to deal with people like me.

    There is no need to use a sledgehammer on a flea.

  195. tomix

    Did someone say “cultural Marxism”?

    Dot:
    You lied about LDP policy and refuse to apologise. No one should believe a word you say.

    I’m thinking this is Stalinist. Commence the LDP show trials.

  196. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333014, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    Did someone say “cultural Marxism”?

    Dot:
    You lied about LDP policy and refuse to apologise. No one should believe a word you say.

    I’m thinking this is Stalinist. Commence the LDP show trials.

    I’m beginning to think that ‘tomix’ and ‘Matthew’ are bloviating concern trolls. Surely no-one, save a significant proportion of refugees, could be this retarded?

  197. Matthew

    Did I say that the government should be discriminating against any citizen?

    No. Stop putting words in my mouth. The LDP policy on discrimination and ‘vilification’ says nothing of government discrimination against citizens. Given that it says ‘discrimination and vilification’ it strongly suggests it is referring to the private sphere. Had to imagine vilification applying to the government.

  198. Fisky

    Shut down the mosques!

    Send ALL aborigines back to Africa!

    *burrrppp*

  199. Bruce of Newcastle

    The answer is NO.

    Its OK, Dot, and I understand the caveats. I want my Aboriginal brothers in humanity to be “taught to fish” too. As it happens I did ask the question because I was interested in the answer. Communication is not a trivial problem for a political party. You can take my ignorance as an example.

    I am not a libertarian by conviction. I am a free market capitalist small government personal liberties person who thinks there is a need for government if only to defend the country and to keep the inhabitants from killing each other too often. So perhaps I am fertile Libertarian material, although your immigration policy is a vote killer.

  200. .

    You wrote untruthful things about LDP tax policy Tomix.

    You are gleefully dishonest.

    This is plain for all to see.

  201. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1333024, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    Shut down the mosques!

    Send ALL aborigines back to Africa!

    *burrrppp*

    Fisky, I didn’t realise what a hardcore libertarian you were!

  202. .

    Bruce – policy can change. Thank you for real, constructive criticism. Remember too, the public are fickle and did arguably vote twice for softer refugee policy.

    I don’t think the LDP policy is necessarily soft, nor do we know what OSB costs yet. I’ve said it before, wait and see.

  203. tomix

    You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “concern troll”

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

    There you go.

  204. .

    Matthew
    #1333021, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    Did I say that the government should be discriminating against any citizen?

    No. You lied and said we supported affirmative action even after it was plainly said we’d repeal such laws etc and were too dishonest to admit not having any possibility of court judgments regarding discrimination would empower government to act unethically towards its employees or citizens.

  205. tomix

    Or the word “bloviating”.

  206. .

    Tomix points out he is concern troll in lieu of apologising for lying about LDP policy?

  207. Matthew

    No. You lied and said we supported affirmative action even after it was plainly said we’d repeal such laws etc and were too dishonest to admit not having any possibility of court judgments regarding discrimination would empower government to act unethically towards its employees or citizens.

    No, I am reading the policy as written. Substantially I wrote –

    The LDP policy on discrimination and ‘vilification’ says nothing of government discrimination against citizens. Given that it says ‘discrimination and vilification’ it strongly suggests it is referring to the private sphere. Had to imagine vilification applying to the government.

    Any reasonable person would read it the same way. If you believe that it relates only to government discrimination and government vilification (whatever that is) then you should ask your LDP friends to rewrite the policy for clarity. As it stands the policy refers to private discrimination and vilification, for the reasons I point out above.

  208. Aristogeiton

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

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

    There you go.

    tomix
    #1333034, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Or the word “bloviating”.
    Fits the bill. But with your powers of reasoning, I can understand how something so basic would escape you.

    “bloviate, v. U.S.

    Brit. /?bl??v?e?t/, U.S. /?blo?vi?e?t/

    [Probably ‹ blow v.1 + -viate (in e.g. deviate v., abbreviate v., etc.); compare -ate suffix3.]

    intr. To talk at length, esp. using inflated or empty rhetoric; to speechify or ‘sound off’.”

    That’s you windbag.

  209. Aristogeiton

    Here’s one of the quotations from my OED:

    1957 Amer. Hist. Rev. 62 1014 Occasionally a candidate makes some great pronouncement or drastic shift of position in such an oration, but more often he merely talks, or, as Harding put it, ‘bloviates’, being concerned more with the political effect of his remarks than with their meaning.

  210. tomix

    not having any possibility of court judgments regarding discrimination would empower government to act unethically towards its employees or citizens.

    For “Court Judgements” regarding discrimination and vilification, don’t you have to have laws regarding discrimination and vilification first?

    Or is it the other way around in LDP- Land?

  211. .

    Any reasonable person would read it the same way. If you believe that it relates only to government discrimination and government vilification (whatever that is) then you should ask your LDP friends to rewrite the policy for clarity. As it stands the policy refers to private discrimination and vilification, for the reasons I point out above.

    You are so amazingly dishonest. It is not as explicit as it could be, and your logical conclusion is that the proposal is secretly dishonest and contradicts explicit aims of the policy.

  212. .

    tomix
    #1333049, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm
    not having any possibility of court judgments regarding discrimination would empower government to act unethically towards its employees or citizens.

    For “Court Judgements” regarding discrimination and vilification, don’t you have to have laws regarding discrimination and vilification first?

    Or is it the other way around in LDP- Land?

    I mentioned common law and implied an APS code of conduct conducive to the removal of affirmative action SEVERAL TIMES, but now you are not only being dishonest, you are playing dumb.

  213. Matthew

    You are so amazingly dishonest. It is not as explicit as it could be, and your logical conclusion is that the proposal is secretly dishonest and contradicts explicit aims of the policy.

    I am reading the policy as written. I am not a mind reader. It says nothing of government discrimination. What is government vilification by the way?

  214. .

    I am reading the policy as written.

    No you are not. You are patently dishonest and assuming it is secretly dishonest.

    What is government vilification by the way?

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

    I am getting tired of your bullshit and running interference.

  215. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1333055, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm
    […]
    I am reading the policy as written. I am not a mind reader. It says nothing of government discrimination. What is government vilification by the way?

    It proposes to remove the HRC, as well as and State and Territory Anti-Discrimination bodies which may make binding determinations. This would require either a constitutional change or an amendment to the laws of every State, Territory and the Commonwealth. For example:

    https://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/about-us/annual-reports/annualreport08/appendices/appendix4.html

    http://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/matter-types/anti-discrimination-matters

  216. Matthew

    Vilification = abusively disparaging speech or writing.

    What does that have to do with the Obama administration’s abuse of power in targeting political opponents with tax audits?

  217. .

    INQUIRY INTO RACIAL VILIFICATION LAW IN NSW

    Organisation: Liberal Democratic Party
    Date received: 8/03/2013

    The Liberal Democrats are concerned with the terms of reference for this inquiry, in particular:

    “whether section 20D establishes a realistic test for the offence of racial vilification in line with
    community expectations;”

    The Liberal Democrats do not believe “community expectations” should be a primary factor regarding
    freedom of speech. At one time, suggesting interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery or the right of
    women to vote would have been completely out of line with “community expectations”.

    Our progress to a liberal democratic society has not been helped by restricting speech that the
    community found offensive, but by allowing it. It would be arrogant to assume that we now have a
    perfect society and any speech outside of “community expectations” may be legitimately suppressed.

    The Liberal Democrats believe the government’s main role in restricting speech is preventing
    “imminent lawless or violent action”. The often quoted “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” is
    one example, as are direct threats of violence, or inciting a riot. These involve a direct and identifiable
    victim or victims who can reasonably be expected to suffer actual harm as a direct consequence of the
    action. Prohibitions on child pornography are similarly justified.

    However, vague statements about a group should not be criminalised as they can be broadly construed
    as a prior restraint on speech. Under the current act, political discussion of Islamic extremism,
    immigration, indigenous affairs and many aspects of foreign policy could be construed as “threatening
    physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons”.

    In these cases all that needs to be shown is that a statement, if acted upon, would result in physical harm
    or loss of property to the group, arguably the case in these issues.

    The act currently states: “A person shall not be prosecuted for an offence under this section unless the
    Attorney General has consented to the prosecution.” One may argue that the Attorney General would
    never consent to prosecuting political speech. Nonetheless, our society is supposed to be governed by
    the rule of law, not rule of men. When laws are written in such a broad way but then only selectively
    enforced, they can and have historically been used to oppress minorities.

    The Liberal Democrats also believe that any reasonable prosecution under the current act, such as direct
    threats of violence, could be pursued under criminal law. This makes section 20D of the act at best
    redundant, and because of its broad reach and Attorney General’s discretion, a source of uncertainty to
    publishers regarding their legal rights.

    Given that, the Liberal Democrats recommend abolishing section 20D and oppose any extensions to it

    I know Aristo. What a pack of lying, insincere, fascist pricks!

  218. .

    What does that have to do with the Obama administration’s abuse of power in targeting political opponents with tax audits?

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

  219. Matthew

    There is nothing I disagree with in the above copy/paste. Perhaps you could ask the LDP to clarify their policy statement along those lines. All any normal person can do is read a policy as written.

    If it is not the case that the LDP will be retaining vilification laws, then bully to them. The policy as written does not reflect that at all. Don’t blame others for unclear, poorly written policies.

  220. .

    If it is not the case that the LDP will be retaining vilification laws, then bully to them. The policy as written does not reflect that at all. Don’t blame others for unclear, poorly written policies.

    Fuck off. You are simply running interference and not making constructive criticism.

  221. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1333084, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm
    […]
    All any normal person can do is read a policy as written.

    How would you know what a normal person could do?

  222. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333080, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    INQUIRY INTO RACIAL VILIFICATION LAW IN NSW

    Organisation: Liberal Democratic Party
    Date received: 8/03/2013

    […]
    I know Aristo. What a pack of lying, insincere, fascist pricks!

    That’s some textbook cultural Marxism right there.

  223. tomix

    Taken from the Submission at 2.06pm:

    Under the current act, political discussion of Islamic extremism,
    immigration, indigenous affairs and many aspects of foreign policy could be construed as “threatening
    physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons

    Dot and Aristogeiton:

    Considering that you have both been a tad hysterical about anyone discussing these issues in relation to LDP Immigration policy upthread, do you think that Submission is a bit hypocritical?

  224. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333104, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    […]
    Considering that you have both been a tad hysterical about anyone discussing these issues in relation to LDP Immigration policy upthread, do you think that Submission is a bit hypocritical?

    We’ve been hysterical? Fuck me down. I can’t be bothered trawling through the thread for quotes, but the hysteria has been all one sided.

    I don’t represent the LDP in any event.

  225. Fisky

    Has anyone else been reading about Muslim hygienic practices? It’s pretty revolting what they do with their left hands. I’m told by reliable sources that they often don’t even bother to wash. Horrific!

    I just wanted to share that piece of highly-relevant information in case it adds value to this important debate on immigration.

  226. tomix

    Dot @ 2.11pm

    Vilification (government vilification was a term you invented, BTW) can be incitement to violence as well. The government should not do this (or anyone else).

    Would that include, say, then Foreign Minister Rudd’s call for airstrikes on Libya in 2011?

  227. .

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

    This is where your argument has come to. You hate the LDP that much you can’t rationally debate immigration policy or repeal of anti discrimination and affirmative action laws.

    Enough.

  228. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1333122, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    Dot @ 2.11pm

    Vilification (government vilification was a term you invented, BTW) can be incitement to violence as well. The government should not do this (or anyone else).

    Would that include, say, then Foreign Minister Rudd’s call for airstrikes on Libya in 2011?

    The King’s writ does not run in Libya.

  229. Bruce of Newcastle

    Why do I have this impression that Ari and Dot have just fought a fight with a whole herd of cats and lost? Its an inscrutability mixed with a cipher. Perhaps this is why we of the Right lose so many elections.

  230. Matthew

    Does the LDP support bombing foreigners, or just Dot? The war issue is a definite litmus test. If you are out there bombing foreigners you are no libertarian.

  231. tomix

    Here’s some more highly relevant information that adds value to the debate on immigration policy, Fisky.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country

  232. Gab

    Does the LDP support bombing foreigners, or just Dot?

    I don’t believe the LDP wants to bomb Dot. I’m pretty sure of that.

  233. tomix

    Well, it looks like he does, Matthew. He’s chosen the company of Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama over the lost lives of innocent people on the ground in Libya.

    But OSB should be shut down if even one person can be shown to have been turned back who would have been granted refugee status in Australia [ according to Dot].

  234. Grigory M

    a whole herd of cats

    Bruce of Ncle – the correct terminology is “clowder of cats” 🙂

  235. tomix

    I don’t believe the LDP wants to bomb Dot. I’m pretty sure of that.

    After his performance over the last 3 days? I’m not so sure.

  236. Matthew

    Well, it looks like he does, Matthew. He’s chosen the company of Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama over the lost lives of innocent people on the ground in Libya.

    But OSB should be shut down if even one person can be shown to have been turned back who would have been granted refugee status in Australia [ according to Dot].Well, it looks like he does, Matthew. He’s chosen the company of Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama over the lost lives of innocent people on the ground in Libya.

    But OSB should be shut down if even one person can be shown to have been turned back who would have been granted refugee status in Australia [ according to Dot]

    I get it now. Invade the world, invite the world.

    How can someone speak of racism when they advocate killing foreigners? I can’t think of anything worse.

  237. Aristogeiton

    Matthew
    #1333134, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm
    Does the LDP support bombing foreigners, or just Dot? The war issue is a definite litmus test. If you are out there bombing foreigners you are no libertarian.

    Yeah, there all libertarians are non-interventionist. Plus, isn’t this relevant to a discussion of immigration policy. Let me Google that for you dumbass:

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

  238. .

    You are such repulsive liars.

    You are writing clever words but your dishonesty is plain to see for all.

  239. A Lurker

    Why do I have this impression that Ari and Dot have just fought a fight with a whole herd of cats and lost? Its an inscrutability mixed with a cipher. Perhaps this is why we of the Right lose so many elections.

    Been reading and lurking to pop up my head to agree with you Bruce, and to add that I’ve noticed many ‘Shut Up’ words used by Libertarians on this thread.

    It will be interesting to see if this Policy remains stubbornly as is, or is adjusted given the 6 pages of feedback on this thread.

  240. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333152, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    You are such repulsive liars.

    You are writing clever words but your dishonesty is plain to see for all.

  241. .

    Plus, isn’t this relevant to a discussion of immigration policy.

    Tomix and Matthew’s scribblings are no better than a couple of airheads on JJJ babbling about Tony Abbott now.

  242. .

    This “debate” has become blindingly absurd.

    To discuss LDP immigration policy and prove the LDP isn’t really for free speech – it has been proffered that ANY use of force against foreigners by the military is racist.

    Ah yes. Those racist French and their maginot line. Those racist British fighting alone against Britain and liberating nazi race based extermination camps.

    Tomix and Matthew are simply brain dead undergraduate LNP stooges.

    I truly have no more time for this utter shit.

  243. Matthew

    This relates to immigration policy.

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

    A foreign mercenary force? No thanks.

  244. DrBeauGan

    Wow! I’ve only just found this page! It’s great. I’ve found someone in favour of a white australia policy! I thought they were all stuffed and kept in museums.

    I am in favour of a ban on inter-racial procreation. It should be illegal to produce human- chimpanzee hybrids. On the other hand we should not pass laws banning mountain gorillas having it off with chimps if the chimps are happy with it. I am, after all, a libertarian.

    You might think this post slightly whacko. I’m trying to stay in keeping with the general tone.

  245. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333164, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:05 pm
    […]
    Tomix and Matthew are simply brain dead undergraduate LNP stooges.

    I truly have no more time for this utter shit.

    Matthew invented the term ‘government incitement’ and used it to extrapolate an entire foreign policy which they ascribed to the LDP. The LDP are ‘no true libertarians’ because all libertarians are non-interventionists, apparently. Then, when I linked to the readily available policy these criticisms dry up and now there’s a fixation with a single element of the policy. It’s pathetic. I’m out.

  246. Aristogeiton

    DrBeauGan
    #1333171, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    Wow! I’ve only just found this page! It’s great. I’ve found someone in favour of a white australia policy! I thought they were all stuffed and kept in museums.

    I am in favour of a ban on inter-racial procreation. It should be illegal to produce human- chimpanzee hybrids. On the other hand we should not pass laws banning mountain gorillas having it off with chimps if the chimps are happy with it. I am, after all, a libertarian.

    You might think this post slightly whacko. I’m trying to stay in keeping with the general tone.

    A fitting summary of a terrible thread.

  247. tomix

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

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

    You know, those bigoted, racist ones.

1 4 5 6 7 8 10

Comments are closed.