Abbott misses the boat

I have an op-ed in the AFR dealing with Tony Abbott’s comments about immigration and housing prices.

~~++~~

Populism is being mainstreamed in Australia. At a book launch former prime minister Tony Abbott set out an aggressive populist agenda for Australia – presumably a second Abbott government. Abolish the renewable energy target, abolish the Human Rights Commission, cut spending, reform the Senate, and cut immigration.

This from a man who couldn’t amend a single section of the Racial Discrimination Act while PM. A man who increased taxes. A man whose government set the current renewable energy target. Good luck with that.

More concerning, however, is the increased antagonism towards immigration. To be sure, there is much to dislike about immigrants. I have loathed migrants ever since I became a citizen myself. They take our jobs, live in our houses, marry our women, deprive our children of jobs, and speak with strange accents. Most immigrants have the temerity to integrate into Australian society and come to think of themselves as being Australian!

Now Tony Abbott wasn’t as crude as that in his call for restricted immigration but many would nod in approval while thinking those, or similar, thoughts. The official line for restricting immigration is to reduce house prices (at least until housing starts pick up). As if most new migrants to Australia could afford to buy a house upon arrival.

Abbott accuses the federal Treasury of having a “big is best” mode of thinking. Quite right. Most economists support free trade and have done so since Adam Smith. Economists understand that more trade leads to improvements in our standard of living and greater prosperity. This is the basis for promoting international trade.

What many people don’t seem to realise is that domestic trade is good for prosperity too. We can trade with foreigners across international borders, or we can trade with immigrants right here at home. The case for free trade – an argument Abbott knows well – is also the case for immigration. We are better off when goods and services cross borders and when people cross borders, too.

International trade and immigration are not substitutes, they are compliments.

Arguments in favour of immigration usually emphasise diversity, food choice, and the like. These arguments are true, but trivial. The benefit of immigration comes from the fact that immigrants increase the size of the market.

Immigrants don’t just increase demand for Australian goods and services, they also increase the supply of Australian goods and services. This is especially so given the fact that Australia’s immigrant intake is skewed towards skilled migrants. People who are likely to quickly gain employment, start paying taxes, and making other contributions to Australian life.

A restriction on immigration is a restriction on economic prosperity – much like increased taxation.

If Abbott truly believes that housing starts are lagging population growth he should focus his attention on supply side barriers to entry and not on restricting the demand side of the economy. That means lowering taxation, cutting red tape, cutting green tape, and forcing the states to do so, too.

Sinclair Davidson is a professor of economics at RMIT University, a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, and an academic fellow at the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. He is an immigrant to Australia.

~~++~~

The usual pathetic excuses are being rolled out on social media.

 

 

 

I often hear this sort of argument – “We’re not talking about migrants like you”. Oh no, it’s the other sort of migrants, apparently, that are driving up house prices.

Let’s roll the tape on what Abbott actually said:

If we end the “big is best” thinking of the federal Treasury, and scaled back immigration (at least until housing starts and infrastructure have caught up), we can take the pressure off home prices.

As far as I can work out he is calling for a reduction in all immigration to Australia.  Now I find arguments that we should restrict immigration from certain parts of the world due to national security concerns unconvincing, but they are, at least, prima facie plausible.  The notion that we should restrict immigration because of housing prices is complete rubbish.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

717 Responses to Abbott misses the boat

  1. iampeter says:

    Struth.
    Incoherent rambling responses like yours are like a child budding into a conversation among adults.
    You. Don’t. Know. What. You’re. Talking. About.

    It is completely insane and unworkable theory you put forward.

    A government protecting individual rights is “insane and unworkable”? K.

    You realize when we implement your border policies and those that don’t understand Western civilization have to be deported, people like you will be the first to go?

    I will personally pull the lever on the deportation catapult and send you flying to one of the many “homogeneous” countries with the kind of border policies you support, like North Korea or Cuba, where you can feel more “safe”.

  2. Fisky says:

    Here is prominent IPA “libertarian” Chris Berg on the need to destroy countries –

    How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services? Surely we have enough faith in the strength of liberal democracy – and the persuasiveness of liberal civil society – to withstand potential ‘clashes’ of culture? The only concrete thing we ask of migrants is that they obey existing laws – and in this concern we already have an elaborate mechanism to monitor and assure compliance of all those on Australian shores regardless of their birthplace.

    This is not merely apologetics. I suggest that not only is immigration practically beneficial, but we have a moral obligation to accept into our borders those who want to come.

    Re: national creative destruction – I’m not sure we should prioritise the maintainence of nation states over the well-being of individuals.

    That is exactly what Iampeter believes. We must destroy law and order to protect freedom!

  3. Infidel Tiger says:

    * Australian libertarians vs lefties — friendly debate with the left

    “Hey guys, we completely agree!”

    * Seasteading & free-cities — looking at ways to live free in our life

    I can’t believe this is a topic still. They would be more relevant debating the return of 8-track players.

    Autism is the only explanation.

  4. iampeter says:

    iampeter, you haven’t demonstrated that individuals have a right to go where ever they please. States enjoy sovereignty over their territories, just as private owners do regarding their property, and therefore can justly regulate entry and settlement. Now, either argue the contrary or just stop whinging.

    Only individuals are sovereign. States enjoy sovereignty by protecting the sovereignty – the individual rights of their citizens. States that violate the rights of their citizens cannot be considered sovereign and are just illegitimate criminal governments.

    The definition of “sovereignty” that you are using is one that we did away with along with rule by Kings, Queens and other totalitarians.

    The whole function of legitimate government – everything Western civilization is about – is protecting the sovereign individual.

  5. A Lurker says:

    Some questions to iampeter:

    Do you believe Australia possesses a unique culture? Y/N
    If so, do you believe the Australian culture matters? Y/N
    If so, do you believe that the Australian culture should be protected? Y/N
    If so, how would you go about protecting the Australian culture whilst allowing anyone who wished to immigrate to Australia to do so?

  6. Fisky says:

    The whole function of legitimate government – everything Western civilization is about – is protecting the sovereign individual.

    But this has never been true in any Western country, even the United States. Government functions have always and everywhere exceeded the function of simply protecting individuals.

  7. . says:

    Actually IT, people tried to seastead an Atoll in the Pacific, until socialist loon Malcolm Fraser joined with the tinpot kingdom of Tonga to stop it, even though they had no right to do so.

    It is only irrelevant if you think the government should be able to steal your shit at will like the Mafia.

  8. Combine Dave says:

    Some of the undeniable economic benefits of open borders:

    + More retail spending through a Keynesian style increase in welfare payments. ✅

    + More government programs and support services to assist recent arrivals. Means more jobs for public servants. ✅

    + More Public debt to fund such services = greater deficit, higher taxes.✅

    + More crime and criminals due to failed assimilation (and as a side benefit of welfare dependency).✅

    + More terrorism and terrorist attacks. Results in increased police numbers and powers and freedom of speech banned (to prevent provocation leading to attacks).✅

    + Eventual civil unrest and the rise of extremist parties with bizarre protectionist policies who hate immigrants holding the balance of power at the expense of the liberals.✅

    Awful!

    The growth of the state under an open borders ideology is just awful.

  9. . says:

    Government functions have always and everywhere exceeded the function of simply protecting individuals.

    Sadly.

  10. Fisky says:

    The definition of “sovereignty” that you are using is one that we did away with along with rule by Kings, Queens and other totalitarians.

    I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that any western government had done away with the concept of state sovereignty over land.

    This is the problem with the libertarian movement as a whole – it has become completely dogmatic and ahistorical.

  11. . says:

    Fisk is right. As much as I believe in individual sovereignty, it isn’t the way things are.

  12. H B Bear says:

    Autism is the only explanation.

    That is very generous IT.

  13. Fisky says:

    Also, I’m loving this idea that Kings and Queens are/were “totalitarians”! Iampeter has literally read no history dating prior to the 1990s.

  14. Fisky says:

    I would not be surprised at all if the open borders movement was being bankrolled by foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia.

  15. Snoopy says:

    Seasteading

    Waterworld isn’t just a movie. It’s a how-to manual.

  16. . says:

    Also, I’m loving this idea that Kings and Queens are/were “totalitarians”!

    You might want stop reading the nonsense on alt right websites. They weren’t all good eggs like Alfred and Edward III. You might want to live in Tsarist Russia…but the rest of us? Not so much,

    Richard II ruled like Hitler. Literally. He had his own private army, put himself as a Caesaropapist before it even exist and was so bad the nobles rebelled twice and the peasants nearly overthrew him as a petulant teenager.

    All the Tudors outside of Henry VIII put scores of people to death for “heresy”.

    Kings got where they were through violence. People like Charlemagne deserve no glorification. They were just mini Saddams with less technology.

  17. . says:

    Fisky
    #2310203, posted on February 27, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    I would not be surprised at all if the open borders movement was being bankrolled by foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you were bankrolled by Iran!

  18. iampeter says:

    Some questions to iampeter:

    Sure:
    Do you believe Australia possesses a unique culture? Y
    If so, do you believe the Australian culture matters? Y
    If so, do you believe that the Australian culture should be protected? Y
    If so, how would you go about protecting the Australian culture whilst allowing anyone who wished to immigrate to Australia to do so? Restrict government to protecting individual rights by maintaining the army, the police and the armed forces and NOTHING else.

    Without the welfare and regulatory state we will get no freeloaders, criminals will be stopped by a properly managed border, immigrants who support individual rights will flow along with investment and business from overseas and integrate into our individualistic culture, etc. etc. Wealth and prosperity will explode.

    Basically the entire story of America prior to the 20st Century and the rise of big government.

  19. struth says:

    A government protecting individual rights is “insane and unworkable”? K.

    It certainly is you space cadet.

    A government protecting IT’S CITIZENS individual rights is not unworkable.
    Your theory is totally fucking insane and unworkable if you think a democratically elected government of a nation has any rights or responsibilities to decide on anything or anyone, outside it’s borders, as it’s responsibilities are to only those within it’s jurisdiction who empower it on their behalf.
    REPRESENTATIVE government.
    If we decide we don’t want people in this country who hate us, or we don’t want to take anyone at all, it is our right to make our government enforce the border to keep them out.
    They have absolutely no right to step one foot on our soil, without our permission.
    What don’t you get, dipstick?

  20. A Lurker says:

    So how would you – in a hundred words or less – get rid of the welfare and regulatory state?

  21. Infidel Tiger says:

    Without the welfare and regulatory state we will get no freeloaders, criminals will be stopped by a properly managed border, immigrants who support individual rights will flow along with investment and business from overseas and integrate into our individualistic culture, etc. etc. Wealth and prosperity will explode.

    Cool.

    Get rid of the welfare and regulatory state and then get back to us.

  22. dover_beach says:

    Only individuals are sovereign. States enjoy sovereignty by protecting the sovereignty – the individual rights of their citizens. States that violate the rights of their citizens cannot be considered sovereign and are just illegitimate criminal governments.

    No, no, the concept of sovereignty was from the outset associated with the extent of state authority within its territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, foreigners are not citizens of the state they wish to enter so the state can justly prevent them from entering with breaching their rights.

    The definition of “sovereignty” that you are using is one that we did away with along with rule by Kings, Queens and other totalitarians.

    I didn’t provide a definition, or one that is the province of kings, totalitarians, or whatever.

    The whole function of legitimate government – everything Western civilization is about – is protecting the sovereign individual.

    No, no, the function of a government is to preserve a settled way of communal life among its inhabitants, which of course means that a state can legitimately prevent the entry of people whose culture is inimical to it.

    Lastly, I note with interest that you are not defending your error re criminals which given your position you believe we are duty bound to accept as immigrants.

  23. jupes says:

    Basically the entire story of America prior to the 20st Century and the rise of big government.

    This is where libertarians fuck it up every single time.

    America worked because for the most part the immigrants were European Christians. Culturally they fit in.

    Now imagine what America would be like if every immigrant since the Declaration of Independence had been Muslim.

  24. dover_beach says:

    How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services?

    Terrible analogy, goods and services simply do not enter our borders under the own free will, they are ‘invited’ by people already here.

  25. . says:

    A Lurker
    #2310215, posted on February 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm
    So how would you – in a hundred words or less – get rid of the welfare and regulatory state?

    Pretty simple. Repeal 4/5ths of the laws of the land as the Whigs did in England.

    If you take away occupational licensing and wage regulation, you have done most of the heavy lifting. The rest comes out of exchanging asset sales to pay out one off bequests in exchange for ending welfare.

    If your response is “not enough detail”, widen your reading. If you think it can’t be done politically, you might as well give up.

  26. Fisky says:

    No, no, the concept of sovereignty was from the outset associated with the extent of state authority within its territorial jurisdiction

    I can’t believe Iampeter is unaware of this. Property rights evolved out of the feudal system where all land was nominally in the King’s name. This is very basic history.

  27. dover_beach says:

    immigrants who support individual rights will flow along with investment and business from overseas and integrate into our individualistic culture

    Oh, so we can discriminate against immigrants that do not support our individualistic culture! Funny, earlier you were saying that such discrimination on the grounds of belief was unjust.

  28. . says:

    . Property rights evolved out of the feudal system where all land was nominally in the King’s name.

    It still is, and rather NOT nominally as time progresses.

  29. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    The definition of “sovereignty” that you are using is one that we did away with along with rule by Kings, Queens and other totalitarians.

    The whole function of legitimate government – everything Western civilization is about – is protecting the sovereign individual.

    This is theory (which I’m sympathetic to), not fact. Furthermore, in the nation state, regulation of borders is a legitimate public good. For our island home, border control is an essential element of continental defence. We have not only a right, but a responsibility to protect the commonwealth in the interests of citizens and to prevent plunder by aliens.

    Despite what Fisk would have you believe, there is no compulsion to open borders for libertarians. There are however, people who call themselves libertarians who vigorously promote open borders. That is their right, but to avoid justified claims of hypocrisy they ought to be billeting in their own home at least one of Allah’s finest at any given time.

  30. struth says:

    Without the welfare and regulatory state we will get no freeloaders, criminals will be stopped by a properly managed border, immigrants who support individual rights will flow along with investment and business from overseas and integrate into our individualistic culture, etc. etc. Wealth and prosperity will explode.

    True kumbaya fairly land stuff.

    Everyone is a western loving peaceful person if they have not been convicted of being a criminal.

    No one wants to bring down the west, and those that do are not rich and don’t have a policy of defeating the west through immigration, as we can’t see it happening anywhere else in the world can we?
    Stopping welfare won’t stop the bad guys.
    FFS.
    They’ll start businesses in Australia, filled with their own slaves and through threats and violence will shut down the enforcement of the rule of law as applied to them…..
    Blah, Blah.

    It is so frustrating to think that apparent grown ups think economics can stop all evil.
    The insulated minds of many lefties, as Iampeter is, are very dangerous in their naivety.

  31. . says:

    There is a compulsion for conservatives here to call anything short of OSB as well either a moratorium on immigration or deporting Muslims as “open borders”, which is patently ridiculous.

  32. jupes says:

    Without the welfare and regulatory state we will get no freeloaders, criminals will be stopped by a properly managed border, immigrants who support individual rights will flow along with investment and business from overseas and integrate into our individualistic culture, etc. etc. Wealth and prosperity will explode.

    LOL

    This is actually what libertarians believe despite all evidence to the contrary.

    They are that blind to reality that they believe Muslims will integrate into our “individualistic culture” for “wealth and prosperity”.

    What a deranged bunch.

  33. Fisky says:

    Despite what Fisk would have you believe, there is no compulsion to open borders for libertarians.

    But this is exactly what I believe. That libertarians have no need to support open borders. In fact, I would go further and argue that open borders is the antithesis of true libertarianism. The problem is that the libertarian movement has been captured by zombies who love open borders.

  34. Boambee John says:

    iampeter

    When restriction of welfare has been constitutionally restricted to natural born citizens only, then get back to us.

    Until then unrestricted immigration is the road to perdition.

  35. Boambee John says:

    Dot

    And ditto for the regulatory state.

  36. struth says:

    The problem is that the libertarian movement has been captured by zombies who love open borders.

    You see the same thing with many of them.
    It’s that ex hippy lefty insanity that read a book (or even just an article) once and now “believes”
    As I said earlier, cult leaders pray on these types.

  37. . says:

    You don’t want any immigration until all regulation is banned?

    Do you understand what prerogative regulatory powers the government has which define sovereignty?

    This is nonsense. Just say you want to ban immigration in perpetuity.

  38. struth says:

    You don’t want any immigration until all regulation is banned?

    Do you understand what prerogative regulatory powers the government has which define sovereignty?

    This is nonsense. Just say you want to ban immigration in perpetuity.

    I just want to put open border supporters in jail for treason.
    So sue me.
    Will you be representing yourself?

  39. struth says:

    Hitler must be spewing.
    He now finds that all he had to do was wait for open borders loons to gain control and put his troops in civilian clothes.

  40. . says:

    I just want to put open border supporters in jail for treason.

    You are a fanatic. You are calling people who disagree with you on one issue (the majority of your countrymen) traitors.

  41. A Lurker says:

    I suspect the open borders/no welfare, no regulatory state crowd haven’t thought through the consequences of opening borders before removing welfare and shutting down the regulatory state.
    It’s like putting the cart before the horse.
    The only way open borders could work (in a perfect warm and fuzzy world where everyone is peaceful, polite, law-abiding, respectful of liberty and freedom, and don’t want to forcibly impose their religious/political/other ideology on anyone else) is to first ensure that any ‘sugar is taken off the table’.
    Doing one before the other will ensure that the nation, society, economy and culture are wrecked.
    Which makes me wonder if the wrecking is intentional or accidental?

  42. struth says:

    You are a fanatic. You are calling people who disagree with you on one issue (the majority of your countrymen) traitors.

    They are not disagreeing with me about the taste of vegemite.
    They are talking about open borders.
    No controlled border, no country.
    What is not traitorous?

    The majority of my countrymen…………….
    Oh please stop it.
    I love you dot!

  43. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    But this is exactly what I believe. That libertarians have no need to support open borders.

    Entertaining trolling of libertarians notwithstanding, yeah I know.

    In fact, I would go further and argue that open borders is the antithesis of true libertarianism. The problem is that the libertarian movement has been captured by zombies who love open borders

    Indeed. The primary purpose of the nation state is to provide a reliable protection racket (paid with taxes) to protect the person and property of citizen taxpayers and their dependents.

    That people who champion individual rights can’t fathom this, is a complete mystery to me. The rights of citizens and aliens are not equal – that’s a deliberate design feature folks.

  44. jupes says:

    You are calling people who disagree with you on one issue (the majority of your countrymen) traitors.

    LOL

    Dotty. The majority of Australians do not want open borders nor do they want more Muslims in Australia.

    Those that do are indeed traitors.

  45. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    There is a compulsion for conservatives here to call anything short of OSB as well either a moratorium on immigration or deporting Muslims as “open borders”, which is patently ridiculous.

    Agreed. It seems anyone who doesn’t support reversion to the White Australia Policy is an open borders supporter ipso facto.

    I’m sympathetic to ending moozley migration, but I also accept that to do so will require selling the concept under a brand name that doesn’t mention the I-word. There are many ways to skin a cat.

    Does that make me a traitor?

  46. Andrew says:

    Wogs Out!
    (lbw O’Keefe)

  47. Andrew says:

    I see the word “[email protected]$” referring to migrants is now moderated in the same way as Djoooooooz

  48. Fisky says:

    I agree that it should be an offence to advocate open borders. Possibly treason.

  49. struth says:

    Does that make me a traitor?

    The question and the reason for many arguments around here are of course caused by what people consider an open border.
    Iampeter’s version is traitorous, even if he is just extremely naïve about the world outside our borders.

    You can believe that there should be no welfare for new migrants as a way of controlling numbers, but without discriminatory entry applied to migrants you may as well be opening the borders completely as that won’t keep the shit out.
    I think it boils down to this.
    If you think we have no right to decide who comes into our country, you are a traitor.

  50. Fisky says:

    Not supporting boat turnbacks is undoubtedly treasonous, and should be punished as such.

  51. stackja says:

    Fisky – RGR traitors. Now BS wants more.

  52. Boambee John says:

    Dot

    N
    My comment about regulation stemmed from your Whig proposal to revoke 75 percent of laws.

    How is that going in the UK? Once the Liars are back tbey would simply renew the revoked laws. The only way to stop that is by a constitutional change.

  53. struth says:

    Not supporting boat turnbacks is undoubtedly treasonous, and should be punished as such.

    It’s a democracy.
    You don’t have to support anything.
    In that instance, when a democratically elected government, it’s main platform being “stop the boats” has been elected to defend our borders against the boats, you are not being treasonous until you either physically help the invaders, or claim that Australia has no right to turn the boats back as Iampeter thinks that the government is impinging on the rights of the country shoppers by enforcing the will of the majority of citizens in a democracy, by securing it’s borders.
    To claim the commonwealth of Australia has no right to control it’s borders, is treasonous.

  54. Boambee John says:

    Unless welfare and the regulatory state are controlled constitutionally anything like open borders is national suicide.

    Simple legislative change (and this would not be simple) can be readily reversed by a new government giving in to the inevitable bleeding hearts.

  55. NewChum says:

    Japan does not have an open borders policy. In fact it is the complete reverse.

    Japan is a peaceful, prosperous society with low crime and high trust. It has a strong export focus and a strong safety net.

    The one mistake Japan has done is to follow the Keynesian idiocy. Without that, it would still reign supreme as it was for a while in the 80s.

    Anyone wanting Australia to do better could do worse than studying postwar Japanese growth and following the prescription.

    The amazing thing is that many Western youth as as likely to be a fan of Japanese culture as they are of European or English culture. Japan has managed to export distinctly Japanese concepts and cultures – probably because, by keeping a distinctly national culture, you provide the base to export it to the world. Inviting the world to each bring a piece of their pie to your country ends up with a mess that nobody is interested in.

    Australia had a strong national culture of egalitarian jokesters and easygoing fun people. You’d be hard pressed convincing anyone of that these days given the laughable yellow helmets that adorn rental bikes in major cities. Try and make Crocodile Dundee now and you’d have shrieks of un-PC ‘that is not who we are!’. Even the production company is ‘rimfire productions’ and the movies are full of knives, guns, fighting, drinking, drink driving, hunting, aboriginal jokes and even makes fun of trannies. Yet the most successful export of Australian culture ever likely to happen.

    Whereas the japs will still be exporting ninjas, samurai, anime, car culture and all the other crazy stuff their youth get up to for many years to come. Because they’ve kept their heritage and traditions.

  56. Fisky says:

    To claim the commonwealth of Australia has no right to control it’s borders, is treasonous.

    I agree this should be a punishable offence.

  57. . says:

    My comment about regulation stemmed from your Whig proposal to revoke 75 percent of laws.

    How is that going in the UK?

    Took about 110 years to reverse, it went great nevertheless, and it was 4/5ths, not 3/4ths of the laws of the land. IIRC.

  58. Fisky says:

    So when does Iampeter’s trial start?

  59. struth says:

    probably because, by keeping a distinctly national culture, you provide the base to export it to the world. Inviting the world to each bring a piece of their pie to your country ends up with a mess that nobody is interested in.

    Australia had a strong national culture of egalitarian jokesters and easygoing fun people. You’d be hard pressed convincing anyone of that these days given the laughable yellow helmets that adorn rental bikes in major cities. Try and make Crocodile Dundee now and you’d have shrieks of un-PC ‘that is not who we are!’. Even the production company is ‘rimfire productions’ and the movies are full of knives, guns, fighting, drinking, drink driving, hunting, aboriginal jokes and even makes fun of trannies. Yet the most successful export of Australian culture ever likely to happen.

    Multicultual PC Australia killed tourism.
    I have been involved with tourism for many years and I will let you know the slags in the government tourism commissions despised Paul Hogan and crocodile Dundee.
    They were appalled at these movies and vowed revenge.
    They envisaged selling Australia as wine tasting, push bike riding Multi culti PC wankers.
    He did more for Australian Tourism without a cent of taxpayer’s money, while the actual government tourist departments did all they could to kill it off.
    They succeeded.
    A great comment New chum.

  60. struth says:

    So when does Iampeter’s trial start?

    Dot will defend him for free.

  61. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    To claim the commonwealth of Australia has no right to control it’s borders, is treasonous.

    Treasonous? Not the claim itself, unless backed by action aiding armed invasion. No doubt it’s mentally deranged, discordant with the facts and untrue. Section 51(xxvii) is clear enough and has been tested – R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O’Flanagan (1923).

    “[Parliament] had power to prohibit absolutely the entry into Australia of any person who is an immigrant,” it could “prescribe the conditions on which an immigrant may be permitted to enter” (Knox CJ)

    The question is: do the laws made by the parliament reflect the attitude and will of the voters? The survey data in relation to moozley migration suggests NO.

  62. struth says:

    As we all know here, I make the statement treasonous as that is what it is.

    It may not stand up in a court filled with the likes of Dot, but it is treason none the less.

    How can you believe that our country exists if you don’t believe it has enforceable borders?

    I admit to being obtuse, but it really is to make a point.

  63. . says:

    How can you believe that our country exists if you don’t believe it has enforceable borders?

    Err, I made the same point before, re prerogative powers. Stop this idiotic show trial shit that belongs in the left faction of the Greens, FFS.

  64. . says:

    Multicultual PC Australia killed tourism.

    It was the dollar.

  65. jupes says:

    Err, I made the same point before, re prerogative powers.

    But you want more Muzzos here!

    You love the fuckers.

  66. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    How can you believe that our country exists if you don’t believe it has enforceable borders?

    You can’t. True open borders philosophy is all about the end of nation states.

    Dot has never advocated for that and clearly doesn’t support it. Yet he is accused almost daily of being an open borders loon.

    I don’t agree with the immigration policy Dot promotes here because I think it’s flawed. The risk it would be gamed is too high. But I don’t resort to labeling him an open borders loon, because he isn’t.

  67. jupes says:

    But I don’t resort to labeling him an open borders loon, because he isn’t.

    Of course he is you numptie.

    He would open the borders to anyone with $30,000. Anyone!

    Qataris and Free Syrian Army jihadis would be first in line.

  68. memoryvault says:

    I have been involved with tourism for many years and I will let you know the slags in the government tourism commissions despised Paul Hogan and crocodile Dundee.
    They were appalled at these movies and vowed revenge. They envisaged selling Australia as wine tasting, push bike riding Multi culti PC wankers.

    As an aside, Struth, back in the time of Crocodile Dundee I had a mate who had a field rifle and hunting bow range in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland. We’ll call him Fred. This was in the days when Surfers Paradise was the world capital for Japanese newlyweds on their honeymoon.

    Some enterprising soul had put together a package for these tourists. They would go to a demin boutique and buy the latest jeans and jackets, and a Dundee style hat. Next day they would get a sight-seeing helicopter flight from the Gold Coast, over Brisbane, up to Fred’s place.

    Their brand new, very expensive designer denim outfits were then pegged to a wooden wall, and they took turns blasting the crap out of them with a 12 gauge Mossberg pump action. Then the happy couples would change into their newly aerated outfits for the flight home. The whole exercise took about two hours and Fred made about a grand out of a load of eight tourists, for the cost of a couple of boxes of shells, and cleaning the gun afterwards.

    The QLD Tourist Commission got wind of it and spent the next three years trying to close down Fred’s range and cancel his firearm dealer’s licence.

  69. Boambee John says:

    Dot

    If you seriously believe that it would take 110 years for the Liars to restore welfare to every potential voteherd then you are either naive in the extreme or deluded.

  70. A Lurker says:

    He would open the borders to anyone with $30,000. Anyone!
    Qataris and Free Syrian Army jihadis would be first in line.

    Keep in mind too that IS has been covertly selling priceless antiquities on the black market and on places like eBay. They’d also have other income streams. Would LDP be able to identify these people and prevent their entry into Australia?

  71. struth says:

    It was the dollar.

    No it wasn’t.

    it was still going strong with a high dollar.
    That’s the classic reason given by people who know nothing about what tourists actually want and are willing to pay for.

    Dot has never advocated for that and clearly doesn’t support it. Yet he is accused almost daily of being an open borders loon.

    Excuse me for pointing out that dot wants no welfare open borders, taking the” let the market decide” position.
    Although dot can see what Islam is, as we all can, he refuses to put his own country’s security and rights before his political philosophy, when that philosophy clearly helps our enemies world wide, and decreases Australia’s safety, security, and social cohesion.
    He must stop and think about what being a traitor actually is.
    I am not calling him a traitor.
    But it’s bloody close, and it’s only his naivety that can excuse him.

  72. memoryvault says:

    I don’t agree with the immigration policy Dot promotes here because I think it’s flawed. The risk it would be gamed is too high. But I don’t resort to labeling him an open borders loon, because he isn’t.

    Factcheck =True, GTHO.

    The flaw in Dot’s/The LDP’s immigration policy is not that it is “open borders” – which it’s not – but rather that it is based on the fallacy of the welfare state being the major drawcard. This may have been true back in the early 80’s, and may indeed be true now in Europe, but we have long since past that point.

    There are sufficient Muslims now firmly entrenched in everything from outright crime, to legal rorts, to control of entirely legitimate businesses, to easily absorb newcomers. Welfare to these people now is simply icing on the cake, not the main driver.

  73. iampeter says:

    You can’t. True open borders philosophy is all about the end of nation states.

    No one here has argued for that. In fact after three pages no one has even defined what “open borders” means. The closest I can figure is the confusion by many of the disastrous refugee program in Germany which has exposed all of Europe to actually having no borders and just letting anyone in. But you couldn’t walk into Europe right now unless you’re a Syrian refugee. So, who knows what’s meant by this.

    America worked because for the most part the immigrants were European Christians. Culturally they fit in.

    This quote right here, gets to the very heart of our disagreement. I believe Western Civ (and any Civ really) succeeds to the extent the culture recognizes and protects individual rights and fails to the extent that it violates individual rights.

    You believe that Western Civ succeeds to the extent that it is “European” and Christian. The irony here is that in principle this makes you no different to those fire breathing Imam’s you oppose. Just replace “European” with “Middle Eastern” and “Christian” with “Islamic”.

    You are both religious, traditionalist and even race-based, collectivists. You all represent the same collectivist threat to individualist Western Civilization.

  74. Fisky says:

    You are both religious, traditionalist and even race-based, collectivists. You all represent the same collectivist threat to individualist Western Civilization.

    Iampeter, you obviously haven’t clicked that you are the one who stands outside western civilization, not everyone else. No country has ever existed remotely along the lines of your bizarre ideology.

  75. . says:

    Boambee John
    #2310344, posted on February 27, 2017 at 3:25 pm
    Dot

    If you seriously believe that it would take 110 years for the Liars to restore welfare to every potential voteherd then you are either naive in the extreme or deluded.

    We were talking about England – it took about 110 years for the social welfare state to emerge after that.

    Why won’t the ALP just repeal everything Abbott did that was good?

    Never answered!

  76. struth says:

    Iampeter does more for the anti open borders movement than he knows.

    Go out there Iampeter, spread your message far and wide.

    Froot loop.

  77. Boambee John says:

    Dot

    They have not yet had their chance to repeal Abbott’s changes, but might get it soon.

    Watch this space.

  78. Driftforge says:

    You are both religious, traditionalist and even race-based, collectivists. You all represent the same collectivist threat to individualist Western Civilization.

    Western Civilisation is not individualist. The descent to Individualism marks the death of civilisation. Civilisation can only grow where the group matters more than the individual, and the generations to come matter more than the generation in play.

  79. memoryvault says:

    I believe Western Civ (and any Civ really) succeeds to the extent the culture recognizes and protects individual rights and fails to the extent that it violates individual rights.

    And there, Peter, lies the very heart of the fallacy of your argument. It is based on the assumption that all cultures more or less share the same recognition of individual rights. They don’t. Middle Eastern culture, as codified in Islam, is a tribal culture. There are no “individual rights”, only the collective might of the tribe, as expressed and enforced by the local Bigman.

    This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if Muslims were happy to abandon that outlook and adopt our culture of individual rights, but they’re not. They want to come here and impose their culture on us, which makes them no different in outcome than an invading army. The only variable is the time required for conquest.

  80. iampeter says:

    Western Civilisation is not individualist. The descent to Individualism marks the death of civilisation. Civilisation can only grow where the group matters more than the individual, and the generations to come matter more than the generation in play.

    Cool. So since you fundamentally disagree with what it means to be a right-winger, what do you find interesting about reading and posting at the Cat?

    This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if Muslims were happy to abandon that outlook and adopt our culture of individual rights, but they’re not.

    But this all reflects us abandoning individualist principles and becoming a growing collectivist state. Heck read some of the fucking comments here on what is supposed to be a center-right blog! Are you surprised that Muslims aren’t integrating? What are they supposed to integrate into, the King and Country for Jesus collective?

    If we return to classic liberal, individualistic principles, that form the basis for Western Civilization, we abolish the welfare and regulatory state, then those Muslims that don’t value individual rights will not come here because they won’t be able to sit on welfare – they won’t last a day.

    The problem: big government.
    The solution: small government.

  81. Fisky says:

    But this all reflects us abandoning individualist principles and becoming a growing collectivist state. Heck read some of the fucking comments here on what is supposed to be a center-right blog! Are you surprised that Muslims aren’t integrating? What are they supposed to integrate into, the King and Country for Jesus collective?

    Wow, the Randroids are real intellectual heavy-lifters! I’m embarrassed for you.

  82. Fisky says:

    If we return to classic liberal, individualistic principles, that form the basis for Western Civilization,

    You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about! This is beyond embarrassing.

  83. Fisky says:

    Classical liberalism is a philosophy that held sway for about two centuries, at most, after the Reformation in one remote corner of Europe – Britain (and some, not all, of its colonies). But apparently it forms the entire basis for Western Civilisation!

    Where do you Randroids get this rubbish?

  84. struth says:

    Cool. So since you fundamentally disagree with what it means to be a right-winger, what do you find interesting about reading and posting at the Cat?

    Give us a laugh.
    What’s your idea of what it means to be a right winger?

  85. jupes says:

    If we return to classic liberal, individualistic principles, that form the basis for Western Civilization, we abolish the welfare and regulatory state, then those Muslims that don’t value individual rights will not come here because they won’t be able to sit on welfare – they won’t last a day.

    They will come here for conquest you fucking imbecile.

  86. struth says:

    they won’t last a day.

    That’s because there is so much welfare where they come from!!!!

  87. Fisky says:

    I love the idea that Muslims will never be able to assimilate into a Christian society, but they will be able to fit in perfectly well in a weirdo atomised society run by Objectivists.

  88. jupes says:

    I love the idea that Muslims will never be able to assimilate into a Christian society, but they will be able to fit in perfectly well in a weirdo atomised society run by Objectivists.

    Yes because if there is one thing that Muslims love, it is a (supposedly) rational economic argument.

    Beats the Koran hands down every time.

  89. Joe says:

    The flaw in Dot’s/The LDP’s immigration policy is not that it is “open borders” – which it’s not – but rather that it is based on the fallacy of the welfare state being the major drawcard. This may have been true back in the early 80’s, and may indeed be true now in Europe, but we have long since past that point.

    No, the flaw in Dot/iampeter argument is the assumption that Muslims immigrate to Australia for the welfare. They do not. The welfare is the icing on their cake. They immigrate to takeover the country they are immigrating to.

  90. memoryvault says:

    They immigrate to takeover the country they are immigrating to.

    This is not disputed. I was simply pointing out that they can now survive and prosper here without the welfare “sugar on the table”. Eliminating it won’t stop the invasion now, which is the fallacy of the LDP’s/Dots immigration policy.

  91. NewChum says:

    Funny I thought that I read someone was trying to promote open borders.

    It can’t be, because the entire concept has been proven to be a complete and utter disaster in the last few years.

    No serious person associates with a globalist open borders movement anymore. Anyone who writes like that is probably an Alene Composter type having it on. It’s too stupid an idea to be taken seriously by anyone who cares about their future and their families future.

    There’s a reason people started wars – to get to other people’s land and resources. In the last fifty years, in a bid to stop wars, some fools thought that letting them invade without guns might be a good way to go. But it will be worse violence in the future as people separate themselves out. The un-balkanisation process is very untidy, but it always happens at some point.

    It’s very hard for an Australian person to come up with a single concrete improvement in family life and happiness over the last forty or so years. And Australia is extremely homogenous still, in most places.

    Take a look at the videos circulating of Paris – camps in the streets, soldiers patrolling with automatic weapons, tourist atttrctions behind fortifications.

    Does anyone think that 2017 Paris is superior to 1977 Paris? That it 2057 Paris will be better , unless the fundamental drivers of this change are stopped and reversed? How long is the mob going to be content with camping in the streets before they decide to use numbers to start taking the houses that line them?

    Immigration policy will destroy the place in a way the wermacht never did. That is the future for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane unless changes are made now. There never has been and never will be a multicultural utopia. Large homogenous populations with high trust and strong values can always include a small number of culturally different people, but you can’t expect large blocs of people with incompatible values, educational levels and basic community standards to just go on sharing a space.

    Western cities didn’t have to be degraded like this – the future doesn’t automatically have to be a dystopian nightmare compared to the past. All these thighs happen because of bad decisions which are not reversed.

    But that’s enough, back to the comedy show where people pretend you can make a functioning nation by throwing people together at random, taking from the people who built the place and giving it to the newcomers and expecting them to stay silent because reasons.

  92. iampeter says:

    What’s your idea of what it means to be a right winger?

    Like I said three pages ago, you and your doppelgangers are way too vocal given that you don’t really know anything about politics. Not even the difference between right wing (individualism, limited gov and capitalism) and left wing (collectivism, big gov and mixed economy).

    What you guys represent, what “Conservatism” represents, is the old school left. What left-wing collectivists were about before they discovered Marxism and Fascism was religion/race/nationalism.

    So you guys are complete leftists, who are too clueless to know that you’re leftists. Even university-level protester leftists, are a bunch of Einsteins compared to you drones.

  93. NewChum says:

    So you guys are complete leftists, who are too clueless to know that you’re leftists. Even university-level protester leftists, are a bunch of Einsteins compared to you drones.

    This is great! Keep it up!

  94. Howard Hill says:

    iampeter wrote:
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/02/25/abbott-misses-the-boat/comment-page-1/#comment-2308936

    This, this is the damn problem everyone is missing. Bring in all the migrants you want, but if they’re prevented from working, innovating, their energy supplies rationed, extorted and their profits stolen to pay for all the parasites and bludgers, it won’t work. All it will do is speed up the road to bankruptcy, welcome to Greecalia.

    The welfare nanny state is killing us all!

  95. Boambee John says:

    iampeter at 1606

    I love the easy way that “abolish the welfare and regulatory state” flows from your keyboard.

    This is a project on the scale of the Labours of Hercules.

    As I said above, get back to us when these changes are entrenched in the Constitution.

    Until then you are dreaming.

  96. Boambee John says:

    PS iampeter

    You say we don’t know anything about politics.

    If you knew anything about politics you would understand the difficulties involved in abolishing the welfare and regulatory state.

    Perhaps you should go into business selling whatever it is you are smoking?

  97. Driftforge says:

    Cool. So since you fundamentally disagree with what it means to be a right-winger, what do you find interesting about reading and posting at the Cat?

    First, you hardly have to agree with people to enjoy posting and reading their works. And yes, I fundamentally disagree with a number of people about what constitutes right-wing thought. You seem to be espousing old-school leftism, enlightenment style. I’m not sure why you think that is rightist; it descends directly to progressivism and eventually to the singularity.

    I tend to follow the old right these days, drawing from Carlyle and others; Divine Right Monarchy and all that, and take the view that the enlightenment was when Western Civilisation took a turn for the worse.

    So yes, I have marvellous disagreements with a number on here. I passed through libertarianism, conservatism as well as a side serving of Georgism on the way to my current position; finding this place along the way.

    I’m more sporadic here these days, but the site is still as good a value a read as it ever was, and provides an Australian forum for every from Monty on right. Its a wonderfully eclectic bunch that gathers here, and the banter and discussion, while robust on occasion, is generally good natured. And if I encourage one or two further rightward as a result, well, all the better.

  98. iampeter says:

    Hey Drift, thanks for the thoughtful response, I genuinely appreciate it even if I don’t think we’ll agree on anything.

    You seem to be espousing old-school leftism, enlightenment style. I’m not sure why you think that is rightist; it descends directly to progressivism and eventually to the singularity.

    Sorry, but that’s just absolutely wrong.

    Let’s get this straight. The political spectrum is split between two alternatives: individualism (right-wing) and collectivism (left-wing). To be right-wing, means supporting individual rights as a matter of principle and therefore logically supporting capitalism and limited government.

    To be left-wing, means supporting collectivism as a matter of principle and therefore logically supporting some form of mixed/centrally planned economy and big government. The size of government and market intervention depends on how far left you are, ranging from far left Communists who want to abolish all private property to left-of-center Labor and Conservative movements here in Australia.

    To be a right winger means supporting individualism, capitalism and limited government. THIS is the side of reason, the Enlightenment and Western Civilization. It’s enemy is collectivism in all its forms.

    If you don’t support individualism and believe the enlightenment is when things went wrong, then you are definitely left-of-center. Not a supporter of Western Civilization and I’d guess quite a bit left, given your previous post about group rights over individual rights. From what you’ve said so far, you are pretty much a Marxist. I don’t know how you’ve ever stumbled into thinking you are on the right.

    Also if you believe that the Enlightenment is when things took a turn for the “worse”, I have to ask by what standard are you measuring good and bad? My standard is human life and prosperity but if you’re anti-Enlightenment then what is yours? It’s certainly NOT human life, well being or flourishing, which is a problem, because, well, you’re a human and something other than being a well living human is your priority.

    So I’m curious how you’ve arrived at your beliefs to be honest.

  99. dover_beach says:

    To be a right winger means supporting individualism, capitalism and limited government. THIS is the side of reason, the Enlightenment and Western Civilization. It’s enemy is collectivism in all its forms.

    If you don’t support individualism and believe the enlightenment is when things went wrong, then you are definitely left-of-center. Not a supporter of Western Civilization and I’d guess quite a bit left, given your previous post about group rights over individual rights. From what you’ve said so far, you are pretty much a Marxist. I don’t know how you’ve ever stumbled into thinking you are on the right.

    Also if you believe that the Enlightenment is when things took a turn for the “worse”, I have to ask by what standard are you measuring good and bad? My standard is human life and prosperity but if you’re anti-Enlightenment then what is yours? It’s certainly NOT human life, well being or flourishing, which is a problem, because, well, you’re a human and something other than being a well living human is your priority.

    So I’m curious how you’ve arrived at your beliefs to be honest.

    It’s incredible how unhistorical this is as well as being a diversion. Have you no idea how many left-wing ideas and philosophies have their genesis in the Enlightenment? Take a look at the work of Rousseau, Saint-Simon, Justi, Diderot, Comte, and so on. But let’s leave thats aside, defend your claim that people have a natural right to go wherever they please.

  100. classical_hero says:

    It’s amazing that a few are decrying a big border for protection, as if that is “big government”, but fail to realise that we can either have one big border where the people are safe and free inside, or we have thousands of little borders where people are free to enter no matter what and as a result the people inside are not free nor safe. The choice is pretty clear.

  101. Driftforge says:

    The changes in human life and prosperity are largely due to changes in technology, not changes in form of government.

    Individualism is not rightist. Even under normal assessment, individualism is a societal breakdown. Its the combination of individualism – or rather, grouplessness – that makes society vulnerable to socialism. Its why in the current demotic system, both the inner and outer parties function together to move society left.

    Capitalism as ‘the free exchange of goods’ is neutral on the face of it . From that basis, left is theft, and right is gift; again the breakdown of order and greatness, versus the construction and maintenance of it.

    That said, capitalism as the doctrine of primacy of capital is leftist, as it in effect makes capital sovereign, which is destructive to the formation of all groups.

    Collectivism is a very different thing than what I am talking about, btw. The collective and the group are not the same thing; the ‘collective’ is merely a group of individuals. The collective functions by making the least of any differences; the group functions by making the most of any differences. ‘Group’ is probably a poor term now that we are dividing things down further; I might start using ‘community’ to mean the same thing.

    So no, the individualism vs collectivism split is only a small part of the spectrum, and both are elements of the leftward ratchet we face under liberal (breakdown of order) democracy (breakdown of community).

    i.e Individualism is merely a step in the breakdown of hierarchy to collectivism.

  102. Moving from the big picture discussions above to a more specific comment about Abbott in today’s Australian:
    Didn’t Abbott “bell the cat” on Photios and the internal corruption of governance within the Liberal Party? Isn’t that the real reason behind the orchestrated campaign to denounce him?
    The Oz has a story about a Photios client winning a $60m bus contract without tender.
    Anger against such shoddy practices is part of the populism Sinc seems to be railing against.

  103. iampeter says:

    It’s incredible how unhistorical this is as well as being a diversion. Have you no idea how many left-wing ideas and philosophies have their genesis in the Enlightenment?

    None. Left-wing is anti-Enlightenment. Left-wing ideas that came up during and after the Enlightenment are all anti-Enlightenment. if they had won out over the right-wing, individualist, reason-based pro-Enlightenment ideas we would have remained in the Dark Ages.

    The Enlightenment is a product of men rediscovering reason and individualism NOT a product of any left-wing, collectivist and mystic ideas.

    It’s amazing that a few are decrying a big border for protection

    I’m certainly not decrying a border for protection. Read my previous posts where I’ve explicitly called for a secure border. What I am decrying is 18C policies at the border, because they wont stop a single terrorist and will end up being used against the very Conservatives advocating for them.

    The changes in human life and prosperity are largely due to changes in technology, not changes in form of government.

    Not at all. Human existed for thousands of years of unrecorded history in naked/animal savagery, until they started learning how to think, which is when human history as we know it started. Humans are volition beings, which means we have to think and act. It means everything is about the quality of the ideas that guide our actions. To the extent we have good ideas, we live well and prosper and to the extent we have bad ideas, we suffer and die. You think technology just magically happened? No we had to learn to think first. Technology isn’t the cause, it is the consequence of man discovering good ideas and acting on them.

    Even under normal assessment, individualism is a societal breakdown.

    I think you’re confusing individualism with anarchy. You’re basically saying freedom is societal breakdown – I don’t see how you arrive at this.

    That said, capitalism as the doctrine of primacy of capital is leftist, as it in effect makes capital sovereign, which is destructive to the formation of all groups.

    I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Capitalism is how individuals deal with one another when free from coercion. It is basically just freedom. So again you seem to be arguing that freedom is bad. If freedom is bad, are you then saying that totalitarianism is good? It’s just a contradiction and I don’t understand how you arrived at this.

    i.e Individualism is merely a step in the breakdown of hierarchy to collectivism.

    Humans are individuals literally. We have individual brains, stomachs, eyes – there is no “community” as an objective unit of measure only as an abstract concept representing a group of individuals. So individual humans are the starting point of any discussion about anything in politics NOT the breakdown of a hierarchy that doesn’t exist without individuals in the first place and would not be a primary over the individuals that make it up anyway.

  104. Combine Dave says:

    Did you guys catch Today Tonight?

    Gab posted a link to it on the Open Thread.

    If borders are bad mmkay, then surely importing a people who then erect borders of their own within another state is equally bad – necessitating a ban on said people.

    It would be wrong to tolerate such breachers of human rights.

  105. Driftforge says:

    Capitalism is how individuals deal with one another when free from coercion. It is basically just freedom

    I went through that aspect of capitalism – the notion of capitalism as trade free of coercion, of equal value for equal value – in the paragraph above the one you responded to. However this is not the fullness of what capitalism has come to entail. Capitalism is also the belief that a maximisation of capital is the primary goal of human and societal existance, which is a leftist (disorderly) notion.

    Humans are only individuals ‘literally’ if you take a very limited view of humanity. Yes, each of us is an individual. Duh. But it makes for a very impoverished and inherently decaying society if you command individualism as its root. In practise, we don’t function as individuals. We function as members of a relational and related society. As individuals, we are the product of the choices of all of our ancestors, beneficiaries of their sacrifices and choices. We hold that heritage- genetic, cultural, societal – in store for those who come after us.

    Society as a whole can only decay if we act as if the individual is all that matters. If you are a community of one, you have no future, and no possible morality that is more than hedonism.

  106. iampeter says:

    If borders are bad mmkay, then surely importing a people who then erect borders of their own within another state is equally bad – necessitating a ban on said people.

    No one has argued “borders are bad” in this thread.

  107. struth says:

    Individual rights and individualism are separate things.

  108. struth says:

    Iampeter, you are going to find robust comment regarding your dangerous politics concerning the rights of democratic nations to chose who is allowed in it’s country.
    If you wish to keep only those that are not convicted criminals (unworkable) and those with disease out of the country, you are advocating a discriminatory policy.
    There is nothing wrong with that.
    We all make choice every day.
    Choice is discriminatory.
    Then you get on your high horse if others advocate a stricter discriminatory policy based on other concerns.
    You are therefore a hypocrite.
    You are incredibly naïve when it comes to muslims, and people who have an agenda to bring down the west, and that is putting it as nicely as I can.
    You are confused about the authority of nation states as to who and where that authority lies, and more importantly, how that authority is given.
    You show a total lack of understanding that without discriminatory immigration policy (which you advocate) and control of our borders we have no democracy and you deny that there are any threats to our nation from Muslims.
    Then you wonder why you get the reception you do.
    If you are actively working to undermine the security of my country, you should be treated more harshly than you have been here.
    We have given you more respect than you deserve by engaging with you (as I still am now) than you deserve.
    It’s because right wing people fight bad ideas with free speech, something that also seems to piss you off.

  109. stackja says:

    Liberty Quote
    In a Country where Clamour always intimidates and faction often oppresses the Government, the regulations of Commerce are commonly dictated by those who are most interested to deceive and impose upon the Public.

    — Adam Smith

  110. Combine Dave says:

    It’s amazing that a few are decrying a big border for protection, as if that is “big government”, but fail to realise that we can either have one big border where the people are safe and free inside, or we have thousands of little borders where people are free to enter no matter what and as a result the people inside are not free nor safe. The choice is pretty clear.

    You either have borders that are enforced or you have borders/bars on your schools, cafes and homes.

    Libertarianism at the border all too often ends up with our rights being down trodden at home whether it’s in terms of freedom of speech (sc18 being used to punish this who speak out about the unsavoury practices of new arrivals), freedom of association or freedom to practice our own culture without intervention (pork being forbidden in some kindys due to its offensive nature, happy holidays instead of merry Xmas etc).

    Not good.

    It’s only with well enforced borders and the repeal of sc18 that Australians can be start to be free again.

  111. dover_beach says:

    Have you no idea how many left-wing ideas and philosophies have their genesis in the Enlightenment?

    None. Left-wing is anti-Enlightenment. Left-wing ideas that came up during and after the Enlightenment are all anti-Enlightenment. if they had won out over the right-wing, individualist, reason-based pro-Enlightenment ideas we would have remained in the Dark Ages.

    The Enlightenment is a product of men rediscovering reason and individualism NOT a product of any left-wing, collectivist and mystic ideas.

    So you have no knowledge at all of the period beyond simply recapitulating tropes you’ve read on the internet. This is just embarrassing for you. I notice, by the way, that you are unwilling to defend the premise that people have a natural right to go wherever they please (note, the idea of natural right is pre-‘Enlightenment’).

  112. Iampeter says:

    Struth, you can scroll back to the start of the thread where you’ll find my original post, my position and the reasons I gave for why that is my position.
    Instead of disagreeing with me and articulating your own point of view, you and the usual suspects here just engaged in the typical mindless flame war you guys always do, hijacking what could be interesting threads even if no one agrees and turn them into a circus.

    You and your buddies who have an incredibly shallow understanding of politics, always do this to stop most discussions because they just go over your head anyway – like a child yelling for attention while adults are talking.

    You don’t now get to try and engage me in discussion and lecture me at the same time as I’m the one who has done anything wrong here, while you fools do this every thread and drive away all the good posters.

  113. Chris M says:

    All those poor African nations! If only they took in more immigrants they would be more wealthy according to Sinclair, simple as that.

  114. dover_beach says:

    Iampeter, defend the claim that anyone has a natural right to go wherever they please.

  115. struth says:

    Iampeter.
    Your position was that except for your choice of discrimination of immigrants, every other discrimination is wrong.
    You believe no welfare on arrival cures all evils.
    You think government in a democracy is it’s own beast, which is not answerable to the people.
    You are already backtracking from your original statements.
    I notice your last few responses can not elicit one constructive argument against us, you just call us names and somehow believe that passes as political brilliance on your part.
    Your anti western thought bubble theories are dangerous to the survival of the west, and we all have a duty to fight your insanity for the security, and indeed the actual future of the country.
    Now head off to Saudi Arabia and start spewing out your bullshit there, and see how far you get.
    Freedom is not the natural existence of man without government.
    You want to bring down the very thing that allows you to talk such crap.
    Western Democracy with strong , secure borders.
    You only seem to have abuse left now.
    Sad.

  116. iampeter says:

    Dover, Struth, my position was pretty clearly stated from the beginning and repeated multiple times. I believe a governments job is to protect individual rights NOT regulate people based on their personal beliefs.

    At no point have I or anyone else here called for what you’re calling “open borders” or any of the other hilarious hyperbole that has been thrown around. And no one knows what is meant by “open borders”. I can only assume, because you haven’t offered any explanations, that you’ve confused Germany’s disastrous, big government, refugee program for Germany having a literal open border and anyone can just walk in. They don’t. You can’t. You’ve being arguing a straw-man of your own making.

    All I’ve done, was hit a nerve early on by demonstrating that politics is a bit more complex then immigration, in fact, it’s not really about immigration at all, it’s about the size and scope of government. This set off the mindless mob that only wants to blame immigrants for the problems created by big government. Exactly as Sinc has done with his original post making an economical argument in support of immigration and rightly calling the anti-immigrant stance of clueless pollies populism.

    Blaming immigrants is the last refuge of failed political ideologies and Conservatism now gets to join those ranks, as they have no arguments to offer against the left, don’t really oppose big government and therefore don’t really oppose the left and are just scrambling around blindly for relevance.

    It’ll work for a while but ultimately the lack of any political depth or ideology will be the end of the movement.

    This thread was a perfect example in terms of mindless mob, lack of depth or ideology in support of that statement.

  117. iampeter says:

    I notice your last few responses can not elicit one constructive argument against us, you just call us names and somehow believe that passes as political brilliance on your part.

    I should add we also learned that you can dish it out but cannot take it.

    Sad.

  118. Fisky says:

    None. Left-wing is anti-Enlightenment. Left-wing ideas that came up during and after the Enlightenment are all anti-Enlightenment. if they had won out over the right-wing, individualist, reason-based pro-Enlightenment ideas we would have remained in the Dark Ages.

    Oh. My. God. Where to begin with this garbage?

    You know the people who literally enshrined Reason during the Enlightenment, who disestablished the Church and started an official festival of “Reason”? That was the French Jacobins who anticipated the Bolsheviks in their left-wing extremism. So once again, you haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about.

    The libertarian movement is the most ahistorical freakshow of any ideological tendency.

  119. memoryvault says:

    At no point have I or anyone else here called for what you’re calling “open borders”

    Fair enough. Just what name then do you give to “borders” that anybody can cross anytime they like for the purpose of settling permanently on the other side of said border, because they have some kind of “individual right” to do so? Because that is exactly what you have promoted. Incessantly.

    Who granted them this “right”? And by what authority?

    Conversely, if anybody can cross your borders any time they want for the purpose of settling on the other side, but that is not an “open border”, then what does constitute an “open border” in your lexicon?

    Further, if anybody can cross your [insert name here] border anytime they like, just what purpose does your “border” serve? What is it a “border” between?

    Peter, you are not having any kind of political debate. You are playing a stupid uni student level game of semantics. When is an “open border” not an “open border” kind of thing, along the same lines as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?

    Go away, grow up a bit, and come back when you can give a clear definition and description of what an “open border” is, if it is not exactly what you have described repeatedly – a nothing, that anybody with a mind to do so, can ignore at will, because they have some kind of undefined “individual right” to do so. What a load of intellectual wank.

  120. Fisky says:

    To be fair to Peter, he has only just started the first semester of his first year at uni. Long enough to be indoctrinated at the Objectivist o-day stall, but not enough to have actually learned anything.

  121. Senile Old Guy says:

    This set off the mindless mob that only wants to blame immigrants for the problems created by big government.

    Australian ‘big government’ did not create Islamic terrorism.

    Fair enough. Just what name then do you give to “borders” that anybody can cross anytime they like for the purpose of settling permanently on the other side of said border, because they have some kind of “individual right” to do so? Because that is exactly what you have promoted. Incessantly.

    Correct.

    I believe a governments job is to protect individual rights NOT regulate people based on their personal beliefs.

    It will be necessary, on occasion for the government to regulate ‘people based on their beliefs’ in order to ‘protect individual rights’; especially if those ‘beliefs’ are a threat to other people’s ‘individual rights’.

    This regulation may involve regulating who can enter a country; again, if those beliefs are not consistent with the laws and culture of the country they are entering.

    You arguments are often inconsistent and also seem to be rather naive.

  122. memoryvault says:

    To be fair to Peter, he has only just started the first semester of his first year at uni.

    Yeah, it was pretty obvious, Fisky. But I believe we have a responsibility to at least try. I suspect you’ve been motivated by the same thing. Otherwise we’re wasting our time.

  123. . says:

    Fisk is a feminist. He believes in shaming people into submission and lying about their actual beliefs.

  124. iampeter says:

    Fair enough. Just what name then do you give to “borders” that anybody can cross anytime they like for the purpose of settling permanently on the other side of said border, because they have some kind of “individual right” to do so? Because that is exactly what you have promoted. Incessantly.

    A secure border. What possible reason could you have to restrict someone who is not a threat? How do you justify violating individual rights and then claim to not be a leftist if no rights have been violated?

    You’re like some socialist who is having someone suggest to him an alternative for the first time in his life: “you mean people should just be free to live their lives, run their businesses and personal affairs and all free from the random coercion of the state!? Well I never! Freedom! Hah! How preposterous. What intellectual wank. Hurrumph”

    Who granted them this “right”? And by what authority?

    For one so certain of his position asking a question like this is pretty preposterous. If you don’t understand what rights are or where they come from then what are you doing arguing with anyone about anything on a politics forum and taking a superior tone about it all to boot. It’s like you’re trying to do fractions without knowing how to add or subtract first.

    I’ve explained rights in earlier posts – this is politics 101 stuff. Kind of at the same level of understanding what the proper role of a government is. If you don’t know this, go read many, many intro to politics books because you don’t know anything and have nothing with to debate anyone about anything.

    Peter, you are not having any kind of political debate.

    Oh no, I made pretty clear position statements and supporting arguments AND repeated them multiple times, humoring you. They are clear and concise and would’ve persuaded a monkey by now that is intellectually honest OR at least had some reasonable counter arguments presented. Instead it’s the usual Cat flame brigade of politically clueless leftists who post at a centre-right blog all the time for some reason, but probably because they don’t understand what the difference between left and right is lol.

    The issue is that the loudest and rudest posters here don’t know anything about politics. Not even the basic fundamentals and yet post with authority and utter lack of self awareness, falling back on pretending to be trolls when pushed on trying explain even the simplest parts of their inane nonsense.

    A cat thread on immigration is like nothing else on the internet in terms of demonstrating the mind boggling low-level of political discourse, especially in Conservative circles.

    It will be necessary, on occasion for the government to regulate ‘people based on their beliefs’ in order to ‘protect individual rights’; especially if those ‘beliefs’ are a threat to other people’s ‘individual rights’.

    Cool. So we agree, you’re a rights-violating leftist. That makes you an enemy of the West just like any Jihadi except terrorists take their ideas more seriously than you do.

  125. iampeter says:

    In this thread, hardened, political blog commenters throw ad-hominems, but despite years on a center-right blog still don’t know what “rights” are, where they come from and are fighting against non-existing issues like “open borders” because they’ve confused temporary refugee intake programs that no one here supports for actual immigration policies.

    They’ve also called for violating freedom to save freedom.

    Irony was not available for comment.

    Stay tuned for further breaking news.

  126. Senile Old Guy says:

    A secure border. What possible reason could you have to restrict someone who is not a threat?

    Right now this country, and other western countries, have ever expanding welfare bills, in part caused by migrants who do not integrate and gets jobs. That is a threat to the economy of the country and, therefore, to the well being of the citizens.

    How do you justify violating individual rights and then claim to not be a leftist if no rights have been violated?

    You might want to rephrase that because it makes no sense at all.

    Who granted them this “right”? And by what authority?

    For one so certain of his position asking a question like this is pretty preposterous. If you don’t understand what rights are or where they come from then what are you doing arguing with anyone about anything on a politics forum and taking a superior tone about it all to boot. It’s like you’re trying to do fractions without knowing how to add or subtract first.

    No argument offered in response to the questions from MV? Just posturing.

    It will be necessary, on occasion for the government to regulate ‘people based on their beliefs’ in order to ‘protect individual rights’; especially if those ‘beliefs’ are a threat to other people’s ‘individual rights’.

    Cool. So we agree, you’re a rights-violating leftist. That makes you an enemy of the West just like any Jihadi except terrorists take their ideas more seriously than you do.

    See? Again, no counter-argument; just name calling.

  127. iampeter says:

    Right now this country, and other western countries, have ever expanding welfare bills, in part caused by migrants who do not integrate and gets jobs. That is a threat to the economy of the country and, therefore, to the well being of the citizens.

    Correct, so the problem is welfare an that’s what we should be fighting. Fix that and you fix the immigration problem. But conservatives don’t oppose the welfare state and they don’t oppose the regulatory state, so what are they doing in politics? What’s the purpose of the movement aside from being just more leftists?

    So they make up issues like “open borders” which are not a real thing and promise to fight this phantom threat if they get elected. They are like the underpants gnomes of politics:

    Conservative political ideology (super sekret, don’t shares):
    Step 1 – Stop immigrants
    Step 2 – ???
    Step 3 – Profit

    They have on plan, no ideas, just grasping onto political relevance for a little bit longer by blaming immigrants for problems their big government policies have created which appeals to a mindless mob.

    No argument offered in response to the questions from MV? Just posturing.

    MV is being a douche and I’m sick of repeating myself to these idiots. All their points were addressed pretty much on page 1. They don’t know what they are talking about and are scrambling to evade it with ad hominem.

    In response I too can be an immature internet troll. But a smarter, faster and better looking one.

  128. Senile Old Guy says:

    Right now this country, and other western countries, have ever expanding welfare bills, in part caused by migrants who do not integrate and gets jobs. That is a threat to the economy of the country and, therefore, to the well being of the citizens.

    Correct, so the problem is welfare an that’s what we should be fighting. Fix that and you fix the immigration problem. But conservatives don’t oppose the welfare state and they don’t oppose the regulatory state, so what are they doing in politics?

    I think you are getting ‘conservatives’ confused with the present LNP, which on many policies is largely indistinguishable from the ALP (partly because Abbott signed on to several of the major, expensive ALP policies, like the NDIS).

    But you have to fix the welfare problem first. And neither major party wants to do that. And immigration of people who will not integrate is still problem. But it is certainly more complex than that as arrested and convicted terrorists, and their enablers, are currently mixture of immigrants and home grown radicals.

  129. memoryvault says:

    A secure border.

    Semantics again. Secure against what? Certainly not people, who, according to you, have a inalienable “individual right” to ignore them. Dingoes perhaps? Rabbits?

    For one so certain of his position asking a question like this is pretty preposterous.

    You realise, Peter, that the two paragraphs that follow consist of 122 words that at no point, and in no way, addresses the actual questions asked –
    Who granted them this “right”? And by what authority?

    Statements like: If you don’t understand what rights are or where they come from then what are you doing arguing . . . in no way address the questions. Let’s assume I’m a dumb arse. I’m asking you two simple questions: Who, and how.

    Are you going to enlighten me, or are you just going to continue to wallow in your own imagined intellectual superiority while tossing random ad homs at anybody who disagrees?

  130. memoryvault says:

    In response I too can be an immature internet troll.
    But a smarter, faster and better looking one.

    Yeah, right. One so much smarter, faster and better looking that you can’t – or won’t – even answer two simple questions: who and how. Talk about being a legend in your own latrine.

  131. Fisky says:

    If you don’t understand what rights are or where they come from then what are you doing arguing

    Peter, I bet you don’t even know that your inalienable rights come from God, and nowhere else.

  132. iampeter says:

    Semantics again. Secure against what?

    Against criminals? It’s no different to having a police force. Police against who, you say? Against criminals.
    I’m honestly not trying to play semantics, I for the life of me don’t understand what the confusion is. It’s either White Australia policy for some here or “Open Borders (TM)”. How about just properly managed borders that doesn’t include 18C regulations?

    Who granted them this “right”? And by what authority?

    I did say I answered this pages ago, but for the record “rights” are your freedom to think and act for the purpose of living your life. They are not granted by anybody, they are what we acquire by virtue of being volitional beings and needed for us to live proper lives.

    This is why logically, a legitimate government is one that protects individual rights (police, armed forces and courts) and nothing else, leaving it’s citizens free to study, raise families, build, business, trade, immigrate, whatever except violate another individuals rights, at which point the state swings into action.

    THAT’s what being on the right-wing of politics is all about. That’s what we need to be fighting for.

    Not this historically illiterate, contradictory mess of “European/Christian/Tradition/insert other old-school left-wing collectivism idea here” nonsense.

    Immigration is simply NOT an issue, if you get government under control. Immigration are used as scapegoats by big government, conservatives to avoid becoming completely irrelevant.

    We don’t need anymore collectivist, left wing movements, especially today’s unpopular and creepy Judea-christian douche-brigade, which has no political viability.

    Without the pretend “open borders” issue there is no conservative movement anymore.

  133. Fisky says:

    Not this historically illiterate, contradictory mess of “European/Christian/Tradition/insert other old-school left-wing collectivism idea here” nonsense.

    Ummm, the entire tradition of inalienable rights is a Christian one, you moron. John Locke would be horrified to read this nonsense. Can someone put this idiot out of his misery”

  134. Senile Old Guy says:

    How about just properly managed borders that doesn’t include 18C regulations?

    You said this before and I queried it and got no response. 18C is about regulating speech, not immigration, so why is it relevant? Unless you are again calling anyone opposed to largely unlimited immigration a racist: which I think you are.

    This is why logically, a legitimate government is one that protects individual rights (police, armed forces and courts) and nothing else, leaving it’s citizens free to study, raise families, build, business, trade, immigrate, whatever except violate another individuals rights, at which point the state swings into action.

    Actually, the state can act stop people doing things that will violate other people’s rights. That’s why someone in Young got arrested today: he is accused assisting ISIS, a terrorist organisation.

    Immigration is simply NOT an issue, if you get government under control.

    Get the government under control, then get back to me.

  135. memoryvault says:

    How about just properly managed borders

    For what purpose? By your definition they are just lines drawn on a map for no particular purpose other than to give the cartographers areas to colour in. Why bother “managing” them, and under your definition, what would that entail? Are planning to pull a St Patrick, and in your smart, quick, devilishly handsome way, drive all the snakes out?

  136. iampeter says:

    You said this before and I queried it and got no response. 18C is about regulating speech, not immigration, so why is it relevant?

    18C is about regulating people for their personal beliefs which is what people here are calling for that want to stop people for reasons other than security from coming to this country.
    The irony is that once implemented these policies will not stop a single Muslim, who are a protected class as a result of big government problems, and will instead be used against Conservatives. As usual the problem of big government is what needs to be dealt with.

    Actually, the state can act stop people doing things that will violate other people’s rights. That’s why someone in Young got arrested today: he is accused assisting ISIS, a terrorist organisation.

    Well yea that’s what I said. If someone is going to or already has violated individual rights then the state can legitimately act.

    I think we actually agree on a lot more than we disagree.

    Get the government under control, then get back to me.

    Sure, but then my question to you is if you are not on a centre-right blog to discuss “getting government under control” what are you here for? We are talking politics – politics is about getting government under control.

  137. iampeter says:

    For what purpose?

    Security. The only purpose for the government to do anything is security.

    It has no other function in a free society.

  138. iampeter says:

    Ummm, the entire tradition of inalienable rights is a Christian one, you moron. John Locke would be horrified to read this nonsense.

    Yes, thank you for your incisive input Christian Taliban member.
    Shouldn’t you be out fighting other Taliban with different skin tones to you?

    Don’t let me interrupt.

  139. memoryvault says:

    I did say I answered this pages ago, but for the record “rights” are your freedom to think and act for the purpose of living your life.

    So, say I’m bigger than you, and I’ve got all the guns. I’ve decided to keep you in the back yard on an iron collar and chain, to do my gardening. Please feel free to think whatever you like. And you’re also free to shit wherever you want, whenever you need, while pursuing the purpose of living your life. Which is to do my gardening.

    That about cover it?

  140. Fisky says:

    I love this idea of demanding the rest of society recognise my inalienable rights on the authority of me alone.

  141. iampeter says:

    Peter, I bet you don’t even know that your inalienable rights come from God, and nowhere else.

    Wrong again Fisk.

    I just lent him my rights this weekend so he could score with these hot, blonde, party twins but he has returned them to me now as agreed. Also he hooked up so high, fives and ass-slaps all round.

    For the love of Jeebus don’t you know anything?

  142. memoryvault says:

    they are what we acquire by virtue of being volitional beings and needed for us to live proper lives.

    And so the merry-go-round completes another circuit and we are back where we started.
    How did we “acquire” these rights, and from where?

  143. Fisky says:

    How did we “acquire” these rights, and from where?

    By shaking our fists at the rest of society and yelling loudly that we have them??

  144. A Lurker says:

    I think I asked iampeter a day or two ago to explain in a hundred words or less how he would go about removing the welfare and regulatory state. He didn’t answer my question.

    I’m still waiting on his answer. Whilst I wait I’ll ask another question.

    Would you iampeter, remove the welfare and regulatory state before or after you opened the borders to all who wished to enter Australia (less criminals and those who are carrying a communicable disease)?

    If before, then … refer to my first question.

    Also, given that you have miraculously ended the welfare and regulatory state: How would YOU deal with those who are here (and continue to arrive) and are intent on working against Australian interests (in a non-criminal manner) and are imperiling social cohesion and eroding our culture by agitating for Sharia Law to be implemented, and expanding the number of mosques in Australia and the reach and influence of Wahhabism in our communities.

  145. iampeter says:

    That about cover it?

    No. Not at all. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

    Are you saying if a government protects individual rights, peoples individual rights will be violated?
    What is your example trying to convey?

  146. Senile Old Guy says:

    18C is about regulating people for their personal beliefs which is what people here are calling for that want to stop people for reasons other than security from coming to this country.

    18C is about the speech of citizens. Border are about the movement of people who are not citizens. They are rather different things.

    The irony is that once implemented these policies will not stop a single Muslim, who are a protected class as a result of big government problems, and will instead be used against Conservatives.

    Supposition.

    Actually, the state can act stop people doing things that will violate other people’s rights. That’s why someone in Young got arrested today: he is accused assisting ISIS, a terrorist organisation.

    Well yea that’s what I said. If someone is going to or already has violated individual rights then the state can legitimately act.

    Some one who belongs to a terrorist organisation is planning to violate an individual’s rights, so we don’t let them in.

    I think we actually agree on a lot more than we disagree.

    Sure, but then my question to you is if you are not on a centre-right blog to discuss “getting government under control” what are you here for? We are talking politics – politics is about getting government under control.

    You’re new here. Unfortunately, at the moment, the ALP and the LNP favour big government and, between them, they own the lower house. So getting ‘big government’ under control does not seem a realistic option: not letting more people in who will go on welfare is.

  147. memoryvault says:

    By shaking our fists at the rest of society and yelling loudly that we have them??

    Apparently, Fisky. At least according to Peter, who offers no other explanation.
    He seems to miss the point; by that definition, he who has the biggest fists and the loudest voice in society, has all the rights. Which is tribal Bigman culture. Stone age stuff.

  148. Fisky says:

    Are you saying if a government protects individual rights, peoples individual rights will be violated?

    He is pointing out that you have failed to demonstrate on what authority you claim these rights, which is why they are so easily taken away.

    400 years ago, people asserted their individual rights on God’s authority, as against the King. But that doesn’t work anymore because people don’t really believe in religion anymore.

    So it’s down to you versus the rest of society. I don’t like your chances Peter, to be honest.

  149. iampeter says:

    How did we “acquire” these rights, and from where?

    OK. Rights are a moral concept that connect ethics (how you should live your life) with politics (how you should live among other individuals with rights).
    Rights are a concept, you acquire them like you acquire any other concept: by learning.
    We should be learning this stuff at school, tbh, but we don’t. Hence the state of affairs we have today.

    Societies that understand rights even on the stunted level of today’s Western world are incredibly successful.
    Societies that don’t understand this concept are not. E.g. The Middle East.

    I think I asked iampeter a day or two ago to explain in a hundred words or less how he would go about removing the welfare and regulatory state. He didn’t answer my question.

    I don’t know mate that’s something that’s a big discussion in itself not a couple of dot points I’m going to throw together but I have some ideas. The point is do we agree that THIS is what we should be discussing NOT the pretend issue of immigration? If not, I’m not going to waste my time. Because time is money Lurker and money is me getting another helipad on my mega-yacht so don’t waste my fucking money time.

    Would you iampeter, remove the welfare and regulatory state before or after you opened the borders to all who wished to enter Australia (less criminals and those who are carrying a communicable disease)?

    Sure captain-sarcasm-but-shouldn’t-be-sarcastic-because-mostly-stupid-poster-with-no-idea, let me just answer that for you.

    You’ve just described today’s existing immigration policy for the most part with some stupid refugee intake programs that need to be absolutely cancelled.

    Now can we get back to fighting big government or are you just posturing?

  150. memoryvault says:

    Are you saying if a government protects individual rights, peoples individual rights will be violated?

    Don’t ask me, Peter. It’s YOUR definition. Out on your chain you have the inalienable right to think whatever you like, and act however you want, as you fulfill my requirement that you do my gardening. And your rights to do so are fully protected by the government.

  151. Fisky says:

    Rights are a concept, you acquire them like you acquire any other concept: by learning.

    But the reality is, you only have whatever rights other people are willing to give you.

  152. iampeter says:

    So it’s down to you versus the rest of society. I don’t like your chances Peter, to be honest.

    Oh I dunno.

    If “rest of society” is made up of people like you I think I’m almost guaranteed to win.

    In this thread Theocrat promises to protect Australia’s freedoms from Theocracy.

    In other possibly related news, a serious case of e-douchebag-ittis which causes sever lack of self awareness and incredibly, high resistance to irony is loose on the internet. Likely victims are incredibly stupid posters on political blogs.

    Caution and much laughter at their clueless expense is advised.

  153. iampeter says:

    Don’t ask me, Peter. It’s YOUR definition. Out on your chain you have the inalienable right to think whatever you like, and act however you want, as you fulfill my requirement that you do my gardening. And your rights to do so are fully protected by the government.

    Sorry mate if the concept of rights-respecting government is not clear then we will just have to agree to disagree.

  154. Fisky says:

    Don’t ask me, Peter. It’s YOUR definition. Out on your chain you have the inalienable right to think whatever you like, and act however you want, as you fulfill my requirement that you do my gardening. And your rights to do so are fully protected by the government.

    Hmmmm, I don’t think Peter is in any danger of getting the point, MV.

  155. Fisky says:

    Sorry mate if the concept of rights-respecting government is not clear then we will just have to agree to disagree.

    Hallelujah!! After what seemed like years of deliberation, the hardcore Randroid finally concludes that we are granted our rights by the state. Hilarious!

  156. iampeter says:

    Hallelujah!! After what seemed like years of deliberation, the hardcore Randroid finally concludes that we are granted our rights by the state. Hilarious!

    Remember everyone, this sentence is NOT ironic.
    AND this is possibly the loudest poster on Australia’s leading centre-right blog.

    How did it come to this?

  157. A Lurker says:

    I don’t know mate that’s something that’s a big discussion in itself not a couple of dot points I’m going to throw together but I have some ideas. The point is do we agree that THIS is what we should be discussing NOT the pretend issue of immigration? If not, I’m not going to waste my time. Because time is money Lurker and money is me getting another helipad on my mega-yacht so don’t waste my fucking money time.

    It seems to me that you don’t really have a clue, and would rather call people names and swear at them than put forward workable ideas.

    Sure captain-sarcasm-but-shouldn’t-be-sarcastic-because-mostly-stupid-poster-with-no-idea, let me just answer that for you.

    More ad hominems.

    p.s. I think you are a Dot or JC sockpuppet. The swearing gives you away.

  158. memoryvault says:

    Peter, you seem to have forgotten where and how all this started. You said:

    Unless someone has violated individual rights (ie is a criminal) the state has no rights to restrict them. Unless of course you don’t support an individual rights-protecting government.

    To which I replied:

    The logical flaw in your argument, Peter, is the assumption that there is something tangible called “natural”, or “basic” human rights, endowed on us simply by virtue of being born. No such rights exist, or have ever existed. The only “natural” or “human” rights a person has are those mutually agreed upon by the citizens of the society in which they live.

    You disputed that, and for around 200+ comments you’ve continued to claim it is wrong, without saying where you think these “rights” come from. Now put up or shut up.

  159. Fisky says:

    So we get our inalienable rights from the state, BUT the state has no right to restrict them! What nonsense is this?

  160. iampeter says:

    You disputed that, and for around 200+ comments you’ve continued to claim it is wrong, without saying where you think these “rights” come from. Now put up or shut up.

    Sorry dude, this has been explained so clearly and repeatedly by me now that for to not understand is to simply be trolling.
    If you still don’t get it, you don’t get it. My only question is: what are you doing at a centre-right blog? It’s like something who knows nothing about sound systems joining a car audio club with no interest in learning anything about cars or audio. Why would you be there?

    It seems to me that you don’t really have a clue, and would rather call people names and swear at them than put forward workable ideas.

    Not at all. I’ve explained all this stuff repeatedly in countless posts throughout this thread. This stuff is basic. You and many others here simply do not understand even the fundamentals required for understanding politics.

    More ad hominems.

    This is rich given how polite all my initial posts were and the treatment I received. Now I dish some of it back you all have a sook.

    What a bunch of stupid babies.

  161. iampeter says:

    So we get our inalienable rights from the state, BUT the state has no right to restrict them! What nonsense is this?

    Another insightful piece of input from our Christian Taliban talking to himself about something only he understands.

    Go with God my son.

  162. Fisky says:

    You disputed that, and for around 200+ comments you’ve continued to claim it is wrong, without saying where you think these “rights” come from. Now put up or shut up.

    The state! Every hardline libertarian looks to the STATE to generously grant them their rights, in this case, the right of a billion Muslims to move to Australia.

  163. iampeter says:

    In this thread bunch of internet trolls who had no political arguments to offer someone who disagreed with them and engaged in weak ad hominem, thinking they were tough trolls instead, now crying delicious tears that they are being insulted with ad hominems instead of debated.

    Irony still not available for comment. Situation getting serious and e-feeling may actually be hurt.

    Delicious tears supply at an all time high.

  164. Fisky says:

    Rights are a concept, you acquire them like you acquire any other concept: by learning.

    Does that mean we can ban Muslim hillbillies from coming here?

  165. Tel says:

    But the reality is, you only have whatever rights other people are willing to give you.

    Or whatever they find too difficult to take from you… depending your point of view.

    By shaking our fists at the rest of society and yelling loudly that we have them??

    Popular amongst the anti-Trump fraternity, and when you think how close we came to a President Hillary, this method cannot be entirely ruled out. When you look at the coming wave of SJW loons, what would you take from them if you ever got the opportunity?

  166. memoryvault says:

    Sorry dude, this has been explained so clearly and repeatedly by me now that for to not understand is to simply be trolling.

    Oh yeah, I forgot. You offered this:

    For one so certain of his position asking a question like this is pretty preposterous. If you don’t understand what rights are or where they come from then what are you doing arguing with anyone about anything on a politics forum and taking a superior tone about it all to boot.

    Truly enlightening stuff. Or are you referring to this little pearl of wisdom:

    I did say I answered this pages ago, but for the record “rights” are your freedom to think and act for the purpose of living your life. They are not granted by anybody, they are what we acquire by virtue of being volitional beings and needed for us to live proper lives.

    Which puts you back on your chain in my back yard doing my gardening, since I’m bigger than you and that’s what I need right now to live my “proper” life. Trust me, I gave the matter a lot of free thought.

  167. test pattern says:

    Ask the Sheikh

    ‘Oh Sheikh, what do you say about those people who have appeared amongst us calling themselves Libertarians? They criticise those who say there is 18c and and they accuse them of fanaticism.’

    And the Messenger of Malcolm replied –

    ‘The horses will have goodness tied to their foreheads until the Day of 18C. It has been revealed to me that I am going to lose the next election and will not stay long, and you will follow me group after group.

    Do not strike one another’s necks. The abode of the believers is the Coalition.’

  168. calli says:

    MV, congratulations. You just got the Abbott666 comment! 😃

  169. Iampeter says:

    Memory go to front of thread and start reading from scratch.

    All your questions have been answered.

  170. . says:

    A Lurker
    #2311688, posted on February 28, 2017 at 7:50 pm
    I don’t know mate that’s something that’s a big discussion in itself not a couple of dot points I’m going to throw together but I have some ideas. The point is do we agree that THIS is what we should be discussing NOT the pretend issue of immigration? If not, I’m not going to waste my time. Because time is money Lurker and money is me getting another helipad on my mega-yacht so don’t waste my fucking money time.

    It seems to me that you don’t really have a clue, and would rather call people names and swear at them than put forward workable ideas.

    Sure captain-sarcasm-but-shouldn’t-be-sarcastic-because-mostly-stupid-poster-with-no-idea, let me just answer that for you.

    More ad hominems.

    p.s. I think you are a Dot or JC sockpuppet. The swearing gives you away.

    Sorry to disappoint, precious.

  171. . says:

    Fisky
    #2311650, posted on February 28, 2017 at 7:18 pm
    I love this idea of demanding the rest of society recognise my inalienable rights on the authority of me alone.

    The rest of society gives you rights? How are you any better than collectivists?

  172. notafan says:

    Good point about ‘reason’ upthread Fisky.

    The conversion to a ‘salon de reason’ at least prevented some Catholic Christian churches on France from being demolished though not from being looted snd desecrated and Catholics slaughtered wholesale.

  173. memoryvault says:

    Memory go to front of thread and start reading from scratch.
    All your questions have been answered.

    Sorry sonny, I outgrew merry-go-rounds 60 years ago.
    I think we can take it as read that you don’t have any answers.
    Just uni-style, learn by rote, Pavlov’s dog responses.

  174. Fisky says:

    The rest of society gives you rights? How are you any better than collectivists?

    If God does not give you rights then yes, it’s the rest of society

  175. Infidel Tiger says:

    No, rights come from the sacred text books!

  176. . says:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

  177. Infidel Tiger says:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Rights endowed by God.

  178. Driftforge says:

    Well this has been an interesting little interlude thread. Iampeter certainly holds his frame; kind of a pity he couldn’t adjust his language to that in common usage. But then, wormtongue is leftist practice all over.

    What possible reason could you have to restrict someone who is not a threat?

    Everyone external to the community is a threat, and moreover they are an external threat – i.e. one we don’t have to afford courtesy to unless there is some advantage. Internal threats we take care of ourselves.

    How do you justify violating individual rights and then claim to not be a leftist if no rights have been violated?

    Individuals don’t have rights per se. There are courtesies we extend as common practice to others within the community, but these are not without condition and not irrevocable. One of the reasons it is always somewhat fraught bringing new people into the community is that they inevitably have different courtesies that they expect, extend, and may or may not be aware of the quid pro quosthat underwrite those courtesies.

    It should be recognised but largely isn’t that the set of courtesies a community builds up are done over a long period of time and generally at considerable cost and sacrifice; courtesies are expensive to establish. Furthermore it doesn’t take that many people who do not observe the common courtesies for them to lose the value that was gained at such cost.

    Individualists are up there with dole bludgers in terms of the parasitic costs they impose upon society. Its just that rather than bludging dollars, they bludge courtesies. All about availing themselves of the courtesies, head in the sand when it comes to paying the costs required to sustaining those same courtesies.

    A lot of the fuss even here in this thread is because a common property – the usage of language with a meaning fixed and understood amongst the group – is under threat because one interloper is using the same words to mean distinctly different things.

    So word to the young and foolish, that you may become older and wiser. Don’t use common terms for uncommon things. ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ have commonly if nebulously understood meanings. Right is not synonymous with Enlightened; in fact, as many have expressed, it is rather associated with the opposite. Nor are Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism ‘Right’; these widely understood to be ‘off axis’ to some degree.

    For instance, you will sometimes see me qualify my use of right (eucivic, ordered) and left (dyscivic, degenerate) because I know that my usage is somewhat different to most here.

    Adapt to the usage of language; if you need a new term, develop one. Don’t overload an existing term.

  179. . says:

    “Their creator…” means something different to atheists and Buddhists. Nevertheless, at least people acknowledge natural rights are real.

  180. Infidel Tiger says:

    Yes, natural rights come from God.

    The Christian one, not the joke ones that will see you burn in hell.

  181. . says:

    Individuals don’t have rights per se.

    If you are going to be a consequentialist, or a collectivist, even they believe in a level of natural rights, in as much as the government cannot do immoral things as “law”, noting the Radbruch formula. Hence why free Germany recognised their own former leaders as criminals, even if they successfully argued they were validly elected or were just following orders.

  182. Driftforge says:

    in as much as the government cannot do immoral things as “law”,

    Governments do immoral things as law all the time. Furthermore, immoral changes in definition over time, especially under the current relativist paradigm.

  183. . says:

    Can do, but they can be held liable later under that principle.

  184. iampeter says:

    In this thread MV asks: “What are rights”?

    A response is given: “rights are your freedom to think and act for the purpose of living your life.”

    MV then logically concludes:
    “So, say I’m bigger than you, and I’ve got all the guns. I’ve decided to keep you in the back yard on an iron collar and chain, to do my gardening. Please feel free to think whatever you like. And you’re also free to shit wherever you want, whenever you need, while pursuing the purpose of living your life. Which is to do my gardening.”

    Yep…

  185. Stimpson J. Cat says:

    Most immigrants have the temerity to integrate into Australian society and come to think of themselves as being Australian!

    Got some stats that measure successful immigration?
    This would obviously include english speaking ability.
    In your own time.

  186. iampeter says:

    18C is about the speech of citizens. Border are about the movement of people who are not citizens. They are rather different things.

    “Speech” and “movement” are rights. 18C regulates what opinions you can hold and thereby violates your rights. Whether it’s in the realm of “speech” or “movement” or any other rights, the point is it violates rights and these people are calling for rights violating policy like leftists totalitarians.

    Basically they are saying: we need to be totalitarian to save us from Islamic totalitarian.

    Supposition

    Except we already have a working 18C legislation regulating peoples beliefs right now. It hasn’t caught a single “racist” but it has gone after journalists, cartoonists, university students – basically the very last people it should’ve targeted.
    Why do you think this will play out differently when extended to immigration? Conservatives are doomed if we ever get 18C immigration laws.

    So getting ‘big government’ under control does not seem a realistic option: not letting more people in who will go on welfare is.

    But politics is about government NOT immigration. When you have established a properly functioning government you will have a properly functioning immigration policy. It will never work the other way around.

    So if getting government under control is “does not seem a realistic option” what you’re really saying is “politics is not a realistic option”.

    What do you propose then?

    I said it earlier in this thread as well, but you can ban all the immigrants tomorrow and it won’t even a blip in terms of slowing Australia from descending into failed statehood like Venezuela. Big Government is destroying this country NOT immigrants.

    At least we will all speak the same language as we hunt dogs in the street for food. At least there is that.

  187. Fisky says:

    “Speech” and “movement” are rights. 18C regulates what opinions you can hold and thereby violates your rights. Whether it’s in the realm of “speech” or “movement” or any other rights, the point is it violates rights and these people are calling for rights violating policy like leftists totalitarians.

    But only a few comments ago you admitted we get our rights from the government. This is undoubtedly true. There is no distinction between rights and law, unless you can identify an authority that supercedes everything (i.e. God). The reality is that no right to migrate has been established in law, and does not exist for that reason.

  188. NewChum says:

    Looking forward to Australian cities being a celebrated hub of diversity like Paris

    https://youtu.be/6wAfjwqL_30

    Lot of ‘broken windows’ though…business must be booming over there!

    All because some soft-headed people thought that open borders are great and all because everyone has a fundamental human right to live where they want, and nobody has a right to choose who lives next to them.

    Walled cities – coming back to a European town near you!

  189. struth says:

    Very young and very brain washed.
    Forget it.
    Logical thought from Iampeter is not possible.
    He thinks threats to our society only come from criminals and people with disease, which he would discriminate against.
    Threats come from those who hate us, have stated as much, and have yet to commit crimes.
    They didn’t let non criminal, civilian Japanese immigrate to Australia during world war 2.
    Iampeter would probably call that racist.
    Naivety and pure lack of cognitive thought are gobsmacking.
    So idiotic and diversionary , he must be trolling.
    He is Monty esque in his delusion and ability to side step what he has no answer for.
    The thread has it recorded.
    Answers to his traitorous politics have been numerous and overwhelming.

    The facts presented to him are ignored, and he wipes from his mind inconvenient truths.
    Answers to all of his brain farts have been answered and he has not been able to answer the questions put to him.
    Fail.
    Big Fail.

  190. memoryvault says:

    Big Government is destroying this country NOT immigrants.

    No, Peter. Big government is destroying this country AND it is using a certain type of immigration to achieve its purpose. The two are indistinguishable, no matter how hard you try to blur the issues.

    All you have presented for over day now, are logical fallacies, wiped aside by the merest of logical arguments, presented to you unchallenged, by several commenters. Give it away and go back to your indoctrination centre. You’ve become something of a boor.

  191. Jannie says:

    Walled cities – coming back to a European town near you!

    Well probably not walled cities as such, they have councils which will be controlled by the Left, and will be “free” cities. What is more likely is gated suburbs, or gated residential estates such as exist in cities all over South Africa, India, and Philippines for example. For the elites of course, the fences surrounding them are paid for by strata fees paid by the residents as are the wages of the private security firms guarding them 24/7. The less affluent have to surround their houses in electrical barbed wire, and keep assault rifles in a safe under the floor.

    I read somewhere that if you want to see how cities are organised in the future US/UK/EUSSR etc, go and look at Johannesburg.

  192. OneWorldGovernment says:

    Jannie
    #2311941, posted on March 1, 2017 at 12:34 am

    What is more likely is gated suburbs, or gated residential estates such as exist in cities all over South Africa, India, and Philippines for example.

    I read somewhere that if you want to see how cities are organised in the future US/UK/EUSSR etc, go and look at Johannesburg.

    I think you will find that gated cities already exist in US/UK/EUSSR etc.

    What I see more happening, in an Australian context at least, that parts of suburbs will start paying for their own armed and monitored security.

  193. Fisky says:

    What I see more happening, in an Australian context at least, that parts of suburbs will start paying for their own armed and monitored security.

    Yes, and we will be able to thank the weirdo libertarian movement for playing a vital role in ushering this along.

  194. dover_beach says:

    If God does not give you rights then yes, it’s the rest of society

    The problem for iampeter is that he simply doesn’t have the appropriate historical or philosophical knowledge that would enable him to recognize that natural rights imply either that human beings are owed this or that because God commanded as much, or because they are a type of creature/ being that is owed, and owes others, this recognition because of what they are, rational animals. But even if he understood this he still cannot claim as a matter of natural right that this or that individual can go wherever he pleases. For example, we are free to speak because we are truth-seeking creatures/ beings and being free to pursue this or that idea freely in public with others facilitates that pursuit. Now, freedom of movement helps us to facilitate that end but also other ends such as earning a living, etc. but our freedom of movement doesn’t need to be unqualified in order to facilitate these ends. And just as private property qualifies our freedom of movement, as well as the movement of others upon our property, states, being custodians of land in their legal jurisdiction, can justly restrict the movement of foreigners, both visiting, or seeking to settle in their lands. As yet, I haven’t seen one argument from iampeter that addresses just this problem.

    P.S. However, the most hilarious thing on this thread is the claim that Fisky is a member of the Christian Taliban.

  195. dover_beach says:

    Not this historically illiterate, contradictory mess of “European/Christian/Tradition/insert other old-school left-wing collectivism idea here” nonsense.

    Yes, yes, Western civilization was entirely invented during the Enlightenment. It had nothing at all to do, according to a certain sort of adolescent libertarianism, with a group of Christian communities in Europe and around the Mediterranean who over a period of two millennia developed a settled pattern of conduct that was conducive to liberty. And anyone that says otherwise is a member of the Christian Taliban!

  196. iampeter says:

    But only a few comments ago you admitted we get our rights from the government.

    That’s what you said a few comments ago, you escaped mental patient. You’re basically a Christian totalitarian that wants a return of Kings and Queens.

    The only difference between a wacko like you and a member of ISIS, is they take their ideas seriously, while you’re just a clueless fool, here for my entertainment.

    Yes, yes, Western civilization was entirely invented during the Enlightenment.

    Western Civilization comes from ancient Greece. The Enlightenment was when men rediscovered the ideas of reason and individualism first identified by Greek thinkers (thinkers like Aristotle) and got Western Civilization back on track.

    The period between Ancient Greece and the Enlightenment is know as the Dark Ages and we have collectivist and Christianity to thank for that.

    The knowledge of history along with understanding of basic political concepts and even the ability to troll demonstrated by the loudest douche’s in this thread is of such rock bottom quality, it’s unlike anything on the internet.

    How does someone read the great content Sinclair provide and not learn anything about anything after months or years?

  197. iampeter says:

    In this thread, posters who are collectivist, leftists but think they are right-wing because they don’t understand the political spectrum, somehow manage to demonstrate zero knowledge of history or politics despite spending years reading and commenting on a great center-right blog.

    Also spend thread calling for Christian theocracy, explaining how great things were when Kings and Church ran things and rights come from another being in another dimension somewhere.

    A cat immigration thread – one of the Wonders of the Internet.

  198. dover_beach says:

    Western Civilization comes from ancient Greece. The Enlightenment was when men rediscovered the ideas of reason and individualism first identified by Greek thinkers (thinkers like Aristotle) and got Western Civilization back on track.

    Oh, so Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas were Enlightenment thinkers in the 13thC? Or maybe you have in mind Roger Bacon and William of Ockham in the 13th an 14thC? Or is it Alcuin of York and Peter Grammaticus in the 8th C? Or was it Augustine in the 4/5thC or Boethius in the 5/6thC? We could go on without actually having to dip into the Enlightenment thinkers and see that the work of Plato and Aristotle was never forgotten by the intervening twelve centuries, and much was added to them by the intervening years.

    The period between Ancient Greece and the Enlightenment is know as the Dark Ages and we have collectivist and Christianity to thank for that.

    No, it isn’t known as the ‘Dark Ages’. That phrase was used, polemically, to describe the period of history following the fall of the Western Empire in the 5thC AD up to about the 9/10thC. ‘The Enlightenment’, another polemical term, supposedly occurred sometime in the 18thC.

    The knowledge of history along with understanding of basic political concepts and even the ability to troll demonstrated by the loudest douche’s in this thread is of such rock bottom quality, it’s unlike anything on the internet.

    Indeed, and as you’ve demonstrated in this thread, you are the loudest of them.

    BTW, again, I will note that you have failed to defend your claim that people have a natural right to go wherever they please.

  199. Senile Old Guy says:

    18C is about the speech of citizens. Border are about the movement of people who are not citizens. They are rather different things.

    “Speech” and “movement” are rights. 18C regulates what opinions you can hold and thereby violates your rights. Whether it’s in the realm of “speech” or “movement” or any other rights, the point is it violates rights and these people are calling for rights violating policy like leftists totalitarians.

    Your response left out the word ‘citizens’, which is a crucial distinction. Citizens, of legal age, can vote; non-citizens cannot.

    Why do you think this will play out differently when extended to immigration? Conservatives are doomed if we ever get 18C immigration laws.

    Again, supposition with no argument or evidence.

    So getting ‘big government’ under control does not seem a realistic option: not letting more people in who will go on welfare is.

    I restate: get government under control first.

    But politics is about government NOT immigration. When you have established a properly functioning government you will have a properly functioning immigration policy.

    Managing immigration, to most people, is a function of government.

    So if getting government under control is “does not seem a realistic option” what you’re really saying is “politics is not a realistic option”. What do you propose then?

    Limited to no immigration of people who will not integrate.

    I said it earlier in this thread as well, but you can ban all the immigrants tomorrow and it won’t even a blip in terms of slowing Australia from descending into failed statehood like Venezuela. Big Government is destroying this country NOT immigrants.

    As others have said, you treat this as if it is either ‘big government’ or ‘immigration’ and it must necessarily be one or the other: it can be both.

  200. OneWorldGovernment says:

    iampeter
    #2312025, posted on March 1, 2017 at 7:30 am

    The period between Ancient Greece and the Enlightenment is know as the Dark Ages and we have collectivist and Christianity to thank for that.

    Hey iam,

    I have left this thread alone because there are good people on here trying to open your mind.

    I just balk at your definition of the ‘Dark Ages’ because the real ‘Dark Ages’ was when islam smashed across Christianity in it’s bloodthirsty destructive way.

    Do you think what happened at Palmyra just recently was something new?

    Do you think that the Crusades of past were some sort of gang warfare?

    Get real.

  201. iampeter says:

    Oh, so Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas were Enlightenment thinkers in the 13thC? Or maybe you have in mind Roger Bacon and William of Ockham in the 13th an 14thC? Or is it Alcuin of York and Peter Grammaticus in the 8th C? Or was it Augustine in the 4/5thC or Boethius in the 5/6thC?

    No none of these are Enlightenment thinkers, the Enlightenment started after 1600AD. Although Thomas Aquinas deserves a mention as he tried (and failed) to reconcile Aristotelian logic with faith and in the process helped mainstream his thinking and planted the seeds for the Enlightenment that would later follow.

    No, it isn’t known as the ‘Dark Ages’. That phrase was used, polemically, to describe the period of history following the fall of the Western Empire

    And I suppose the Holocaust didn’t happen either. That word is just used “polemically” to describe the period in the earlier 20th Century, etc, etc.

    Christianity – the Western world’s oldest white-washed villain.

    I just balk at your definition of the ‘Dark Ages’ because the real ‘Dark Ages’ was when islam smashed across Christianity in it’s bloodthirsty destructive way.

    No mate, the Dark Ages were when Christians took their religion as seriously as a lot of Muslims do today. Dark Ages is what you get when take religions seriously.

    I have left this thread alone because there are good people on here trying to open your mind.

    If that’s what you think has been happening here then you haven’t been paying attention.

    There isn’t a single person arguing with me that has the slightest understanding of any of the topics they throwing opinions around about. There’s nothing quite like this on the internet IMO but it’s also inexplicable because the headline posts and writers on the Cat are top notch.

    How anyone can read this website and have the positions dominant in this thread is a mystery.

  202. dover_beach says:

    No none of these are Enlightenment thinkers, the Enlightenment started after 1600AD. Although Thomas Aquinas deserves a mention as he tried (and failed) to reconcile Aristotelian logic with faith and in the process helped mainstream his thinking and planted the seeds for the Enlightenment that would later follow.

    Do you even know of the role Boethius, for instance, played in reviving interest in Aristotle in the 5/6th C AD? Or how his Latin translations maintained an interest in Aristotelian logic through the so-called ‘Dark Ages’? No you don’t. Let’s be clear, your knowledge relating to any of this is paltry and second-hand.

    And I suppose the Holocaust didn’t happen either. That word is just used “polemically” to describe the period in the earlier 20th Century, etc, etc.

    You are desperate, I see. The Holocaust is an event, the ‘Dark Ages’ purport to be a period. There was no ‘Dark Age’ in Byzantium; the Dark Ages’ purport to describe the period of disintegration of state authority following the fall of the Western Empire and their reformation in feudal and monarchical offices, which occurred as a consequence of a waves of immigration of non-Roman peoples and their failure to assimilate them, along with successive Barbarian Invasions in the 4th and 5th C.

    No mate, the Dark Ages were when Christians took their religion as seriously

    Because the Greeks and Romans never took their religion seriously. Dear oh dear.

    Again, I see, you again fail to defend your claim that people have a natural right to go wherever they please.

  203. iampeter says:

    I have left this thread alone because there are good people on here trying to open your mind.

    Just more on this because it’s unbelievable how stupid you have to be to type this if you’ve actually read this thread. I posted very polite positions on the issue and the reasons for those positions way back on page 1 and then repeated them for those asking follow up questions.

    In response I was flamed by the collectivist, big government, leftists that dominate the comment threads of Australia’s leading center-right blog for some reason. No one wanted to debate anything, they just wanted to scream to make different ideas go away (like all leftists) because they suddenly got a glimpse as to just how shallow their knowledge of politics is and couldn’t deal with it.

    In response I demonstrated what actual trolling looks like to the point that the crybabies are now accusing me of ad hominem instead of debate, utterly oblivious to the irony of everything they are saying and suddenly after crying delicious irony tears want to start debating things.

    Then another fool rides into the fray, describing the above circus as “good people” trying to “open my mind”.

    You. Cannot. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

  204. Driftforge says:

    In response I was flamed by the collectivist, big government, leftists that dominate the comment threads of Australia’s leading center-right blog for some reason. No one wanted to debate anything, they just wanted to scream to make different ideas go away (like all leftists) because they suddenly got a glimpse as to just how shallow their knowledge of politics is and couldn’t deal with it.

    Words in bold are in Wormtongue, not English.

  205. Driftforge says:

    Just more on this because it’s unbelievable how caring you have to be to type this if you’ve actually read this thread. I used polite but twisted language to post positions on the issue and the reasons for those positions way back on page 1 and then repeated them ad nauseum without correcting my language or errorsfor those asking follow up questions.

    In response I was flamed by the assorted libertarian, traditionalist, conservative and reactionary commenters that dominate the comment threads of Australia’s leading center-right blog for obvious reason. I refused to update my knowledge or language, despite repeated attempts to provide gentle correction (like all leftists) and they suddenly got a glimpse as to just how shallow my knowledge of politics is and couldn’t get through to me.

    In response I continued trolling looks like to the point that the regulars are now observing my use of ad hominem instead of debate, and I continue utterly oblivious to the irony of everything I am saying.

    Then another gentleman rides into the fray, observing those they know as good people trying to “open my mind”.

    …..

    Wormtongue – got to be translated back to English every time.

  206. dover_beach says:

    Beautifully done, Driftforge.

  207. Senile Old Guy says:

    In response I was flamed by the collectivist, big government, leftists that dominate the comment threads of Australia’s leading center-right blog for some reason. No one wanted to debate anything, they just wanted to scream to make different ideas go away (like all leftists) because they suddenly got a glimpse as to just how shallow their knowledge of politics is and couldn’t deal with it.

    Utter garbage. People have debated, and I think refuted, much of what you have written and your response is to make the above ludicrous statements. Apparently, the only response you will accept is agreement: anything else is too hard and gets insults in return.

  208. iampeter says:

    Utter garbage. People have debated, and I think refuted, much of what you have written and your response is to make the above ludicrous statements. Apparently, the only response you will accept is agreement: anything else is too hard and gets insults in return.

    Go back to page 1 and read the posts in order, then come back and tell me what is “utter garbage”. Unless you are illiterate there’s no way you can conclude what you’ve concluded.

    Words in bold are in Wormtongue, not English.

    Driftforge you are an advocate of group rights over individual rights but don’t think you’re a leftist. You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

    There’s really nothing like the cat on the internet whereby the comment threads are dominated by people completely clueless about the subject matter of the blog they have spent years reading and posting at.

    What a joke.

  209. Driftforge says:

    Driftforge you are an advocate of concentrated sovereignty in the interest of the community, and believe individual rights are ephemeral, but don’t think you’re a libertarian.

    Quite true.

  210. dover_beach says:

    concentrated sovereignty in the interest of the community, and believe individual rights are ephemeral

    ,
    This is in fact true. Individual rights has always depended upon concentrated sovereignty. That was the experience in Europe.

  211. Driftforge says:

    As to the general commentary on the blog here, well it certainly has matured over the time (decade?) I’ve been here. Really these days Dot is the only hardened Libertarian around, and he cops a lot of schtick for it. Everyone else has been somewhat pragmatic over time. Liberalism, Libertarianism and Conservatism have all been observed to fail as ideologies capable of resisting our civilisations progress towards collapse via leftist singularity. Nationalism and Protectionism are on the rise, not because they are better than the other positions the Right has held, but rather because they are the best of the known options still standing in the way of the Progressive(degenerating) juggernaut encoded into our very system of government.

    Personally, I believe the only escape is via restored divine right sovereignty, restored Christianity acting in concert with the Sovereign, and an absolutist morality tailored to deal with the changes technology has wrought on optimum group survival strategies.

    Anything else is a temporary (or at least more temporary) solution. In the absence of a comprehensive, novel alternative that completely rejects the individualist, relativist, demotic mindset as a basis, Memoryvault is absolutely correct to be deeply pessimistic about the future; those hoping for ‘better’ out of our current system will continue to be disappoint, even as they are offered ever more ‘hope and change’.

  212. Driftforge says:

    Sorry about the grammar; I’ve had about 4 hours sleep a night for the past week trying to get a project completed and am not functioning at my best.

  213. Combine Dave says:

    You’ve just described today’s existing immigration policy for the most part with some stupid refugee intake programs that need to be absolutely cancelled.

    This was from iampeter above.

    Clearly, aside from some magical thinking about where rights come from, he is on the side of angels.*

    IAP opposes:

    +big gov
    +destructive red tape
    +wasteful welfare
    +humanitarian intakes

    After a few more years life experience he’ll no doubt accept that defense of the border is one of the few legitimate roles of the state.

    He is already far more right wing on immigration than any in the Turnbull Coalition Team.

    *Just need to keep him away from any Bahnisch BBQs.

  214. Senile Old Guy says:

    Go back to page 1 and read the posts in order, then come back and tell me what is “utter garbage”. Unless you are illiterate there’s no way you can conclude what you’ve concluded.

    I’ve read it and disagreed. It is pointless telling me to read again something I have already read and decided is flawed.

    There’s really nothing like the cat on the internet whereby the comment threads are dominated by people completely clueless about the subject matter of the blog they have spent years reading and posting at.

    An insult, not an argument.

  215. Fisky says:

    Just more on this because it’s unbelievable how stupid you have to be to type this if you’ve actually read this thread. I posted very polite positions on the issue and the reasons for those positions way back on page 1 and then repeated them for those asking follow up questions.

    Actually, you haven’t provided any reasons for your position at all – which is that there is a natural right for people to enter someone else’s country regardless of what the citizens of that country think.

    There’s really nothing like the cat on the internet whereby the comment threads are dominated by people completely clueless about the subject matter of the blog they have spent years reading and posting at.

    Sorry, aren’t you the guy who claimed there were no Left-wing Enlightenment figures at all? That statement takes some beating for ignorance.

  216. Combine Dave says:

    Actually, you haven’t provided any reasons for your position at all – which is that there is a natural right for people to enter someone else’s country regardless of what the citizens of that country think.

    If only this was true.

    I would be in Japan toot sweet!

  217. Combine Dave says:

    Can any open borders loon explain why Japan is not Somalia inspite of their incredibly restrictive immigration practices?

Comments are closed.