This section is for general discussion of any issue related to the federal campaign or the Liberal Democratic Party. Feel free to leave comments, ask questions, offers suggestions or make criticisms, but please keep comments civil. Offensive comments will be removed or modified and repeat offenders will be banned.
LDP
Policy forum of the Liberal Democratic Party
-
Recent Comments
Small Business Tax G… on What to cut first? anal on Discussion anal on Discussion acheter supercard on Policy on Taiwan swimimingboy on New Discussion Forum
October 26, 2007 at 9:07 am |
http://getup.org.au/promisewatch/
Let’s make some promises.
“LDP Promises to scrap the minimum wage.”
“LDP promises to cut welfare and spending.”
October 26, 2007 at 9:11 am |
Hehehe, just hope we don’t end up with a hostile Senate
October 26, 2007 at 9:43 pm |
http://farmiloforrichmond.wordpress.com/
October 30, 2007 at 12:48 am |
http://www.echo.net.au/pg.php?issues_id=22_21&pg=19&view=gif
I got a mention (albeit a small one) in the Byron Shire Echo, a free newspaper based on the Byron Shire. From what I read on their website, it seems to be a slightly left-of-centre publication (anti development et c).
Nonetheless, any mention is good!
October 30, 2007 at 10:36 pm |
What policies does LDP support most? Who will you preference higher – the Greens or Family First. I know the Greens disagree with you on environmental and land-right issues, but agree with less tough drug laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc. And Family First are strongly opposed to homosexuality, abortion, pornography, drugs, etc. and haven’t really got a strong position on environmental issues.
October 30, 2007 at 11:02 pm |
I don’t think there is a particular policy that we support most. Different people are involved in the party for different reasons.
Personally, I would like to stress our tax/welfare policy which attempts to address the poverty trap and fix our excessively high effective marginal tax rates. But other candidates would be more interested in other issues.
We haven’t finalised our preferences yet. That will be done by this Saturday. It is always a difficult decision because all other political parties want more government involvement in our lives which means that none of them are worth defending. Personally, I am quite worried about the Greens because of their principled support for a more socialist approach to health, education & tax. But you are also right to note that FF & the LDP disagree on many issues.
October 30, 2007 at 11:02 pm |
I think we have a very strong environmental policy, because it’s the only policy that would actually deliver good environmental outcomes.
Take our position on global warming. The first thing the LDP would do is end the $10 billion in subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by the government. Neither major party talks about this perverse taxpayer handout.
The Greens care about the environment, but they support more regulation, less freedom, more taxes & greater concentration of government power.
And they support an overbearing federal government managing long-term challenges like global warming. But a better way to do it is to decentralise the decisions to the states. Does WA contribute the same emissions as Tasmania? Does Victoria pollute the same as Queensland? They don’t. So why should they bear the same economic costs under a national scheme imposed from Canberra?
The LDP also cares about protecting the environment. But there’s a better way to go about doing this. It’s called free-market environmentalism.
October 30, 2007 at 11:04 pm |
Sukrit — Tamara was saying that Family First don’t have a strong environmental policy. She didn’t say anything about our policy.
October 30, 2007 at 11:40 pm |
Yeah I know, but Tamara said the Greens disagree with us about environmental issues.
That gives the impression that we’re against good environmental outcomes (because that’s what the Greens are famous for), or that we place the evil/greedy big businesses before the environment.
So I decided to clarify for any lurkers that ‘means’ and ‘ends’ are two different things. We agree wholeheartedly with the Greens about aiming for good environmental outcomes. We just prefer a different way of doing it.
October 31, 2007 at 2:29 am |
Is Tamara this Tamara? http://greens.org.au/Stirling
If so she’s my opponent in the upcoming election
October 31, 2007 at 6:46 am |
Sukrit, when I said that you disagree with the Greens on environmental issues, I was referring to issues like ratifying the Kyoto protocol and clearing trees from privately owned land.
And yabbo, no I’m not that Tamra
I’ll probably be voting for your party.
October 31, 2007 at 7:31 am |
When it comes to the Senate, Tamara, preferences will unfortunately be worked out “politically”- we are unlikely to be able to utilise Green preferences as they stay in Senate counts for a long time, so it is unlikely that we would find a preference deal with the Greens in the Senate politically beneficial.
I highly recommend that you vote below the line- I’ll be doing the same, even though I’ve helped in negotiating preferences! We’ve tried to negotiate preference deals with parties that are ideologically similar- but most parties want the government involved in our life in one way or another, so it’s hard to say whether or not the Greens, as a socially liberal party are “more” compatible with us than Family First (who are more economically liberal).
Personally if I hadn’t found a home in the LDP it is likely I’d be voting for the Democrats or Greens. Social issues, in particular same-sex marriage, is very important to me. Others in the party are small business owners, however, so they are personally opposed to the policies of the Greens quite strongly. Yet we find common ground in the LDP, a party that supports universal freedoms.
On environmental issues, I like to think that we’re common-sense environmentalists. I’m from Tasmania and I love the national parks, etc there. Yet I support the pulp mill, not just on economic grounds, but also because it’s being built in a heavy industrial area under strict conditions. I’ve travelled overseas and I see allowing the pulp mill to be built in Tasmania rather than a developing country to be a step forward in preserving the global environment. Gunns has a better environmental record than overseas companies, after all.
October 31, 2007 at 7:49 am |
By the way, my campaign site is up:
http://ldpstirling.wordpress.com/
October 31, 2007 at 8:30 am |
I think your right. As long as we introduce common sense laws for the enviroment, we should be OK. I think the best thing we could possibly do at this point would to be encourage a shift from fossil fuels to renewables (damn engineering courses last semester. Hammered into that sustainability was more important than anything else…). But then again, I’m no environment guru. I’m more aligned with LDP policies because of a resignation to the fact that humanity isn’t ready to play nice and share with everyone else for the common good, we are way to corrupt to do that at this stage of development.
October 31, 2007 at 9:11 am |
I think the best thing we could possibly do at this point would to be encourage a shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
Well, as John said above:
The first thing the LDP would do is end the $10 billion in subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by the government.
I think that should encourage a change.
I also think a lot of Australians are making the decision to switch to renewable sources of energy themselves. I know I pay the extra for “Green Energy”. I’ve seen companies advertising their own emission cuts. There’s no need for government to impose itself on us- Australians care about the environment enough to make the changes we need for ourselves.
Of course there will probably be a need for minimal government intervention in some areas. Such as the regulatory conditions put on the Pulp Mill. But Australians have a history of boycotting environmentally harmful companies- the free market is definitely capable of providing companies with incentives to help the environment.
October 31, 2007 at 10:07 am |
People have got to realise how good libertarian ideas and policy are for the environment.
If someone owned the shoreline, sea floor and sea lanes, and somone owned the whales, there would be negotiation as to what Gunns could and couldn’t do to their neighbours.
Prviatisation is a great chance for conservationism to undergoa revival and survive without cutting jobs.
October 31, 2007 at 10:44 pm |
Hi,
I am a little bit confused with your welfare policy. Could you please explain me what exactly 30/30 means? Say somebody earns 25000 a year, does he or she receive direct payment of 7500? What if anybody is unemployed does he or she receive direct payments? If the answer is yes, how much?
October 31, 2007 at 10:56 pm |
Hi Vlad & thanks for your question. If somebody earns $25,000 per year they would not receive $7500. They would receive $1500. That is, they would receive 30% of the difference between their income and $30,000.
If you are unemployed then you receive 30% of the difference between your income (zero) and $30,000. That equates to $9000.
October 31, 2007 at 11:01 pm |
Thanks John, that was clear enough
November 1, 2007 at 11:36 am |
Hi there,
Does the LDP have a defence policy as yet? Is anyone writing one?
As a bit of a military buff I’d like to have a go at writing one.
Jarrod Gibbs.
s3018146@student.rmit.edu.au
November 1, 2007 at 11:56 am |
“Does the LDP have a defence policy as yet?”
I’d write something along the lines of “stop buying overpriced, obsolete American junk”
November 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm |
haha. I was thinking along the same lines.
A few points id like to submit for consideration then…
*Stop buying expensive surface warships (such as the aegis destroyers) as their survivabiliy in an era when our neighbours have increasingly high tech submarines is extremely low and their combat ability seem restricted to defending the patch of sky above their own heads and maybe the small patch of ocean around them, but probably not themselves.
*Let market forces decide on defence force salaries so our submariners (for one) stop getting bought off by companies willing to pay them 4 times as much.
*De-politicise defence procurement. Stop giving defence contracts to inexperienced Australian companies with the sole aim of shoring up votes in marginal seats. Get it right the first time by buying top notch, new, off the shelf equipment from companies that are better at making it than we are.
*Australia should not rely on allinace for defence. We should not tailor a defence force for fighting alongside allies. A defence force designed to defend Australia will always be able to fight alongside allies if necessary, on the other hand a defence force tailored to fighting alongside allies may not be able to defend Australia.
*To secure the northern seas Australia needs a long range strike / air superiority fighter. The JSF is designed to be neither of these. While the JSF should be an extremely capable ground support fighter, only the F22 can be guaranteed to secure this country northern borders. Australia should immediately cancel our JSF order and lobby the US government to allow us to purchase the F-22, even using the pine gap base as a bargaining tool if necessary.
November 1, 2007 at 12:57 pm |
As far as I know, policy is set as it is at the moment for this election, but a defence policy is something I’d definitely like to see further down the track.
November 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm |
Amen on the F-22.
November 1, 2007 at 2:14 pm |
This time please before you decide on who to vote for stop and think what will they achieve for Australia – JFK’s immortal words ring truer now,than ever before: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” here in Aussie that means putting Liberal and Labor last on your ballot paper.
I can not stress enough to people how important this election really is for the future of our country. We now appear to have, as the main protagonists, a man that thinks he will be a President (Mr Rudd) because he never says Labor’s policy he always says My Policy or I will and he has declared he is an economic dry or righty. The other man, who would be king, is a blatant liar – he lied about a war and continues to lie about it and interest rates and then when caught says he did not lie a man so far right he make Mussolini look good.
Being treated like fools and idiots by these people has got to stop. Stop being ruled by fear and deception get rid of them all. No one, in my opinion, could do a worse job of running Aussie than has been done (with some exceptions) since the 1950’s.
Being given news that contains more about a druggy and a TV star than where the polticians want to lead our nation and the full reinstatement of the genuine fourth estate must also take place and this will be simple to do – stop all governments spending money on advertising that amounts to Nazi propoganda.
====
F22. I was in the forces many years ago. They lost a lot of very good officers when I was in. Why because public servants, with zero knowledge, had the final say on the equipment that was being purchased for the defence forces and usually stuffing it up in the name of cost cutting and eventually costing us more.
We put these people in the services and train them and they above all should be listened to when it comes to military equipment not some pen pusher whose only mission in life is to go up one level and whose most important journal is the public service mag with the vacancies in it.
November 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
To the People of Brand.
There will be some of you I’m sure who know me or know of me. I’ve been out of the area working away (east of overseas) for a long time now. it does not mean I still do not think of the area as home.
I’m a no nonsense kind of person. I can be brutally blunt in the mind of some but I tell it like it is.
If you want the best person to do the job of representing you and your electorate in Canberra then simply put thats me.
No one else will promise you consultation at the level that I will attempt to go. All big issues will be polled and a really big sample taken. All local councillors will be asked for their views. Where possible I will initiate a local referendum to let me know what your vote would be if you were there in parliament,
This time give someone else a go because those that have gone before have not fully represented you they have represented their party for fear of disendorsement I have no such fear. If I do not do as you want get up a referendum and use it to sack me – I will go willingly and not try to get a ship load of fringe benefits on the way either.
November 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm |
I just found the Australian Christian Lobby’s party comparison site http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/. I think the LDP should call themselves the anti-ACL party! It also makes me wonder if the ACL actually wrote the Liberal Party’s policy. It’s so similar it’s scary.
November 1, 2007 at 4:37 pm |
“De-politicise defence procurement”
That’s a good idea, but we may face problems without our own defence industry. Consider the FA-18s we bought but couldn’t fix or reconfigure.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html
November 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
Here’s an idea. For next time we should run on far fewer issues, but run on them hard. And we should only have policies on areas where we believe the federal government needs to play a role.
So, scrap the policies on: health, labour market, guns, euthanasia, marriage, environment (let individual states handle their emissions contribution to global warming), energy, education, income tax, traffic laws, welfare. Our only policy on these areas would be to hand them completely back to the individual States. Diversity should flower. We don’t need a ‘national strategy’. Our state branches can push for more specific reform in these areas.
Keep the policies that would be applied nationally: defence & foreign affairs, international free trade, civil liberties, democracy + constitution, immigration, property rights. We need to reduce the scope of the Commonwealth government.
It’s a lot simpler telling people we support more issues being decided at the local level than explaining how the minimum wage causes unemployment. The states can set their own minimum wages based on regional variations.
Competitive federalism is a step towards aligning incentives in favour of a more libertarian society in the long-term. Just look at how we’re competing/constantly comparing ourselves with other developed nations. That’s competitive federalism on a global scale.
November 1, 2007 at 6:16 pm |
Mikel: Interesting point you make there, I hadn’t thought of it that way. You’d think it wouldn’t be too hard to get some decent tech support to ensure that the planes you have spent 4 billion dollars on do what they are supposed to do. I think there must be a real problem within the defence department in terms of people that have experience and talent in negotiating equipment purchases involving such enormous sums of money. Perhaps we should outsource our defence procurement to BHP Billiton!? Good food for thought nevertheless.
Sukrit: Interesting point and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of some of the more regular posters here. One thing I notice about the Ron paul campaign is that whenever he gets asked a question that isnt a favorite topic he basically says its an issue for the states and then talks about the joys of decentralisation. It seems an effective tactic, but also a bit of a cop out?
November 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm |
Jarrod
I think even if we restricted our policies to issues we believe the Cth should be involved in, our state branches (hopefully by the next election we’ll have more state divisions) can issue press releases outlining our more specific positions. That way we won’t lose support from smokers, gun owners, pot heads etc. but at the federal level we can take the constitutional high ground.
In some ways it’s a cop out (which could be beneficial, politically speaking — see Ron Paul on abortion) but in other ways it’s very necessary. All the other parties talk about ‘tackling climate change’ without questioning whether the Cth or the states should be responsible. This is a product of the High Court handing the Cth greater powers, but if we changed at least one thing about how issues are debated in Australia by shifting the focus back to the huge behemoth the Cth has become, then I’d consider that a big success.
P.S. My demarcation of state/federal roles may not be entirely accurate — this is a matter for debate.
November 2, 2007 at 8:53 am |
Our IT guru should put up a link on our blog homepage to Jonatan Kelu’s campaign blog:
http://www.kelu.net/
November 3, 2007 at 8:48 pm |
Hi Guys –
I like the sound of your party, and when I take any of those ‘political compass’ quizzes I fall pretty much in your space (I was right next you on your one). The non-smoking utilitarian in me finds your reversal of the smoking in restaurants ban difficult to accept, but I broadly agree with most of your other policies.
I would probably vote for you if you had someone in my seat (Melbourne)
Just a question, though, as I am a bit of a pragmatist, and good political values only float my boat so far. Does your brand of Libertarianism actually work in practice? Or, put another way (and because I am too lazy to do my own research!), can you give me an example of another country that has a low-taxing small government, with policies similar to yours.
Taxes are low in places like Singapore and various middle eastern countries, but they’re more nanny state than liberatrian, aren’t they? The US has lots of personal and economic freedom, but some underlying conservatism… of the top of my head I’m struggling to think of anywhere with a true libertarian government
I ask this because, like Libertarianism, pure Socialism sounds like a great idea on paper, but I am dead against it because it simply doesn’t work in practice, and has been disastrous every time it’s been tried.
I’d like to see the track record of Libertarianism, trouble is small governments tend not to advertise themselves like the socialists.
November 3, 2007 at 9:11 pm |
Hi Papa & welcome. You can still vote for us in the Senate (Steve Clancy, box “L”).
There aren’t any perfect examples of anything. But various elements of the LDP platform exist in various countries and at points in history. Hong Kong & Singapore show that our economic policies promote growth. The Netherlands shows that marijuana legalisation and social tolerance works. There is no reason to think that we can’t combine the best of both worlds.
American and Britain in the 19th century shows that low tax, property rights, immigration, free trade and small government works very well and creates world super-powers.
In contrast, socialist experiments never work. Even mini-socialism within capitalist countries (eg Israeli Kibbutz or Australian aboriginal communities) have not worked properly.
November 4, 2007 at 1:40 am |
Guys,
I had a good read of LDP policies but couldn’t find anything about Ausralia as a republic. Although I will vote for LDP as the only libertarian party in Australia, missing “republic” in party policies means missing the cornerstone of libertarian ideas.
While Libertarian Party of US has two perfect points in any discussion, i.e. Declaration of Independece and Constitution as a result of DI. We, australians, don’t have it.
November 4, 2007 at 2:19 am |
Personally I don’t see how being a republic would help in any way.
QEII as head of state has not enacted any legislation (that I am aware of) that restricts freedom in any way. John Howard, as our elected leader, has made a lot.
Making Australia a republic wouldn’t change that in the slightest.
November 4, 2007 at 2:59 am |
While I don’t support Australian republicanism, I would be perfectly happy to have a federal or state level bill of rights; however, I certainly don’t consider it the “cornerstone of libertarian ideas”. Becoming a republic wouldn’t necessarily entail the enacting of a bill of rights, anyway.
November 4, 2007 at 3:15 am |
I’m supportive of a Republic, mostly on ideological rather than pragmatic grounds.
I think we’ll end up a Republic once QEII passes away. There’s no real need to push for it- it would just mean the personality politics and the media circus surrounding Howard and Rudd this year would become even more prevalent.
November 4, 2007 at 9:19 am |
I like the idea of less government control in our individual lives.
Personally, I believe the area when government (or government endorsed NGO’s) has the biggest impact on our personal lives is health. I am not talking about hospitals, nurses and doctors. We only need these if we get sick.
The things I am most concerned about are forced medication, and laws restricting certain substances from public consumption.
Specifically, the forced medication of flouride in water supply.
Laws banning the sale of raw milk for consumption.
Laws banning vitamins from consumption.
Does the LDP have policies aimed are securing these freedoms?
It seems to be very in line with other LDP policies.
November 4, 2007 at 9:38 am |
I see a lot of positives in having a head of state in another country, out of touch, and unable to interfere with us. Perhaps we should look at that for the rest of government.
November 4, 2007 at 11:23 am |
Thank all for your answers.
Daniel, Talking about republic I didn’t mean bill of rights at all. All I meant is a mechanism which rectricts power of the government to certain areas and nothing else. Bill of Rights in US created more missinterpretation of the constitution and DoI.
Anyway Shem was right saying that this is more ideological thing that pragmatical.
November 4, 2007 at 11:48 am |
Papachango, obviously the LDP are running candidates for the senate, so at least you can vote for them! The Victorian candidates are Steve Clancy and Geoff Saw. I think they’re in group L.
Does anyone have an opinion on how to vote in the lower house where there’s no LDP candidate?
November 4, 2007 at 1:02 pm |
Mikel- I’d vote [1] for a micro party. By voting for a party that gets less than 4% of the vote you are effectively with holding your $2 of public funding. I think that is the best way to protest big government if you can’t vote LDP.
Beyond that? Labor or Liberal? Vote against the incumbent in safe seats. Decide which you think is the “less of two evils” in marginal seats. The LDP has no official stance on which “evil” is lesser this election.
November 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
People here have expressed various ideas of why the republic is not on the agenda. But in pcinciple, shouldn’t LDP have some sort of policy on this important Australian issue (in the long run)?
November 4, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
Well, Boris, I think we’re going to have a real time for reflection at next year’s National Conference, after the election.
It is definitely an issue I’d like to raise. There’s going to be a lot of discussion of policy direction after the election.
To be honest I think the Republic is a no-brainer. It’s an issue we can push that is both libertarian and appealing to most Australians. Other issues are controversial and harder to draw the line on.
November 4, 2007 at 4:40 pm |
To be honest I think the Republic is a no-brainer. It’s an issue we can push that is both libertarian and appealing to most Australians.
The mere replacement of the Queen with an Australian head of state would change nothing in libertarian terms. For that reason it is a low order issue to us.
I would personally only support a republic if it offered genuine republicanism, in which government power is subdivided to render it less dangerous. Our policy of competitive federalism is consistent with that.
November 4, 2007 at 6:14 pm |
The mere replacement of the Queen with an Australian head of state would change nothing in libertarian terms.
Only because of the traditional role of the Crown. I’m talking about what is possible, based on the Constitution. The Queen, if she so chose, could practically hold Australia to ransom. A President with a 4 year term focused on getting re-elected is far more accountable to the public and has the scope of his power minimised. From a theoretical standpoint the Queen’s position is severely anti-libertarian; it’s only practicality and tradition that ensure Australia is run by Australians.
In practical terms I agree that a nominal change to a republic is virtually useless and provides little to no positive outcomes. I would support a relook at the Australian constitution. But Australians have a tendency to reject referenda. Too many changes might be a problem unless it was just all sold under the blanket of “popularly elected President”.
November 4, 2007 at 6:34 pm |
I have traditionally been thoroughly indifferent and bored by the republican debate — but we could run the argument that a directly elected president acts as an additional “house of review” to veto bad policy. Anything that slows down the introduction of more legislation is probably a good thing.
Anyway — this is a debate for after the election.
November 5, 2007 at 11:59 am |
The Victorian senate preferences are out.
Preferences received:
- reasonable preferences from the Climate Change Coalition (11 and 20, but after lead candidates for ALP and LIB)
- average preferences from One Nation (21 and 22, after FF and DLP, before ALP and LIB)
- poor preferences from the Democrats (37 and 38, after ALP and LIB)
- average preferences from What Women Want (24 and 25, after ALP, before LIB)
- reasonable preferences from Senator Online (12 and 13, before ALP and LIB)
- reasonable preferences from the ALP (15 and 16, after Greens, CCC, and SOL)
- poor preferences from the Shooter’s Party (48 and 49, after ALP, CDP, ON, DLP, LIB)
- poor preferences from the Liberal Party (29 and 30, after LIB, FF, DLP, CDP)
- quite good preferences from Family First (9 and 10, after CDP)
- poor preferences from the CDP (34 and 35, after DLP, FF, LIB)
- very good preferences from John Perkins (group P) (3 and 4)
- poor preferences from the Non-Custodial parents party (36 and 37, after Carers, ON, CDP, FF)
Preferences given:
- John Perkins (group P)
- Conservatives for Climate and Environment
- One Nation
- Family First
- Liberal
Notable features:
- Family First got a lot of preferences
- Climate Change Coalition got a reasonable number of preferences
- Carers Alliance got a reasonable number of preferences
- Greens and ALP swapped preferences
- LDP got poor preferences from Shooter’s Party
- Socialist Equity Party put Socialist Alliance last!
- Carers Party preferencing Socialist Alliance
What a dirty game!
November 5, 2007 at 1:46 pm |
I missed LDP’s ninth preference, which goes to Labor Right’s David Feeney ahead of Family First and the Liberal/National Coalition.
November 5, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
G’day
I’ve heard on the grapevine that your mob have a biker friendly attitude..
Any chance of some sort of ‘biker centric’ news/policy release ?
Over to you
Regards
Sid
http://www.ozbiker.org
November 5, 2007 at 11:01 pm |
Hi Sid
The main policy is to relax speed limits on roads where most people speed anyway, and to change the focus of road rules to letting people drive how they want, provided they’re not endangering anyone else.
http://ldp.org.au/federal/policies/traffic_laws.html
Point 18 is pretty funny:
The revenue from traffic fines should be quarantined and used for something highly unpopular such as paying the salaries of politicians. This would ensure the emphasis was on modifying driver behaviour rather than collecting revenue.
Hopefully someone here can help provide more information or consider a press release. Are there any particular suggestions you have?
November 5, 2007 at 11:02 pm |
and to change the focus of road rules to letting people drive…
… or ride.
November 6, 2007 at 2:19 am |
http://kirkfletcher.wordpress.com/
This is the man I will be voting for in my home seat. Kirk Fletcher for Macquarie!
November 6, 2007 at 6:09 am |
As LDP candidate for Macquarie, I’ll be attending a “Meet the Candidates” function tonight in Springwood. It’s organised by the Springwood Churches Association and moderated by the Australian Christian Lobby.
The other major candidates will be there, so it might draw a large crowd (assuming people didn’t have too long a lunch, being Melb Cup day).
Anyway, you’re all welcome to attend and provide support… I don’t mind admitting that I’m a little nervous about the whole thing:
Time: 7:30pm
Venue: Anglican Church Ministry Centre, 28 Lawson Road, Springwood
(opposite S.A.D Club)
Wish me luck!
November 6, 2007 at 8:33 am |
Any chance of some sort of ‘biker centric’ news/policy release ?
Sid, we did one last week. There’s a copy here: http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/pressReleases.html#29_Oct_07a
November 6, 2007 at 10:18 am |
As an aside, how are people getting formatting? I’ve noticed bolded and italic text, but there’s no formatting bar or quote button I can see.
What if I type a previous comment?
outside quotes
and to change the focus of road rules to letting people drive…
inside quotes
“and to change the focus of road rules to letting people drive…”
Maybe inside *stars* or /slashes/ or _underscores_?
November 6, 2007 at 2:40 pm |
Question: Is there a Victorian branch meeting tomorrow??
November 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm |
Yes, there should be.
November 6, 2007 at 2:43 pm |
Mikel, I just use html for bold and for italic.
November 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm |
Jarrod
Yes, there is a Victorian gathering tomorrow. Unfortunately I won’t be able to make it due to exams, however LDP candidate for Deakin Nick Stevenson will be chairing the meeting. Don’t forget to bring all your friends who aren’t LDP members yet
November 6, 2007 at 2:56 pm |
I would also like to direct everyone’s attention to the “Donate $10 for Liberty” campaign.
http://www.pledgebank.com/donate4freedom
The goal is to raise $1000 for the LDP, hopefully before the election.
November 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm |
Someone should address the housing affordability problem.
Refer to the attached article
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/05/1194117958633.html
November 6, 2007 at 8:02 pm |
One of the key problems with housing affordability at the moment Bill is the lack of private property rights. That is, when someone wants to build affordable inner city housing they are first forced to force their way through stupid amounts of red tape, and then they have to deal with local resident groups lobbying their local government to block the development due to various objections.
The LDP holds private property rights to be sacred, if a developer purchased land and wanted to use it to build affordable inner city housing, he would be able to do so, that is, no one would have the right to interfere with his plans or take away his private property rights.
November 7, 2007 at 10:21 am |
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/development-is-not-a-dirty-word/2007/11/06/1194329221375.html
November 7, 2007 at 12:50 pm |
Free doughnuts: http://www.krispykreme.com.au/election07/vote/index.cfm
November 7, 2007 at 9:09 pm |
Jarrod, you are correct, the lack of private property rights, in particular the right to subdivide any property you own is a root cause of the housing affordability crisis. Only large companies who pay handsome kickbacks to to the large political parties get a look in when it comes to development applications. The small developer is excluded from the current market
I suspect there is good political mileage for your party by highlighting that only LDP has a real solution to the housing crisis. Neither of the main political parties is willing to address this issue. The Liberals don’t what to upset the baby boomers whose houses have skyrocketed in recent years. and the labour party is reluctant to blame their mates in the in the state governments who are responsible for these disastrous policies which hut the young and the low income.
Your current policies do not highlight this fact and many young voters don’t realise how the existing land release are ripping them off .
November 7, 2007 at 9:42 pm |
Apparently we now also advocate sweatshops:
They don’t believe in a minimum wage, advocate sweatshops, wholesale privatisation, and user pays for everything and are even more ultra conservative than Howard.
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/community/showthread.php?t=5097
I posted a message clarifying the LDP position, but it’s on a union site and all comments are moderated before being posted. Which probably means it’ll get deleted by the moderator — because no dissent allowed.
That’s the beauty of most libertarian sites I’ve been to. People are free to disagree without getting shut down. Unfortunately that’s not the case on other sites that don’t like having their views challenged.
November 7, 2007 at 10:55 pm |
i think Bill is spot on.
In terms of private property rights solving the housing crisis I highly receommend doing some media release.
I was listening to talkback radio tonight on the way home from the Melbourne branch meeting and this has to be just about the hottest ongoing issue out there.
David? John?
November 7, 2007 at 11:00 pm |
Why are you looking at us Jarrod? We’re working 16 hour days as it is.
Feel free to write up a press release and send it through. You can quote yourself, call yourself an “LDP spokesperson” and put down your phone number to take follow-up calls from the media (if necessary).
Or you can work with another LDP candidate to be the spokesperson (Shem? Steve? Kirk? Sukrit? Dan?).
Otherwise… I’ll try to get around to it between 3am and 4am next Tuesday.
November 7, 2007 at 11:02 pm |
Sorry mate, I didnt realise that it was okay for non cantidates to do press releases..
Ill write one up.
no problems.
Thanks.
November 7, 2007 at 11:08 pm |
By the way John and David.
At the Vic branch meeting today it was agreed that the two of you are doing a hulluva job and that Terje is a preference dealing genious.
Keep it up.
November 7, 2007 at 11:10 pm |
Hi jarrod, you can email me at ssabhlok@gmail.com — I’ll add you to the LDP vic mailing list
November 8, 2007 at 1:33 am |
Can someone add me to the LDP NSW mailing list?
john.zapper@gmail.com
November 8, 2007 at 3:22 am |
http://www.saynotoanimalsinpetshops.com/index.html
This is really stupid. I don’t mind these people boycotting certain stores in question, but one of my good friends runs a (non-chain) pet store and will basically be put out of business if these morons are successful in their lobbying. She seems to agree that some large chain pet stores treat their animals in substandard ways, but most people who run small, privately owned pet stores do it because they love animals.
November 8, 2007 at 11:51 am |
Does anyone else find those web site preview pop-up things when you mouse over a link annoying?
It looks like you can turn them off if you click on the cog icon in the top right corner, but I don’t think most people are going to notice that. My vote would be to turn the feature off for everyone.
November 8, 2007 at 1:05 pm |
Yes, please turn off snap-preview in the blog settings (it’s under “extras” in the presentation tab). It’s the most annoying thing on the web.
November 8, 2007 at 6:19 pm |
To follow up Mikels trade not aid link the other day, this is an extremely interesting interview with a Kenyan economist where he basically begs industrialised nations to stop sending aid.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
November 9, 2007 at 6:56 pm |
SHANE
Email me at iamvoting4ronpaul (at) mac.com — you know who I am.
November 11, 2007 at 7:55 am |
Policies, Policies, Policies!…. the other parties always want a policy on something. Well a policy is nothing more than a tax or a restriction, and every policy they have has created a mess of one sort or another. Look Within the States and their policies on Health, Housing, Water, Skills (skills crisis is a joke, there are plenty of skilled people out there, but the draconian work place rules employed by companies with direction from government under the guise of WPH&S makes so many of them unattractive to work for. The money might be good but it is like spending your day in a prison camp, or in the case of construction and mining workers a month in a gulag and a weeks freedom). Even outdoor government employees (eg; Road Tech ), are likely to be made to wear long trousers and shirts with sleeves down, Some employees I know of are ready to walk once the Dept. (with the help of the union ) get this work rule in.
You name it ,and government policies are little more than a right to create “crisis” with the only winner being the bureaucrats (what a great plaything Traveston Dam will be for Queensland bureaucrats), and the government moving to further “improve policy” to combat the “crisis” of their own making which all results in more taxes ( eg; fines for using too much water), and further restrictions and more government control over business and individuals.
Next time a reporter asks what is your policy on such and such the answer should be … “Policies are only taxes and we are want to wind back policies because the current policy set of all Australian governments are in a mess”
I am not an academic ( just a chippie, your average builder spends more time reading junk mail and filling in forms, attending irrevelant courses run by Qbuild to actually have any time to run a business or design a house, but I’ll leave comments for housing another time ), but, it is good to see academics leading the way with this push for economic and individual freedom, and help do away with this ridiculous nanny statism, because it was academics and other assorted do-gooders who have made life so restrictive and expensive for the rest of us.
November 11, 2007 at 8:00 am |
Then again it was us the voters who made the mistake of believing the do-gooder intentions of government or were too apathic to care. Sorry, our fault, we gave them permission to do us over.
November 11, 2007 at 10:23 am |
I noticed on Sunday today, when interviewing the “minor parties”, Steve Fielding was put on the spot for preferencing us over the Greens.
The interviewer noted that on Radio National, we were called “to the left of Cheech and Chong” because of our stance on marijuana legalisation pro abortion rights.
To the left of Cheech and Chong, right of Ghengis Khan?
The people using these labels are probably far-right and far left respectively.
We are not pro left or right, we are pro liberty, radical centrists. The left and right will prohibit or compel wheras we give people a choice.
November 11, 2007 at 11:24 am |
To the left of Cheech and Chong, right of Ghengis Khan?
The people using these labels are probably far-right and far left respectively.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had political commentators who actually knew something about the subject
November 12, 2007 at 10:19 am |
Well, I’ve tried, but its pretty hard to make sense of what’s going on here.
You believe in ‘Liberty’ but are promoting confiscation of 30% of my earnings. Funny sort of freedom, don’t you think?
You believe in property rights, but make no distinction between property obtained through our enterprise and labour, and that obtained by title or privilege. Who owns the sky, the sunshine, the rain or the oceans? Will we allow an individual to own the moon and the planets? Do we not have an equal right to these things?
I was hoping to find something akin to the the Liberal philosophy of the UK, from Gladstone through to Lloyd-George, but I found a confusion of what constitutes property. John Locke set the standard, but he placed limits on private ownership where there is not enough for everyone. Your party is too loose with important terms. I wish you well in your quest, but you have a long way to go, and I’ll continue my search for a party of justice elsewhere.
November 12, 2007 at 10:44 am |
Well Leo I think I am more of a libertarian purist than anyone I know…save for two other members of the LDP.
But purity isn’t a vehicle for ideas – the party is.
Join us and you can change us from the inside out. We hope to do the same to the Australian viewpoint on the role of Government.
Do you want a libertarian Government one day or not?
November 12, 2007 at 11:02 am |
http://www.liberal.org.au/
http://www.alp.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/
These are your alternatives, Leo. Think we do a better job than them? Vote for us.
The only vehicle for radical libertarianism is revolution. A political party can only ever be a moderate libertarian vehicle at best.
November 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm |
No Mark… I certainly don’t want people like Leo changing our party.
He seems to be against inheritence… which means he’s against the idea of people voluntarily giving money to the people they love. He doesn’t seem to understand that property rights come from voluntary exchange or homesteading. He thinks he knows something about the “liberal tradition of the UK” but he can’t recognise a party based on the philosophy of Adam Smith and J.S. Mill. He thinks that John Locke only believed in private property rights when there is infinite resources.
I wish him well in his quest, but he has a long way to go before he understands the philosophy of freedom.
November 13, 2007 at 11:11 am |
I’m going to be on the ABC morning radio program 774 ABC with Jon Faine tomorrow. The ABC is doing a section on the economy and IR and the other candidates in Deakin from the Eastland shopping centre. I should be on sometime between 10.30 and 11am. It’s my first real gig. Any advice from people who’ve done this sort of thing before would be appreciated.
November 14, 2007 at 10:49 am |
The press releases put out so far today are among the best I have seen from the whole election campaign.
Just thought I’d mention how impressed I am here.
November 14, 2007 at 11:32 am |
Just back from the interview. Frustrating. Faine asked me where our preferences were going – and I couldn’t remember – and then he said ‘well, you sound like a mickey mouse party’ and ended the interview. Note to self: LEARN PREFERENCES.
November 14, 2007 at 11:59 am |
I suggest a follow up letter saying against the sitting memer except in Wentworth and to point out what a rude git he is, and asking who he will vote for.
November 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
Can I just ask where exactly the 30/30 tax policy got those numbers from?
Was any sort of study done to come up with the 30% and $30,000 figures (why not 32/29) for example)? I’m just interested in why the decision was made not to set the dollar amount at whatever leads to a balanced budget (rather than an arbitrary $30,000) and why the 30% figure was chosen.
Cheers.
November 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm |
I’ve being thinking writing a blog, outlining the need for fiscal responsibility in Australia and the Geelong region (Cario electorate). Now, I don’t want to sound like some political tool for the LDP, and though I’ll be plugging the party and its chance’s of winning a Victorian seat in the Senate, I do need to use some raw data and the impact privatization and deregulation will have on the Australian economy.
There are many budding economist’s out there who’d be willing to supply me with links and tips I’m sure, so if you’d like to help I’d really appriciate it if you’d contact me at hellomoogi@hotmail.com.
If I get a few regular readers, I’ll expand on my thoughts and start including the effect of the social policies (or lack thereof) the LDP would introduce to Australia.
I don’t expect to get too many readers all that quickly, but it will be an educational experience for me, so I’d really appriciate some help.
That email again is: hellomoogi@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Rowan
November 15, 2007 at 8:19 pm |
-and I couldn’t remember-
Must have looked like a court room in there for you to give that answer Nick. lol
November 15, 2007 at 8:37 pm |
Eh, I was just furious at myself. I could’ve droned on about our policies for ages, but I couldn’t answer the most bloody obvious question…ugh. It was at a shopping centre, in front of a crowd of >100 consituents too. Oh well.
November 15, 2007 at 8:57 pm |
Jackson, there is no magic tax number and no study can be done to show whether 29.4% or 29.6% is better. The 30% tax rate came naturally by bringing up the tax-free threshold and removing the top two tax brackets. It also gave a NIT base payment at about the same level as the HPI poverty line (indexed for inflation instead of wages).
Rowan, you might like to trawl through http://www.ipa.org.au and http://www.cis.org.au for infomation about Australian public policy from a free-market perspective. They both release excellent quarterly magazines (CIS Policy & IPA Review).
November 18, 2007 at 6:17 pm |
Who wrote the campaign launch press release? Had me in stitches!
November 18, 2007 at 7:37 pm |
Jarrod,
It was a joint effort. Mostly it was written by those that attended the NSW branch meeting last Thursday with some creative inspiration from the rest of the federal executive. DavidL added the final polish.
Regards,
Terje.
November 19, 2007 at 1:05 pm |
I just got off the phone with a guy from the EROS Association – he’d been looking at the party’s policies, and liked them. Said we were better than the Greens/Democrats who they’d been backing up until now. Promised to send out an email to all their members warmly praising us and suggesting that they put up stuff about us in their shops for customers to see. Yeehaw!
November 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm |
Ah, I checked my email and see that he’s got on to John too. Excellent. Excellent.
November 19, 2007 at 3:30 pm |
Great work Nick.
November 20, 2007 at 7:57 pm |
Why didn’t the LDP want to participate in either the Albert and Logan News and/or Reporter election coverage? The Reporter had 5 of the 7 candidates from Rankin (not the LDP or ALP) and the Albert and Logan had 4 of the 7 (Not LDP, Greens or Democrats). The Liberals, Family First and CEC participated in both. It seems strange that what is likely the least known party was the only party not to contribute to either.
November 20, 2007 at 8:34 pm |
Some of our candidates are only standing as a favour to the party and don’t actually want to be involved with the campaign.
“It’s their choice- not the government’s.”
November 21, 2007 at 9:40 pm |
Oh Dave,Dave,Dave what hast thou done?Actually,”liberty”and “democracy are a contradiction in terms. Full libertarianism is equivalent to anarchy (bring it on!),whereas democracy is majority rule (possibly by a small margin). Since people in general are not interested in politics they will be ruled by their inferiors. You’re a weird mob full of partially developed young minds. What’s more, lke any party you’ll be highjumped later on believe you me. The US constitution has liberty built in aplenty. Todays ÜS “democracy is fighting it tooth and nail The confused mix of folk you have in society and politics today is swaying in the winds of time, often breaking, often at breaking point, marching to the end of (its) time.
November 21, 2007 at 10:22 pm |
PB,
The “young minds” here are well aware of the tension between liberty and democracy. The difference between anarchists and libertarians is that libertarians believe in some kind of government. If we are going to have a government then we have to have some way of appointing it and you can either choose between democracy or autocracy. You can either be an anarchist, a libertarian democrat, or an libertarian autocrat. Most libertarians have problems with autocracy so they choose to be libertarian democrats. All the best with your problems.
November 21, 2007 at 10:25 pm |
PB – The term democracy as generally used is not merely a majoritarian voting system. And the concept called liberal democracy is well established and understood to contain several concepts beyond mere voting for government. Concepts like the rule of law, the right to free speech, judicial independence etc.
November 22, 2007 at 12:28 pm |
Just received an unsolicitated email;
From: “”
Subject: Which party suits you best?
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:21:00 +1100
who gives you the right to send out this garbage?
November 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm |
Whilst I completely support your views on economic liberalism, your ranking the ALP above the Coalition for prefernces gives me a real problem; the rejection of nuclear power by the ALP on idealogical grounds, rather than allowing its development or otherwise on its economic merits is the complete antithesis of my beliefs. I agree that a wake-up call for more economic freedom needs to be sent to all parties through a LDP first vote, but to support the ALP luddite philosophy through thae allocation of preferences to them is not something I can condone.
November 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm |
Why? The ALP don’t need our preferences, we need theirs, you might say economic liberalism is bleeding socialism in that case.
Anyhow, I was shocked by the summary here:
http://www.federalelection.com.au/electorates/riverina/index.asp#
November 23, 2007 at 3:47 pm |
Bill, you can vote LDP AND preference the Liberals. That’s what I will do. LDP position on preferences is for those who do not want to bother with the hard choices.
November 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm |
Most of us probably vote below the line anyway so the LDP’s preference deals don’t bother me.
If the party is ever popular, maybe they could consider doing two tickets, like the democrats do.
November 23, 2007 at 9:01 pm |
Many PJ oRourke fans here? if we want election slogans we could always raid his quotes…
“The great mystery of government is not how it works, but how to make it stop”
“giving money and power to government is like giving Whiskey and Car keys to teenage boys”
November 24, 2007 at 12:13 am |
Try;
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
But I really like;
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.
All the best for tomorrow.
November 25, 2007 at 11:54 am |
Costello to refuse the Liberal leadership
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/costello-wont-lead-libs/2007/11/25/1195947541130.html
November 26, 2007 at 3:56 pm |
Is there any discussion of the LDP concerning the Iraq War and foreign entanglements?
I think the LDP just missed a huge chance to appeal to the antiwar sentiment in Australia, and frankly, I believe that the LDP has NO FUTURE if it does not hold non-interventionism as a central party platform.
This should be clear with the success of the Ron Paul candidacy.
ps: Is there a better forum to discuss this issue?
November 26, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
I agree, Colin. I know there are people in the party (eg DavidL) who supported the Iraq adventure, but my impression is that they’re pretty heavily outnumbered in the party and public at large. There’s a long history of libertarian opposition to war- there’s a seamless connection. ‘War is the health of the state’, etc. We look rather ridiculous not taking a stand. We need an anti-interventionist plank in the platform.
November 26, 2007 at 4:54 pm |
@ Nick,
I expect either the LDP will make anti-interventionism a plank or another libertarian party will come along to do so.
Ron Paul has proven that it is a popular message that will bloom in the Internet age. Australia is probably a few years behind the US in using the Internet. By next election the Internet can play a significant part.
November 26, 2007 at 6:48 pm |
Perhaps a tad cynical comment from a Mr Ian Mott on Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog. How does the LDP connect with the 6% of swinging voters and persuade them to offer up their votes?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002580.html
“Howard was a prudent man, responsible for the consequences of his actions, and inactions, to those who elected him. But Kyoto was, and remains, a blank cheque that no responsible leader should have anything to do with.
The 6% of voters who changed their votes, were in most part “middle class battlers”, people who had got themselves into excessive debt for so-called “unaffordable houses”. These record unaffordable houses owe their unaffordability, not to any lack of attention from Howard but, rather, to the fact that unlike past more “affordable” housing, these had twice the floor area, five bedrooms for an average of 2.6 people, three bathrooms, three garages (one for the boat) and ducted aircon. These people, stuggling to reconcile their consumerist greed with their real earning capacity, actually took offense at Howard’s suggestion that they “never had it so good”.
Rudd, on the other hand, gave no specific undertakings but cleverly dished out loads of sympathy to these “working families” (as if some are not) and undertook to give them a classic piece of pointless symbolism, in the form of signing Kyoto.
What neither Rudd, nor Howard, to his own disadvantage, bothered to point out that the poeple most responsible for excessive human emissions are these very same people who simply could not envisage a future without a “living room” that is fully furnished but only used three times a year, a “family room”, a “dining room” that blends into a “TV room” and a “rumpus room”.
It is actually true, Howard was out of touch with these people. But so he should be, so should we all be. For it is they who are out of touch with even themselves, let alone with the majority of people on both sides of the body politic.
But if they think they are doing it tough now, just wait till Uncle Kevvie brings around their share of the blank cheque he will sign at Kyoto.”
November 26, 2007 at 7:33 pm |
Colin – There is a private forum for LDP activists. However I think you need to be a financial member. Send an email to DavidL if you want details.
You are right that there is an element within the LDP that opposed the Iraq war. I was against the Iraq war. However this is not the same as a blanket anti-war position. And in terms of the popularity of interventionism consider East Timor and Kosovo. What seems to be unpopular in Australia is not interventionism but interventionism that lacks multilateral international support. Not that the popularity of a position should define party policy.
November 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm |
Terje,
Thanks for the info.
November 27, 2007 at 8:35 am |
Ian asks: “What can you offer swinging voters?”
Ian, we will cut your taxes and tackle inflation, and hence lower interest rates in a sustainable manner. We will make it easier for you to start a business. We will end handouts to those who don’t need them. We have sensible proposals for climate changes that make us better off since we only need to flatten and broaden the base on taxes on fuel and get rid of energy subsidies. We will release more land, end much of the onerous regulation and charges on property development to lower the cost of housing. We will keep out of your personal life and allow parents to discipline children. We will fund students and not education departments, giving parents choice. We will let you become a shareholder in companies you own like the ABC, SBS and Aus Post, in fact we won’t sell it to you, we will give back to you what is righfully yours. We want a strong defence force ready to fight in forward deployment if necessary but we won’t have our soliders die in pointless adventurism. We will cut tariffs, meaning the 17.5% tax on clothing will be eliminated. The additional 10% tax on cars will go. We will restore Federalism so the Federal Government never gets too powerful. We will let you think and say as you please, if it is offensive it shouldn’t be illegal. We will let you do what you please on your own property as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone who doesn’t consent or it doesn’t affect anyone else’s property. We will never beat up on unions, foreigners or refugees the way Howard did to get votes. We won’t promise the earth so we can’t break your heart.
November 27, 2007 at 8:36 am |
Hi All,
Been noticing prolifigate use of the word fascist on this blog lately. I understand people are frustrated with the current governance of this country, but the word serves no useful purpose, and to the outsider might make us look like loonies.
November 27, 2007 at 9:42 am |
Uncensored speech in the private area? Where is it and does anyone go there?
November 27, 2007 at 10:53 am |
The Victorian Government certainly did, re the Religious Vilification and Tolerance Act.
November 27, 2007 at 12:41 pm |
I think it is surprising that you talk about individual choice and yet you represent the people of Camden in a negative light because of their individual choice. There is more to the rejection of the muslim school than then convenient popularist cliche of religious discrimination. People have a right to an opinion what ever that maybe and it is very frustrating to read your newsrelease on the issue which has you pick out ‘redneck’ type comments which are not a true reflection of the siutation – but no doubt gives you a holier than thou cause to hang your judgemental hat on.
November 27, 2007 at 1:01 pm |
Do you think there is a contradiction between individual choice and us criticising the people of Camden? How weird.
Actuallly, we are being perfectly consistent when we talk about individual choice and then defend the choices of Muslim Australians.
Individual choice requires that people are free to do what they like with what they own. The proponents of the school were doing that. The anti-Muslims of Camden were not. They were trying to control other people. My biggest concern about the Camden was not the biggotry, but the lack of respect for private property.
November 27, 2007 at 6:46 pm |
In this election we campaigned in marginal swing electorates with the idea of gaining media recognition and getting publicity if our preferences helped swing a seat. But if you look our media mentions, they can be boiled down to two types 1) new party on the block eg Terje’s ABC essay or 2) local papers profiling all local candidates as a matter of routine. Is this an optimal strategy?
When I did a thing at a Deakin shopping centre and was confronted by a vast whitebread audience, who looked as if an even higher proportion than nationally would be rusted on lib/lab supporters. Our policies are radical, edgy, challenging to most people. The people who contacted me during the campaign were generally young, ‘hip’, etc. I think we should have been running in seats like my seat (Melbourne) in the inner city, because it has a lot of young socially progressive, fiscally ‘dry’, ‘creative’ types.
November 27, 2007 at 7:45 pm |
I agree Nick. I actually suggested this before the election, but I do feel that the marginal seat strategy was worth trying.
The idea was that our preferences could be seen as “Kingmaker” and give us media attention. Or contesting a marginal might have given us some attention. All the media attention in marginal seats seems to be focused on the two star candidates from the majors.
Melbourne, Melbourne Ports, Sydney, Wentworth, North Sydney, Grandlyer and other similar seats would probably work out better for us. Any seat with a high Green vote usually works, actually.
November 28, 2007 at 8:07 am |
Yeah the problem with marginal seats is the voters know they are in a a marginal seat and all want to vote Lib/Lab to have a direct impact on the outcome of the election.
November 28, 2007 at 10:29 am |
LDP mentioned (though not favourably): http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/11/27/9242_opinion.html
November 28, 2007 at 10:33 am |
Fleeced,
I’ve sent them an email already this morning. The journalist made no effort to find basic facts when home brewed innuendo would do.
Regards,
Terje.
November 28, 2007 at 11:13 am |
We are a conspiracy.
November 28, 2007 at 3:44 pm |
I wouldn’t worry about the geelong addy. It’s basically a gutter tabloid and the standard of journalism (and even basic grammar) is at all times absolutely horrendous.
December 19, 2007 at 12:26 am |
Hello,
I’ve just watched Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” and had some questions on the LDP’s health policy that I thought I’d ask here.
Is there a need for change in Australia? The LDP health policy statement asserts that the mixed private/public system in Australia is “failing to meet expectations”. I would think that you’d need to look at international comparisons in order to assess whether or not this was true. How does Australia compare internationally in terms of health outcomes and efficiencies? Just intuitively, I would have thought that Australia wouldn’t compare too badly. (Sorry, it’s too late in the night to try and search for the info!)
What evidence is there to suggest that a free market approach to health care would necessarily be more efficient? The US system is obviously not. (Having said that, the idea of providing insurance through employers seems very strange to me and I realise that the idiosyncrasies of the US system wouldn’t have to be adopted by other countries wanting to privatise health.)
Will “new organisations providing health care services” really emerge? Won’t an oligopoly be the most likely outcome in Australia? Even lower-middle income groups appear to be priced out of insurance market in the US – if there is insufficient competition in the US in this industry, on what basis is it argued that competition will work in Australia to provide affordable insurance?
Also, I find persuasive the argument that in relation to health, there are efficiencies to be gained under a public system. Doctors who rely on sick people returning for further care may be less concerned as they could be about preventative health care, whereas in a public health care system, incentives could be put into place to encourage doctors to focus more on preventative care.
I don’t know how accurate Michael Moore’s portrayal of the US health care system is, but the idea of sick people being dumped by hospitals outside shelters and babies dying because they are refused treatment at hospitals not affiliated with their HMO is pretty scary to me, and the US system is what most people think of when they think of privatised health care.
Having said all of that though, I’m very much for the opening up of competition in the training and qualification of health care workers, and I agree that people should take personal responsibility for their health care decisions. Poor lifestyle choices (smoking and, generally, obesity) should not be underwritten by the government.
Answers and thoughts would be appreciated!
December 19, 2007 at 1:26 pm |
1. Australia actually has a very good health system, on international comparisons. I don’t think international benchmarking is paticularly useful – most countries have bottlenecks due to Govenrment approved competition limiting or inefficiencies of State run businesses. America is more market based but the market power of their doctors seems much stronger. The US system does indeed include public healthcare, which is more expensive, and uninsurance is a myth – 85% of Americans are covered, and those who choose to forgo cover are typically young affluent professionals.
2. There is tonnes of evidence. You need to look for it. You are presenting two problems here, one of efficiency in different systems and the nature of the US system.
Waiting lines in Canada and Britian kill so many people that Canadian Ministers have gone to the US for treatment. US private administrative costs are higher but the cost per paitient is about 2.44 times less than public healthcare in the US. Furthermore, for an equivalent level of cover, the US Medicaid and Medicare are actually expensive compared to private cover. Factor in FICA taxes which must be paid first to access Medicare and it is a raw deal.
3. Yes they will. The current health insurance system is protected from any foreign competition. Remove this protection, foreign insurers will compete. This protection is one of the reasons why private healthcare is more expensive than it needs to be.
With regards to removing restrictions on interdisciplinary operations, the HMO system in the US saves a lot of time, reduces insurance cost and does not operate under an oligopoly siutation – technically speaking, they are monopolsitic competitors, like your local fish & chips shop. Oilgopolies occur in industries with larger economies of scale – such as insurance – but this is completely natural and actually beneficial.
4. Why would the public system see such incentives and the private sector wouldn’t? The Medicare system of subsidising medical visits doesn’t encourage the type of incentive you talk about, rather it is a perverse incentive you outline the private sector may have. If more people have control over their health budgets and there is a more open market with more differentiated and high level care, then doctors will certainly be more willing to make more treatment preventative, and paitients will seek it out.
5. I haven’t seen it, but Moore is the only person who really claims this happens.
6. The incentive type changes you desire will lead to the changes outlined above. Some of the incentives can only change or are better managed under a private system.
December 20, 2007 at 12:02 am |
“Waiting lines in Canada and Britian kill so many people that Canadian Ministers have gone to the US for treatment. ”
This is the key difference between Australian and US systems, and it’s primarily a cultural one.
Australia came from Britain, and the British response to a shortage is to wait in line for your turn. The American response is to give someone lots of money to do it right now.
December 20, 2007 at 8:26 pm |
I would like to see a continuation of the topic
December 20, 2007 at 11:25 pm |
Thanks for the responses.
Mark,
First off, is the LDP statement calling for an employment linked US style HMO system or just a straight out privatised health care system with private health insurance?
(Please note that I only have a limited knowledge of t he US health system and a general knowledge of the Australian one. Hopefully what I’m saying isn’t too uninformed.)
I think that I mixed up two issues in my previous comment somewhat: (1) access to insurance and (2) health care costs for those who do have insurance (I guess this second issue if one of efficiency).
In relation to access, you say that 85 % of Americans are covered. So what does happen to the those who aren’t for whatever reason and can’t afford to pay when they front up to a hospital needing emergency or non-emergency treatment?
In relation to health care costs for those with insurance, cost per patient figures may be important but I don’t think that they can be considered separate from the level of services delivered. One of the points of the doco was that the HMOs were denying claimants (those who were insured) payments for tests and treatments for spurious reasons to save themselves money. So, low cost per patient but less care provided per patient. Examples: arguing that a treatment was experimental when it wasn’t and denying a claim because of the non-disclosure of a totally unrelated and minor yeast infection. Corporations being corporations – which is fine if people are able to make choices. Then, market forces, competition, improvements in service levels and costs, etc., etc.
I think I get your point about HMOs being monopolistic (for the employee/consumer?) – but that’s not good, right? If so, what controls are there to prevent the HMO’s from providing poor service? I’m thinking that employer companies can choose which HMO to go with, but then the employers aren’t the ones receiving the medical care and so have less incentive to care about levels of service. Again, under a non-HMO privatised system how would an oligopolistic situation in Australia be good for consumers? It’s no good if even those who are insured face high health care costs because of high co-payments and the denial by insurers of adequate medical treatment.
Sick people being dumped by hospitals on the streets and babies dying untreated sounds dramatic but I can’t see why it wouldn’t happen under the US system. Perhaps I don’t fully understand how the US system works – a simple explanation anyone?
As for the LDP policy, I can’t see any safeguards in the proposed system that would prevent this from happening. While I am very much in favour of civic institutions and communities stepping in to help whenever possible (and governments not displacing their role), I’m afraid that I can’t see charities being able to cover the health care costs across the board for all those who may need it but can’t afford it and are uninsured for whatever reason. So, again, sick people being dumped and babies dying untreated.
I would like to see incentive changes but would oppose a health care system without some form of safety net. What would be the negatives be of staying with Australia’s mixed public/private system but pushing for greater privatisation? Increase the medicare levy surcharge until you push all the middle and higher income groups off the public health care system but leave it in place to provide care for the uninsurable and the poor. This way you would have a system with the right incentives in place for the majority of the population (which would be good as as you outlined) and hopefully a reduced medicare levy too as the public health system contracts.
As for whether you could incentivize (argh – bad word!) preventative care in a private health care system just as well as you could in a public one, I’ll have to think about that.
December 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm |
“Australia came from Britain”
Arguably USA also came from Britain. Just saying.
December 21, 2007 at 11:10 am |
‘Arguably USA also came from Britian. Just saying.’
Yeah, but the USA fought a revolution to emphasise that they were going to do things differently to Britian.
December 21, 2007 at 11:13 am |
In contrast we looked to Mother England for a long time, revering their sophisticated and enlightened way of doing things.
December 21, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
G’day,
Years ago, when I first started work in the 70’s, Fraser had just abolished Medibank so I was looking for private health care. HAI insurance had a cheap catastrophe cover. I had to pay the first $500 out of my pocket, the insurance covered the rest. Sounded like a good idea to young Ralph so I signed up. The health funds didn’t like the competition so they kicked up a stink and Fraser banned that type of cover.
I still think its a good idea especially if you start young, most people would be better off if they saved the difference between the catastrophe insurance and health funds.
Perhaps some type of tax free account could be set up to give people the option.
ta
December 23, 2007 at 12:06 am |
Does electing a labor government count as a catastrophe?
December 23, 2007 at 11:29 am |
Only if you supported the national socialist “Liberal” (sic) joke of a party.
December 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm |
The health funds didn’t like the competition so they kicked up a stink and Fraser banned that type of cover.
They must have unbanned it because that’s exactly what I have now with MBF. My policy has an excess of $1000. It only includes hospital cover, but that’s where the big expenses occur.
December 28, 2007 at 9:40 pm |
Hope everyone had a good Christmas. Happy New Year and I hope to see many of you at the National Conference.
February 17, 2008 at 12:35 am |
Has anyone given thought to a policy on skill shortages?
I ask because it is in the news a lot and is one of the two main reasons given by the RBA for lifting interest rates.
I’m unconvinced that attracting migrants with poor English from the sub-continent is a good solution. Especially since we have some 500,000 unemployed and 600,000 underemployed.
February 17, 2008 at 1:24 am |
ED — it’s not nice to say, but all humans were NOT created equal. Some are dumb. Most of the 500,000 unemployed would make very bad brain surgeons, trail lawyers or even accountants… even if you sent them to university for 100 years. I would prefer a smart Indian over a dumb Aussie any day.
But the issue of skills is really an issue of appropriate education policy, mixed with an overly strict licencing regime.
February 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
I get annoyed at the assertion that we currently have ‘full employment’ when clearly, we do not. The un-stated assumption being that it is not possibly to reduce unemployment further. However, the facts indicate otherwise.
Consider this, while Australia has an unemployment rate of 4.1%, in Qld it is 3.4%; in WA 3.3%; and in ACT 2.3%.
International comparisons are also instructive, see this:
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697961
For example, Switzerland has an unemployment rate of 2.6%, in Singapore it is just 1.6% and the lowest, Iceland, is a staggering 0.8% (though admittedly, inflation is running a bit high at 5.9%).
And of course, lets not forget that Australia in the 50s and 60s achieved unemployment rates as low as 1%.
So while I can accept that we are not all created equal, I do not accept that we have too many dumb people in this country.
The bottom line is that Australia has the human resources, but we have badly mismanaged them.
February 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
Get annoyed all you like ED… but I didn’t mention full employment. Of course we currently don’t have it. Of course we could with some reform to IR laws.
And I didn’t say we had too many dumb people. There is no correct number of dumb people.
But that’s irrelevant.
All the IR reform and 100 years of education will never make a stupid person smart enough to do a smart-person job. In the modern PC world you’re not allowed to point out the bleedingly obvious fact that some people just aren’t smart enough… but I’m not PC. So let me be clear. Some people just aren’t smart enough.
We should be helping the bottom 1 million get the best job they can. But that is not likely to be a high-skill job. Most long-term unemployed would make bad surgeons. So it’s not going to fix the “skills shortage”.
February 20, 2008 at 7:55 am |
John, isn’t the skills shortage used more in reference to “dumb person jobs” like plumbers and mechanics? I’ve never heard a surgeon being called a “skilled profession” in the context of the last year of talk.
Last I heard there are too many people in Uni and not enough in TAFE. The problem is dumb people are too ambitious
They shouldn’t be trying to be a surgeon, there’s nothing innately better about Uni than TAFE. Going to Uni and engaging in academia doesn’t even make a person smarter. TAFE often provides more relevant knowledge- I think even some things like primary school teaching should be taught through TAFE. Skill with children is more important in primary school teaching than research ability and critical analysis…
But anyway, we need more people in TAFE, I believe. Trades are where we are hurting mostly in Australia.
February 20, 2008 at 11:25 am |
“Dumb person jobs” are not plumbers and mechanics. They’re actually pretty smart people.
People who work in retail stores, service stations and warehouses are more likely to fit the definition. For many of these jobs, even literacy and numeracy requirements are low.
Below that are people who aren’t smart enough to work a cash register or fill in a form. They are never going to trainable as plumbers or mechanics. The only way to keep them out of welfare is to have a sufficiently low wage that they can be paid what they are worth.
February 21, 2008 at 11:37 am |
David- from my experience most of the “dumb kids” are capable of going on to TAFE and completing an apprenticeship.
Australia has a 99.9% literacy rate so there’s very few people unable to use simple arithmetic or fill out forms.
Most people currently on welfare would be capable of a trade if they were trained in it. John was saying that most long-term unemployed would never be able to be a good surgeon. I was countering that they would do decently in a trade- which is something they’d be capable of.
The problem with long-term unemployed isn’t intelligence. It is self-esteem, welfare dependency, poor social skills and lack of motivation. Problems that should be tackled by schools in low-income areas. Schools should be able to provide learning targeted towards people that have low social awareness. But instead we force the VCE/ HSC model onto kids that have far bigger concerns.
I repeat what I said before, though. I think we need more people in TAFE. Trades are where the skills shortage is felt most acutely. I think the solution is education reform. Most long-term unemployed would be able to learn a trade if they actually wanted to. High EMTRs are of course a disincentive, too. The working poor, rather than the unemployed, deserve the biggest breaks. Especially when unemployment is low. Obviously when unemployment is high the situations changes a bit.
April 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
This might have been raised before but 30% tax is *not* libertarian.
Why not set a real libertarian goal of something like 5% income taxes, and cancel all transfer payments and welfare. No Centrelink, no Medicare or anything. The government’s role would then be justice, security and defence.
Centrelink and Medicare could be spun off as private/non-profit charities, thus keeping people’s jobs for the short term, and the government could post everyone a directory of charities and good causes for people to choose what (if anything) they wish to support.
Such a unique policy would spread quickly due to it’s scandal/novelty value, and have widespread support from many in Australia.
Under a system of very low taxed the people would get tens of thousands back each year to spend as they please. On themselves, charities, good causes – anything they choose.
April 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
This comes up a lot, Matthew, but essentially the LDP is a party of reform, not revolution.
Of course the 30-30 system is not a radical idea to libertarians. But in a world where every other party either wants to raise tax or offer tax-cuts that barely compensate for bracket creep, it is radical.
If you are interested in the difference between radical and reformist libertarian parties and their electoral chances have a look at the ACT and Libertarianz parties in New Zealand.
One of the medium-term goals of the LDP is to be to liberal politics what the Greens are to socialist politics, rather than to be what Socialist Alliance is to socialist politics.
If people are saying LDP policy isn’t libertarian enough, I am glad. It means there are people in Australia that believe in freedom. But in the absence of a more liberal party who are you going to vote for?
April 19, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
Hi
I support the LDP’s firearms policy.
Since it is a small party would it ever compromise though. Like a right to carry mace,knives, batons,etc. rather than firearms. Obviously it can’t pass anything at its size now but would it ever put a bill before parliament to allow the carrying of knives, batons and mace. Like trying to put forward something that is better than the current situation but actually has a chance of being passed or having some other politicians vote for it. Considering how brainwashed the average politician in their upper class secured homes and even the average Aussie is when it comes to firearms related issues.
April 20, 2008 at 10:57 pm |
Well it’s hard to say exactly what position we’d be in if we had a Senator or state Upper Houseman elected. We don’t have a policy position of every particular option.
We are broadly supportive of any motion which increases the ability of individuals to protect themselves from crime- especially in their own homes. In particular, while it’s not policy I think we’d be interested in the legalisation of defensive weapons that people (especially the women and elderly) could use to the defend themselves- things like mace and tasers more than batons and knives.
There is a common law principle known as “effective means of self-defence” that criminals are held to, I believe that this in itself is adequate regulation when it comes to the use of weapons for self-defence.
In short like any minor party we would make compromises where we could, but we can’t give any specific details.
April 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm |
Matthew Lock:
I am a LDP member. I have proposed an alternative that we simply eliminate Federal duplication of State agencies, and then a flat 20% GST equally distributed per capita to States and Shires, replacing all other taxation. With GDP growth, the rate can be incrementally lowered.
I like the current LDP policy (being a massive improvement on the status quo), but think we can do better. Thankyou for your suggestion.
I suggest you visit this page if you haven’t laready:
http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/get-involved/
April 22, 2008 at 6:10 pm |
Both the current LDP positions and the 20% flat GST are great improvements on the current status quo, but just to reiterate my point, I don’t think they are sufficiently different to capture people’s imaginations and to generate a talking point in the community. The revolution is our only hope I reckon
May 18, 2008 at 7:24 pm |
The current system of drivers licensing is stupid. Getting a drivers license is a major transition into mainstream life, answer a few questions, negoitate a round – about, obey a few signs on test day and your in. No psyocologicial tests, not much of anything that would contribute to respecting the rights of others, their property, or rights.
The state basiclly has control of the day to day activities of young people to legal driving age. The test should be more than driving a vehicle according to signposting. It should be the place where the state says “if you wish to be on the road to pursue further education or employment then you must show us that you have the necessary driving skills (85% of a V8 supcar driver?), and social interaction skills”. Sound nanny statist? Maybe, but if you can instill the principals of self responsibility at this point then governments should have less customers, and the rest of society should have less government intervention in their lives. We could probably even get rid of speed limits. Reinstate the freedom of gun ownership?
May 23, 2008 at 7:43 pm |
I’m new to the LDP and am finding it a breath of fresh air.
Just finished going through the policies, and having digested “Lifestyle Choices” am left wondering: why no mention of polygamy?
Any idea?
And yes, Duffy, a proper skills and attitude test rather than the current cut n paste Driving test would be a big improvement, and not at all “Nanny State” – it’s just demonstrating that you are genuinely fit to operate in the same environment as others before being allowed to do so. Incompetent drivers infringe directly on other road users and lead to (or justify) ridiculous road rules. Even more scary is the ease with which one can become a Company Director with no real idea of what’s involved….but that’s another discussion.
May 26, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
Maybe not to V8 supercar standard but at least to at least MR (medium rigid) standard with a compulsory defensive course, attitude test, an understanding of the power of the various vehicles, etc. Probably take about 3 months to become competent.
Cost? Maybe it could be included with education?
May 27, 2008 at 11:45 am |
I can’t see why it wouldn’t happen with deregulation. Private learner driver schools already teach defensive driving, not the RTA and so on.
Anyone should be able to become a compnay director otherwise you can’t control your own sole trading firm you wish to incorporate and perhaps expand or franchise. If you are publicly listed, you can get rolled in an AGM if you are really that bad.
If someone benevolent wants to start a charity/scholarship to pay for others to complete the Chartered Secretaries course, that would be a great idea.
May 29, 2008 at 9:11 pm |
But how far do you go with deregulation Mark? does the state remain as the higher power, setting competentcy levels and the final testing authority? Remove the state as the final testing authority and taxpayers should benefit a fair bit I think. I will try and find some time to do some research amongst driving schools and get their thoughts, it could lift our profile and maybe even garner some donations.
May 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm |
So where does the LDP stand on monetary policy? I can’t find any mention of it anywhere on your website.
May 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
We do have a broad idea of keeping budgets balanced over the cycle, keeping monetary growth low and predictable but looking into the prospect of free banking.
It just isn’t something that excites people like gay marriage, firearms or raising the tax free threshold to $30 000.
June 1, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
Around the last Sunday afternoon of every month there is a jam session at the Bribie Hotel. All types of music is played, So if any of you people are in a band and are interested in a bit of exposure or just want a opportunity to play a couple of sets before an audience, give me a call on 0408989615 or email : greensail@myway.com
Recently one of the bands at the gig, played very good music, had all the good gear etc. very professional, but could’nt help gloating about Howards defeat between music.
Can I get a band with an alternate view. One of freedom, libetry, etc.
June 1, 2008 at 11:50 pm |
I think, certainly in the interim, the state should remain as the final testing authority. It’s just that the test needs to change – dramatically! The basis of demanding a drivers license is that a motorist is in a position of being able to inflcit serious harm on the persons or property of others (and on himself – but that’s not our concern). So the person needs to demonstrate that they have been trained to a level that they do not pose such a threat to others. This means attitude as much as practical mechanical skill. So, a very different test to the current one, which merely shows that you have been trained to pass a test. In my view, there should be no minimum age. It would be so hard to pass that no immature kid would get one.
The cost of traiinng I should have thought is obviously their private business. The actual cost of testing – it would be high, and most would expect multiple attempts – should be borne by the applicant.
Later the roads authority should devolve to a fully independent body, funded exclusively by road users (I’ve been in correspondence with JH about that). Whether it’s practically possible to eventually go to privatisation of the roads….. that’s way too premature.
Mike
June 2, 2008 at 12:00 am |
One more for the road…. drink driving. On the one hand, a good case can be made for waiting till there is actual harm, having compulsory alcohol testing for all involved in accidents, and only penalising those whose drinking actually leads to harm. This is actually quite atractive
But it is also apparent that this is a bit harsh on the victim, run over by some clown with enough alcohol in his system that he should have known it would pose a risk to others. My personal view is that 0.05 is a reasonable limit. I’ve lived under 0.08, in South Africa, and the trouble with that is (if I may put it colloquially) that at 0.079 you really start to feel like another beer. The really serious problem with the current system is that at 0.049 you’re an innocent citizen, yet at 0.051 you are sudenly such a monster that you’re not fit to be on the road. Due to biological variations, testing procedure uncertainty, and such factors, I would like to see a graduated system with fine/points starting at 0.05 and full disqualification only after 0.08. Also, more serious distinction between causing an accident with alcohol in the blood, and just *having* alcohol in the blood.
Thoughts, anyone?
Mike
June 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
It should also depend on where and when you drive. If you are roaring through school crossings at 10 to 9 in the morining while loaded on vodka it is one thing. If you’re poking home on a deserted country road at 3am, knowing you won’t pass a single car in your 100km trip, it should be quite another. Having done the second a few times, the only life I risk is my own….
June 3, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
Mark, I think the idea of gold and silver as money is very exciting, beats paper which the government and banks can then use to inflate away your savings, as is happening right now.
Why is the price of everything going up? it’s not, the value of your money is going down, why? because the reserve bank and the commercial banks are inflating the money supply. It’s quite simple, as the money supply increases, its value decreases (because there is more of it), therefore you need more of it to exchange for any good or service (of which there isn’t more), so ‘prices’ rise.
The simplest way to control government is to have a gold standard i.e. paper redeemable in gold, not gold redeemable in paper.
You cannot inflate the supply of physical gold. In fact it says in the constitution that the states at least can only use gold and silver as payment for debt.
June 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm |
I don’t blame the commercial banks. Inflation hurts them as well. Government policy has an inflationary bias.
June 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
Sure government policy has an inflationary bias, that’s what big government is all about.
But it’s the reserve bank, with the charter to issue money and the commercial banks with their fractional reserve lending, who inflate the money supply. Inflation only hurts the bank tellers, the bosses pay rises keep pace with inflation. That is, until they leverage their depositors savings so much the bank goes bust!
June 5, 2008 at 10:55 am |
Fractional reserve lending exists in privatised banking systems as well (such as in the free banking period in Scotland). Getting rid of it would require you to change the nature of Western commerce.
There are two views on banking and inflation from the Austrian school (the school of thought that takes inflation seriously).
Mises: Manipulation of interest rates causes the boom bust cycle. Of course this will be worse with fractional banking but fractional banking is not the problem.
Rothbard: A very illiberal solution and following his ideas requires some very unusual definitions such as defining unclaimed insurance policies as a form of money.
Australian Banks have not collapsed. The State Bank of Victoria had to be restructured, but this was from Government interference and mismanagement. Before 1900, there were bank failures but these were linked to massive fraud in land sales. Someone else’s fraud is not your fault obviously.
Indeed, the most stable macroeconomic periods in Australia and some American States and in Canada involved free banking and a gold standard. The reserve ratio was roughly 40%. Bank liquidity problems were solved through inter-bank loans.
As an economist I recommend you read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises especially Ch. 17 Indirect Exchange, s. 12, The Limitation on the Issuance of Fiduciary Media. I believe it totally contradicts Rothbard and his advice to ban anything but 100% backed banking.
Furthermore, I cannot defend intervening in the deposit or loan contract between banks and their customers (i.e consenting adults) as there are no external costs imposed on anyone else.
June 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
Mark, I don’t think anything you’ve said really changes my point.
Inflating the money supply will cause the value of money to depreciate against whatever goods and services people need said money to purchase. Who has the ability to inflate the money supply? The reserve bank and commercial banks and for all I know the investment banks as well, with big government hitching a ride.
You’ve favourably mentioned the gold standard, is this something the LDP would like to see?
June 6, 2008 at 10:25 am |
I think you need to recognise that inflation is really caused by persistent monetary disequilibria, essentially caused by the central bank supply of money (or growth) being greater than demand or the growth in money demand.
Private banks would not be able to create unecessary inflation or deflation under austerirty under fiat reserve controlled money, the gold standard or free banking. Those are my personal preferences – more austerity, a gold standard and free banking.
There used to be broad statement about having austerity and investigating the possibility of free banking.
Other than this, it is purely speculation. I know some people, paticularly libertarians are very passionate about this, but electorally, it doesn’t make much impact. What should make you feel better off is we essentially believe the same things and are aware of the deleterious nature of persistent money and credit mispricing and manipulation.
Free banking institutions generally used a gold standard will probably do so in the future. David Freidman has proposed a basket of commodities to hedge against supply shocks.
Having the gold standard again may influence Governments to act in a fiscally responsible manner, but for only as long as they wish to keep the gold. In effect I think we would still need a monetary rule we see today applied to gold.
June 7, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
It might just make an impact though if people actually knew that persistent monetary disequilibria was the cause of inflation, rather than as you hear and read in the news that rising prices is causing inflation.
On the ABC recently, the so called ‘economics editor’ of a Canberra newspaper even said that inflation was caused by economic growth!
Didn’t Keynes say something along the lines of only one man in a million would recognise the effects of monetary debasement?
July 4, 2008 at 8:23 pm |
I used to paddle just don’t find much time to get out these day’s. Dammed rivers are dead rivers so far as I am concerned. Some of you may be interested in this well researched article in a “green” ezine, Well ….. they highlight the way the State and big business just steamroll anyone who happens to be in their way, I don’t think you have to be “green” to hate that.
International Rivers’ third annual “Dams, Rivers & People” report explains the failure of the world’s biggest carbon offsets program to make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions. It also maps the world of rivers and dams for the past year and pinpoints hotspots for the coming year.
Can’t get a link on here google International Rivers and it is the May ezine.
July 15, 2008 at 6:53 am |
I’ve looked at the LDP policy on the environment and water, but there is no mention of the River Murray. Are there any policies or at least basic principles that the party might apply in order to fix the current mess?
July 15, 2008 at 11:42 am |
Anon, the basic principles would be private property rights over the river, market pricing for water, and no subsidies to irrigators or others in the Basin. How those are applied in detail to the specific contexts in various parts of the Basin, I don’t know.
July 15, 2008 at 11:13 pm |
Sure. But are you suggesting that the whole river system could be owned by a single private corporation?
July 16, 2008 at 7:56 pm |
That’s highly unlikely, but theoretically not impossible.
What I meant by “private property rights” is that the decisions about the land on the river and the water that flows through it should be taken by the land owners, not dictated by government bodies.
August 9, 2008 at 12:14 am |
I think Liberty and Democracy Party is the wrong name, because you guys are not about democracy (thank-god) and I know for a fact that most people who just hear the name of the party think of insane pinkos (at least in my experience).
“The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.” – Ayn Rand.
August 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm |
Re; Mike Marsh June 2, 2008,
Of course there is a very good case for waiting until harm is actually done. As long as the penalties are swift, severe and well publicised enough to be a real deterrent.
The case for arbitrary limits, whether they be 0.05, 0.08 or any other number you care to pull out of fresh air, is at the very best weak. These limits are deemed to be an absolute limit, such that at 0.049 I am sober and 0.002 later I am a stumbling drunk. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition, as there are any number of variables that must be taken in to consideration to ascertain my ability (or lack there of) to maintain control of a vehicle. Any laws formed on the basis of “more likely to” are fundamentally flawed, and have the potential to become the thin edge of the wedge in regard to legislation of “Nanny State” policies. Following the logic of the argument for these limits, it would be equally valid to charge all accountants with embezzlement, all retail employees with theft and all spouses with murder, on the basis that these groups are statistically more likely to commit these crimes.
All such legislation and policies, such as gun control measures, speed limits, pornography laws, and anti-tobacco and drug programs, must be reviewed with the following bias. (ok I am paraphasing here) Everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as this does not impinge on anyone else’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
August 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
Don’t you think it just a little counterproductive to be running for political office when among your central messages is that politicians are too incompetent do, well, just about anything? I can imagine the day you guys run the country. This scrapped. That scrapped. This left. Nothing to do. Better retire now.
Some sort of not-for-profit organisation where you seek to challenge the whims of present politicans would be more effective methinks. And probably the best policy along your lines would involve allowing citizen initiated referenda to (easily) override the stupid ideas of politicians.
August 22, 2008 at 10:08 pm |
In some countries, (probably thinking of the USA here), Property boundries for creeks and rivers were usually set at midstream where the land either side of the river or creek were on different titles.
August 27, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
Justin,
I’d support free banking and a gold standard but as Mark Hill says it is proberly not something that fires the publics imagination. That is not to say that it isn’t a worthy reform.
September 10, 2008 at 1:30 pm |
This material may be offensive to some and I sincerely apologise for any harm done. Please take nothing to heart as it is merely my personal outlook on the LDP and it’s relationship with the other political state.
First Address to the Libertarian Democratic Party of Australia
By Adam Young
The direction of the Libertarian party in Australia is anything but formidable. It is weak, powerless and without structured control. The ability to strengthen the political party and forming a muscular government is in exact opposition to the principle beliefs of social Libertarianism. This is the primary reason why the Libertarian Democratic Party of Australia will never gain power unless they band an authoritarian capitalist propaganda campaign to gain support from the working class.
The LDP is viewed as un-idealistic, pragmatic and against traditional views on behalf of economic and social order. This is then portrayed with the little votes at election time, the LDP targets against every other party and does not align itself with a forerunner of politics. If they were to do so, they also run the risk of discerning members whom seek this as a moral breakdown of Libertarian beliefs.
As a radical Libertarian, my economic views scale from left to right on the political compass. My reliance upon the government should be merely in support of welfare, health and defence. Privatisation of these three factors would lead to the inevitable destruction of Australian society. Especially defence, which in the eyes of Libertarians is a weak spot, for de-centralization of the governing body in turn, affects the size of the armed forces. Whilst I am all for reducing the military, withdrawing troops and re-directing budgets to Welfare and the Healthcare system, it is unpractical to assume a total Libertarian state can control the military.
The only way the LDP (*as the only registered Libertarian party in Australia) can assume power, within the next 12 years is via the following:
-Identify themselves with the public, expressing leadership through radical ideas. Through this it creates attention and media coverage for expansion and growth in membership.
-A provisional government of authoritarian control, for temporary means. I must be clear on the temporary means for I am strongly anti-authority. However, free thinking social equality won’t gain a party power and merely place minor seats in the government.
-Align ourselves with a ruling figure on the national stage. Ideally perhaps the Liberal Party of Australia. The Labor party is incompetent and their support of government rule over the peoples inevitably leads to inflation difficulties, backwards inanity and cognitive thought with progressions and authoritarianism. Left-wing ideologies are idealistic in hindsight but society must grasp that a Utopian society is for dreamers, and the closest we can get is through Libertarian means.
With the LDP aligned we can place stronger points of view and perhaps manipulate the governing system. The major disadvantage for the LDP is it targets the strength of the government itself. Significantly reducing members and creating a small government state would receive no votes in the governing body and so the LDP must manipulate a façade of smooth talking, false ideals and removing our ‘devil’s advocate’ stance until we stand as a dominant political power. Without doing so, the Libertarian society of Australia will always remain as a shadow on the governing stage.
Libertarian Philosophy:
‘Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty’
In overall thought, the LDP must obviously expand. We must use protests and propaganda as a message to the classes. No Revolution or coup, but a peaceful means to the eventual overhaul of the ruling government, particularly the labor party whom is struggling in its justifications to run Australia correctly. The socialist thinkers are too out of touch with the real world and support citizens whom are the disgrace to Darwinist theories.
Once in Power:
The step into power should ratify all forms of opposition. Target all institutions which promote fascist, communist and socialist ideals. Radicals as these would only oppose and revolt against true Libertarian rule. The LDP, being significantly weaker then other political parties due to the smaller government state would go under threat of opposition and thus must be taken care of properly. All proposals should go on behalf of the public through voting and polls (no longer compulsory) and the parliament house of Canberra re-structured.
There are still a few principles I disagree with on the LDP, we must maintain a gun ban and not promote privatized medical care. Recreational Drug use should be regulated and taxing should still be a defining factor in society. Perhaps reduced to an extent, but not eliminated. The mere idea that Libertarian Australia can survive off no taxes is incredibly dense and obtuse, and would never establish ourselves as a developed nation.
Foreign alliance should be the forerunner of the small governing body. With the destabilization on defence we face the very surreal threat of invasion. That is why we must encourage free-trade and better deals with the developed nations whom we can deal with. An alliance with the following would safely secure Australia as a Libertarian state;
• The United States
• Canada
• Great Britain
• France
• China
• Germany
All other nations must not be trusted entirely with their political and militaristic choices.
I will continue this political address in sometime, I appreciate your readings into adopting a new Australian system, where all citizens have the rights and pro-choice, through a free democratic society.
September 10, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
Adam
Thanks for your contribution.
Having been involven with the LDP for around 4 years now I can tell you that takig a “radical” agenda does not work with the electorate. Most people see themselves as centrist not radical and cast their votes accordingly.
I think we are moving in the right direction by identifying ourselves as mild libertarian and pushing an agenda that a significant minority of Australians can identify with.
From your assertion that we need to gain real political control within 12 years I imagine you are still reasonably young and idealistic. The LDP gaining Two or Three seats in the NSW/Victorian upper house and perhaps a Senator elected is a more realistic. Not that your enthusiasm is unwanted, god knows we don’t get enough of that, its just that it needs to be channeled where it can be of some use.
I would urge you, if you are indeed looking to make a real contribution, to start up a viable Libertarian or LDP branch within your university campus.
September 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm |
Thankyou David.
Yes, im 19 and attend the University of Newcastle. Popular support for the labor movement has made things increasingly difficult in political discussions throughout the University. If I remember correctly, in our recent University survey of some 9,000 students; 49% were for labour, 22% Greens (un-realistic student hippies) 25% Liberal, 3% socialist and only 1% Libertarian. I find myself up against some of the smartest political speakers in discussion theatres and am greatly outnumbered for ligitamate defence. Unfortunately for the LDP, whilst they have minor support in other states, they are definently struggling in the city of Newcastle.
September 11, 2008 at 9:14 am |
Adam
Good to hear you are debating these Labor types.
The fact you are a Libertarian (and hopefully a member of the LDP!) actually gives you a HUGE advantage over people supporting Labor, Green and Liberal parties. Unlike those tree parties, the LDP has a consistent and logical philosophy underlying its policies.
When debating these guys it should not be too difficult to show how hollow the Liberals and Labor parties are.
On Labor
1) While I believe their constitution still calls on them to either nationalise or keep in government hands “assets” such as banks, insurance companies telephone companies etc etc, both federal and state labor have privatized such entities in recent years because it makes sheer common sense! Just look at the debate on electricity privatisation in NSW, not to mention the lack of branch level democracy, factionalism etc etc.
2) If you are at Uni how about gay rights? While in opposition the likes of Penny Wong hammered the Howard government for interfering in the ACT Labor governments decision to allow gay marriage/civil unions here in the ACT. When he got into power however Kevin 07 did EXACTLY the same thing and Penny Wong said nothing.
The Greens
These guys are essentially hard core socialists pretending to be Green. Unlike Labor who appreciate that the experiment with Socialism conducted between 1920 and 1990 around the world was nothing short of a complete failure.
I bet most of your “Green” advocates are supporters of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela!
It is a lot harder to look back at the Greens record and find “fault” as they don’t really have much of a record.
Given that they are advocates of higher taxes however you might point out that they opposed the introduction by the Howard government of the GST.
The Liberals
Well apart from the fact they have been spectacularly unable to attract any real talent at the state level in around 10 years you can’t really go past the current push to merge with the Nationals.
Just yesterday I heard Tony Abbott on ABC news radio supporting such a move as it would consolidate the “conservative” parties. The Liberal party is not Liberal anymore, it has become Conservative.
Any move to merge with the Nationals will hasten this process as well as be a medium to long term disaster for the party. How can the Liberals claim to be a party for free trade and free markets when they merge with a party who’s sole purpose is to capitalise profits and nationalise losses for their farmer constituents.
Apart from the Nationals merger there is always the takeover of the NSW Liberals by the christian right.
Adam, the point I am trying to make is that debating and scoring points against these Labor/Green/Liberal types should be easy and also represents a great way to spread the Libertarian word and build membership.
September 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
Thanks David, alot of that helped. I’m still learning on the differential concepts of each parties, i’ve been looking for ways to find flause in each governing system. I’ve begun talks for consideration of an LDP branch at the University of Newcastle.
September 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm |
My only attack on the Libertarian Democracy party is it’s policy on Firearms. It is ruthless and pro-American to make it easier to obtain a firearm. Australia should be a free nation, not a scared one. Allowing civillians to bear arms is just as bad as a socialist move to impede a police state; rise in crime, violence, riots, the works. No one would feel safe and I strongly oppose this within the ranks of the LDP. Everything else i’m currently in corporation with.
September 17, 2008 at 8:14 pm |
A debate on property rights. I leave you to think of a soulition
By DALE WETZEl
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) – Property rights advocates are squaring off with sportsmen and ranchers as the state Legislature decides whether to extend a ban on selling the right to hunt on property separately from the land itself.
The ban – the only one of its kind in the nation – has support from the group that represents the state’s beef cattle industry, the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, but its foes predict more opposition as people learn more about it.
“I don’t think it’s a legislator’s business to determine what somebody should be or shouldn’t be able to do with their land,” said Rep. Duane DeKrey.
Last year, the Legislature overwhelmingly voted to bar landowners from permanently selling the right to hunt on their property without selling the land itself along with it.
The restrictions expire June 30. The Legislature’s interim Natural Resources Committee, which has been studying the issue during the past year, has recommended making them permanent.
North Dakota law allows landowners to sell other property rights separately, including the right to mine coal, graze livestock, pump water and explore for oil.
In western North Dakota, separate sales of mineral rights have created circumstances where landowners have to tolerate disruption caused by oil drilling, while someone else collects royalties from oil production.
The legislation does not prevent landowners from leasing temporary hunting rights to others, and a North Dakota Game and Fish Department program that pays landowners to allow hunters access to their property is exempt from its provisions.
A permanent sale of the right to hunt a parcel of land “affects every future landowner of that particular piece of property from then on. It really strips your ownership rights,” said Rep. Chuck Damschen, who supports the ban.
“If I’m a farmer, and I’ve got a crop out there, and all of a sudden somebody comes and says, ‘I’ve got hunting access rights, I’m going to be out in your grain field.’ The problem there is obvious,” Damschen said.
Rep. Rod Froelich has asked Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem for a legal opinion on whether the ban violates the North Dakota Constitution’s prohibition against taking private property for public use without paying its owner.
Lawmakers made a similar request of Stenehjem during the 2007 Legislature, but no opinion was drafted because the bill’s final version included a legislative interim study of the issue.
“I understand the opponents of the legislation. They’re tired of out-of-state hunters buying up property, turn around and selling it back, and keeping the hunting rights,” Froelich said. “But that’s what you call capitalism.”
Douglas Shinkle, a policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver, said no other state had a law similar to North Dakota’s when he researched the issue last year. He found no indication that other states were concerned about the issue, he said.
Rep. Todd Porter, who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, believes that groups who oppose hunting could buy up hunting rights to make it more difficult for sportsmen to find places to hunt.
Once sold, hunting rights to land also could be sold in pieces, a practice that is common with mineral rights. That would make it more difficult to determine the land access a rights holder may be entitled to, supporters of a ban say.
A survey of North Dakota county recorders by the Legislative Council, the Legislature’s research arm, found few examples of separate sales of hunting rights.
However, agricultural lenders say requests to reserve hunting rights in land sales are becoming more common. Steve Tomac, a real estate appraiser at Farm Credit Services in Mandan, said the issue is making it more difficult for appraisers to value farm land.
DeKrey said he believes it is a mistake for landowners to permanently sell the right to hunt their land, but he said lawmakers should not continue to ban the practice.
“I personally think it’s a bad deal to sever. I think leasing and options like that are a whole lot smarter on the landowner’s behalf,” DeKrey said. “But even if I think it’s smarter, I don’t think it’s our business to tell them what to do.”
September 18, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
This is a prime example of where politics should but out and let market forces wield their power. If selling permanent hunting rights seperately from actual real estate is such a terrible thing anyone trying to do so will be potentially left with worthless, unsaleable land, and on their own head be it. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be a good thing, both the holder of the real estate and the holder of the hunting rights win. In either case it is not (or at least should not) be the role of government to dictate what may or may not be done with private assets. Given willing sellers and willing buyers there should be no problem doing what you please with your own property.
It is examples of poor legislation such as this that make great fodder for pro-libertarian arguements.
September 19, 2008 at 10:03 pm |
Another great example of why small government is the way to go. In Victoria, as with most other areas of the country, is struggling with water shortage. The incumbent Labor government has decided to redirect water from the Goulburn system, which is already overcommitted, to Melbourne via a pipeline costing about $750 million. The Liberal opposition has clearly stated that if it obtains power at the next election the pipeline will not be used, no if’s, no but’s. The obvious solution (to me anyway) is for Government to get out of the way and allow private enterprise to supply Melbourne, and anywhere else for that matter, with water. No Board of Directors worth their salt is going to face their shareholders and say “By the way we have spent $750 million of your money on something that could well be scrapped before it gets used.”.
I view myself and all other taxpayers as shareholders in all levels of government. Given that, in this example at least, there is a clear stalemate where the only losers will be taxpayers. Potentially spending $750 million tax dollars for absolutely no benefit is bordering on the criminal.
It is my sincere wish that all LDP members make a concerted effort to raise awareness, and therefore membership numbers, to obtain at least senate/upper house seats in forthcoming elections. An aim of the balance of power in not unrealistic. We really need to get government out of the mentality of having a bottomless pool of funds (taxpayers) to play political games with and getting on with the business of actually running the country/state.
Sorry if I have waffled on a bit but examples such as this really make my blood boil.
September 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
In response to Adam Young. Giving the freedom to a sane and law abiding citizen, to own a gun should be one of the basic rights of Australians. It should be none of the government’s business. That is the way it is in most Countries of the world, like Switzerland, Austria and other E.U Countries. Nobody is harmed by the simple act of owning a piece of metal and wood. It is nothing to do with being “ruthless and pro-American”. Do you think Australia should be like Zimbabwe and Burma, where only the Police and Military are allowed to own guns???
Let’s discuss this further, to analyse why you have such a fear of guns. Is it from the media, or inspired by ex-Prime Minister John “I hate Guns” Howard?
October 1, 2008 at 10:57 am |
Some very intresting ideas and comments. I came across this page whilst looking for cheaper energy prices http://cheaperenergy.wordpress.com My bills haven risen by 35% this year and am now facing yet another increase by these greedy energy companies. (Thankfully I only rent so don’t have to worry about a mortgage as well.) Has anyone tries this green renewable energy? If so, be intrested to know how it worked for you.
October 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
The current government’s policy direction on internet regulation should be opposed. An opportunity for the LDP to team up with the EFA?
See link for more info: http://nocleanfeed.com/
October 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm |
I left a comment on the ALS blog. A bit non-sensical, but I’m really passionate about this topic and it makes me incredibly angry every time I hear about it. I’m going to post a letter to some of the banks tomorrow outlining my concerns
October 20, 2008 at 8:54 pm |
Elizabeth
We contacted Electronic Frontiers before the last election when there was all that talk about filters.
They did not want to team up with us, and when I checked, one or Two of the key people at EA are also affiliated with the ALP.
December 21, 2008 at 10:04 pm |
If you guys are serious about making a splash at the next election you should run hard against man-made climate change. There is no party currently brave enough to stand up to the shameless agw propaganda. The party that does stands to gain immeasurably when this con is eventually exposed and all current parties seeking to enforce this fraud upon us will have zero credibility. A huge vacuum will be created and a fresh rational alternative will be sought out. With no non-agw party to vote for I think the support you would gain at even the next election would be overwhelming.
December 24, 2008 at 1:29 am |
For the latest in libertarian commentary and discussion in Australia, please check out http://www.libertarian.org.au
February 7, 2009 at 7:54 pm |
Q. What’s yellow and green and eats nuts? – A. Gonorrhoea.
February 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
Hi all. what is the parties view on radical Islam , its movement in Europe and the west in general. Can people here see the dangers to our liberty under Muslim law which some predict will control many parts of Europe?
February 15, 2009 at 10:29 am |
How you think, in our situation whis crisis its actual?
February 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm |
I’ve just been thinking about stimulating the economy, and would appreciate comments. If you really want to increase spending therefore employment therefore the general economy how about removing disincentives such as income tax, payroll tax, reducing comp super payments to say 5%. I realise this would punch a bit of a hole in government revenues (not that I don’t think that it is a good idea, but that is an arguement for another time). So to offset the shortfall increase the GST to say 18% and remove all exemptions (OK I haven’t done the maths, that is for smarter people than me), and to offset any pain to pensioners and the like, increase payments by the same amount. By removing income tax you are effectively giving a payrise of somewhere between 20-30% with no net difference to employers
wages bill. By removing payroll tax and lessening super payments employment is encouraged. Seems to me everybody wins. Would somebody please tell my why this would not work?
March 7, 2009 at 8:14 pm |
“Cameron Larkin Says:
February 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I’ve just been thinking about stimulating the economy, and would appreciate comments. If you really want to increase spending therefore employment therefore the general economy how about removing disincentives such as income tax, payroll tax, reducing comp super payments to say 5%. I realise this would punch a bit of a hole in government revenues (not that I don’t think that it is a good idea, but that is an arguement for another time). So to offset the shortfall increase the GST to say 18% and remove all exemptions (OK I haven’t done the maths, that is for smarter people than me), and to offset any pain to pensioners and the like, increase payments by the same amount. By removing income tax you are effectively giving a payrise of somewhere between 20-30% with no net difference to employers
wages bill. By removing payroll tax and lessening super payments employment is encouraged. Seems to me everybody wins. Would somebody please tell my why this would not work?”
Cameron,
Supply side economics has a bad rap but I suggest you give it a look.
March 13, 2009 at 10:55 am |
Cameron…I think water supply is an essential service and should not be in private hands. It just makes things cost more when a company is trying to extract profit. You’ve got this situation where the government has imposed water restrictions and this is causing a loss of profit for the water company who then turn to the government and say – we want you to reimburse us for loss of profit. Insanity.
if you dont get water, you die…Id say that’s pretty ‘essential’. Water should not be run for profit. Neither should health or universities etc…private schools should not get ANY funding by the tax payer. The elite need to pay their own goddamn bills.
in regards to the pipeline…corrupt government serving private interests over the peoples is THE biggest problem with democratic capitalism worldwide. I haven’t looked into the matter, but it sounds like there would be some kind of a connection from a minister to the company that has/will get the contract to build it. Perhaps paying back a ‘favor’. Perhaps earning one (green pastures for when the usually fairly short political career is over, among other reasons). Whenever things don’t make sense, you know something shady is going on behind the scenes that the corporate owned news isn’t going to tell you.
The ‘jackals’ (CIA) came here and overthrew gough because they didnt like what he was doing…
I dont think they’d be too fond of the ideology found in this party and we’ve all got a real uphill battle on our hands to get our rights back, you can bet your ass they are watching…nothing short of overhauling our political system so were not left with a choice between team muppet A and team muppet B (these days they are 2 factions of the same political party with the same agenda) is going to bring about real change.
I want to know where this party stands on globalisation. I personally believe that if high tariffs were placed on items produced by 3rd world slaves, so all the slave products cost more than the same product/service manufactured/provided here, you would see the job market return to the glory days of low unemployment and high wages. Im so sick of hearing the news tell me about all the so called apparent benfits of globalisation. Yeah, it benefits corporations, I can see that much…but I cant see how any of it benefits me.
and lastly I want to know where this party stands on fractional reserve banking. Where the banks have been given the right to ‘create’ currency by lending out money it does NOT have. If I tried to lend money I did not have I would be a criminal right? let alone if I was collecting interest on the fictitious money. The people must have the right to control their currency. Not bankers.
March 13, 2009 at 11:29 am |
one last thing…Im concerned about the comment – we promise to cut welfare, as if poor people are the problem. IF the ideology of this party is that under an honest capitalist system, no one ‘willing’ to work will go hungry or be in need then I could live with that.
But I wouldnt want to see a situation where welfare was cut and tens of thousands of people start starving their butts off because A – they cannot find a job or B – the job they do find is so low paying that JOB simply stands for J.ust O.ver B.roke
And it begs the question, can you ever really have an honest capitalist system?…if you completely trust the ‘free market’ to run everything (like we trust private banks to control our currency) will they do the right thing by themselves, or us? Government has a role to play here.
Thomas Jefferson said – I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
lets make the government small, but not too small – is what Im saying here…too small is as bad as too big…so lets all think clearly about what we are trying to achieve here.
March 13, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
New around here,
You don’t need to privitize everything, so long as it is run in a competent, efficient manner. Something which governments have proved themselves time and time again not to be able to do. Running any enterprise is easy if you have a bottemless source of new capital that never needs to be repaid (ie taxpayers)however this tax payer is getting might sick of being a cash cow.
Let’s try a new form of tax return. On an income of $40k your tax bill is about 6 and a half grand. On next years return form let’s have a list of check boxes on the back listing things such as defence, health, welfare, public housing, education, infrastucture, politicians salaries, and any other boxes you would like to add. Now you must spend your $6500.00 and you may allocate the amount as you see fit. What do you reckon the outcome would be. Closer to a true democracy perhaps?
March 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
hmm interesting idea…but what if you end up in a situation where many people over fund one area and under fund another? Do you trust our current education system to give us well balanced adults who are even capable of participating in such a tax system?
It raises some interesting questions like – Is your tax proposal to allow people to choose where their tax dollars are going akin to allowing a customer to tell a company how it should spend the customers money?
Also, how would you propose company/business tax?
It seems I get taxed for every product or service I buy or use but a corporation can buy 5 millions dollars worth of stock and not pay any tax at all? (I know this is the case in the USA, Im assuming its the case here in oz).
And how are we going to get these proposals through when the system is rigged so only team muppet A and team muppet B can possibly win? Whatever we do, we need an overhaul of our political system and we need 3rd party candidates to have a chance of winning.
March 14, 2009 at 6:52 am |
What’s your policy on refugees? Do you charge them a fee to enter after youve done all the cheques?
Are you concerned this money they pay to get here could be earned from illegal activites like the Somali pirates.
Also Im concerned about givin the example of Sweden as a country we should have free trade immigration with. Sweden has the softest immigration policies in the world and has a huge problem with third world immigrants particularly from African and muslim backgrounds. It would concern me that unsavoury elements would use such a free labour agreement with Australia to come here and cause problems whether terrorism or mass murder in revenge for political incorrectness or the cronulla riots.
March 14, 2009 at 11:20 am |
Guys whats up with Thoughts on Freedom? When I try to go there it redirects me to my own WordPress Dashboard.
Also, a recent case in WA that the police lost has them trying to get rid of self-defense laws:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25181190-948,00.html
March 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
My tax proposal isn’t really akin to customers telling a company how to spend it’s money, it’s more like shareholders (owners) telling a company how to and where to spend it’s money. It seems to me that most people have the attitude that government funds are somehow magically produced and are endless. They are not, it is tax payers money, it is yours and mine, and I want a say about how my money is spent. I want it spent on things that are of importance to me and of benefit to me, no matter what my level of education, or my social views. Above all I want to see my money spent efficiently, accountably and to see some concrete results rather than enquiry after enquiry followed by consultants reports. In short I do not believe our bloated public service is capable of this. Therefore the only other alternative is the private sector where at least the management is answerable, in a very real way, to it’s stakeholders.
As for company tax (and for that matter income tax) I say abolish it and increase consumption tax to compensate. It has always seemed counterproductive to me to have a tax system where the are inbuilt disincentives to achive more or work harder. How many times a day do you hear about ways to minimise your tax bill or a clever accountant comes up with another to avoid the tax system? Why should we be taxed on every dollar we earn? How about we get taxed on every dollar we spend? This encourages productivity by tightening our fiscal belts, encourages saving (which is the whole purpose of a compulsary super scheme, which, by the way, has helped shelter us from the worst of the GFC) and is much simpler to administrate. The only way to avoid such a tax is to spend less, making any spending a more considered decision, thereby making all of us more responsible for our own financial well being, this has got to be a good thing.
March 15, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
Same happened to me Sam, I think its fixed now, it is for me anyway
March 17, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
Rudd has got to go:
Taxing without legislative authority.
Banning internet sites and violating our right to implied free speech as per the Commonwealth constitution.
March 18, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
What’s happening with the drug policy? I read on the site it’s under development…
I have a particular interest in drug policy which was why I was attracted to the LDP (the only other moderately sensible party being the greens who would destroy the economy), and I’m very curious to see where exactly you stand on drugs other than marijuana.
March 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm |
More free money to go with the economic stimulus, I suspect this poster may actually be Kevin Rudd
May 8, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
I was asked a question today by a young child whose parents are in the process of getting divorced. The question was “Why do people get married?”. This got me to thinking, why do our governments have an entire department dedicated to recording marriages?
Surely, in this day and age, where legally and socially it is effectively a non-issue, one third of Births, Deaths and Marriages could be abolished and no-one would really notice or, if they did notice, care. By doing away with this register a few problems are solved immediately. Same-sex marriage would become a non-issue, no records, no problem. If you are really insecure enough to feel the need to have your private relationship recorded somewhere, go see a church, that’s what they are there for.
Secondly, it would work toward achieving the aim of smaller government, an entire department gone, got to be a good thing.
So, how does one go about campaigning to have a government department abolished?
Thoughts and feedback greatly appreciated.
May 8, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
Oh, the answer I gave the child was “Because grown-ups are idiots!”
June 19, 2009 at 10:44 am |
I heard Barry O Farrel on AM talkback this morning (showing my age, apparently).
I like the boy.
He spruiked recall elections, beefed up protections against eminent domain, lower payroll taxes, less spent on administration and allocating funds to infrastructure more quickly.
The LDP should go in hard for a preference deal with the LP/NP coalition for the 2011 NSW election ASAP.
June 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
Barry’s good in parts. He opposed the privatisation of the electricity generators for example and is forever arguing for increases in government expenditure. He’s probably better than Nathan Rees, but it’s a close call.
June 20, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
Electricity privatisation – I always pegged that to cynical manoeuvring. But it paints them into a corner, unless they try something different like privatisation by gifting.
June 25, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
This could make an LDP Policy:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/25/2608804.htm
Is there any reason we should waste police resources on arresting aboriginal people for drinking in public places – which usually means an area that no one else goes to because there’s blackfellas draining metho through bread? With no disrespect intended, it’s apparent to a lot of ‘average’ people that the resources expended on aboriginal people aren’t getting the intended results. Perhaps we are overpolicing and they’d be better off left alone for minor offences they commit away from everyone else?
June 26, 2009 at 9:46 pm |
Our law and order policy is still to be developed, but I agree with you Mick. We have resisted developing a policy on aboriginals because it implies they are different from white fellas. If anyone wants to ruin their life drinking metho, it might be a huge shame but it’s not really the government’s business. It makes no difference what colour they are.
June 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
hi all, im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself
my name is mate and i am from southern croatia. that is on the adriatic sea accross from italy. anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and hope to start posting and contributing soon
mate
July 5, 2009 at 12:52 am |
http://www.theage.com.au/national/20-a-pack-tax-slug-for-smokers-20090704-d8h8.html
July 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
Newer member, just wanted to introduce myself. I hope to learn a lot from everyone.
July 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
David you argument on why you have not developed an aboriginal policy based on you belief that it “implies they are different from white fellas” and that “if anyone wants to ruin their life drinking metho” simplifies it a bit don’t you think? Australia’s history (colonisation or invasion depending on your view point) is very brief and is commonly accepted that any issues related to alcohol consumption is based around the arrival of the “White Fella”. To apply the simplistic notion that these people are in this situation and it is their choice neglects the history or what had occurred (i.e. introduction of alcohol to the local inhabitants).
Europeans have recorded proof of alcohol production since the eleventh century. “White fellas” introduced full strength alcohol 200 years ago.. Hmmm don’t you think tolerance levels to alcohol might be slightly different? And that the aboriginals did not have free choice, in that they could not comprehend the consequence of their actions. Is there some level of responsibility that should taken for this group given the “white fella” introduced the issue in the first place? If anyone made the free choice it is the “white fella” and must bear some responsibility for the consequence.
July 8, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
Those arguments seem relevant for aboriginal people 200 years ago. But aboriginals born today are born into the same world as the rest of us.
Aboriginals may not have understood that alcohol gets your drunk 200 years ago… but are you seriously implying that aboriginals still can “not comprehend the consequences” of drinking? Do you really think their race makes them that helpless and clueless? And if they are as dumb as you think, and they need to be controlled by you “smarter caring white types”… then are there any decisions that you would allow aboriginals to make for themselves?
If we are going to have different policies for different races based on their different racial history, then I think we should have a “vietnamese policy” and a “lebanese policy” and a “russian policy” and a “hispanic policy” and a “bantu policy” and a “nordic policy” and all the rest. We can have different laws for each different race.
Saying that a person needs extra help, or should be treated differently, because of their race is amazingly condescending. It seems to imply a racial inferiority. It is clearly racist, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that it seems also to be based on bigotry.
People should get help because they need help. Not because their nose is the correct length.
As for tolerance to alcohol, if you want to talk about the differences between races then you’ll need to factor in a special policy for east asians.
July 8, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
John, please don’t twist what I was saying into a race argument. By your specious reasoning the Germans should have paid no compensation to families of victims of the holocaust.
I question whether you have seen the research of G.R. Stephenson on Cultural Acquisition of a specific response among Rhesus monkeys? Or perhaps Pavlov’s Dog? Two very compelling argument of the power of social conditioning over time. Perhaps you should take a look at some of this research, instead of making ridiculous remarks about people being racist and condescending. Europeans (of which I am one) introduced this problem and we have a responsibility to help in its solution. To simply adopt the premise that it didn’t happen on my watch therefore I will not worry about it neglects to acknowledge who introduced the problem and the consequences it has had (not just at the time but for current generations)
Let’s move along to your comments around “If we are going to have different policies for different races based on their different racial history…” Well jezz you got me there… hang on there is a massive difference. People of all these other races chose to settle in Australia. Oh sorry that’s right the Aboriginals just flew in yesterday via QANTAS from LA.
“Saying that a person needs extra help, or should be treated differently, because of their race is amazingly condescending. It seems to imply racial inferiority. It is clearly racist, but that’s’ not the problem. The problem is that seems to be also based on bigotry”
Wow I am pretty amazed that you could extrapolate that from my comments. But let me say it again in case you haven’t quite got the point I am making. WE, our ancestors created this issue and just because you and I are not personally responsible the government which is representative of the people of Australia is obligated to help address the issue. I do not condone a dictatorial approach but acknowledgement must be made of who caused the issue and how we can help the aboriginal community address it. I am not sure how you can make the case the assistance can be considered as being “clearly racist”
I think your last paragraph is unnecessary and would probably highlight some of your racial tendencies. I am not sure what it added to the discussion. Oh BTW China has had alcohol since 6000-7000 BC so I think it is a reasonably safe bet that it would have filtered down to the SEA countries before 200 years ago
July 8, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
Yours is a race argument. You’re talking about treating aboriginals differently. That is the definition of racism. Some people call it “good racism” and perhaps it is. My complaint was that it also seems based on an assumption that aboriginals can’t fix their own life problems, like the rest of us are generally able to.
As your analogy to victims of nazis makes no sense. The money was paid to the immediate families of the victims. But the aboriginal victims have been dead for over 200 years. You’re a bit late.
Everybody knows that social conditions matter. Self-righteous white guys didn’t event the idea lately. But that doesn’t mean that the government should treat different races differently based on the experience of those races.
The first problem is that you shouldn’t base this on race. People within a race are treated differently (so have different social conditioning) and sometimes people of different races share some conditions (the chinese weren’t treated great in 19th century australia either you know). The second problem is that idea that the government should try to double-guess and counter-act against all sorts of social conditioning. Perhaps it’s possible sometimes… but it’s a dangerous and generally counter-productive activity. It is also largely based on the idea that these poor vulnerable nearly-humans aren’t able to take control of their own lives.
Not to mention the impossibility of various races paying restitution to every race they have ever hurt. The chinese would have to pay half the world. The arabs too. The slavs and germanic and celtic peoples would all have to pay each other. The mongols would have to pay the russians… and the japanese pay the koreans… and the thais pay the khmers… and the bantu pay the bushmen… etc etc. This is absurd.
Your argument doesn’t depend on the aboriginals being here first. That hardly matters. I’m not better than a more recent immigrant. (Or am I?)
Your argument rest on us treating the aboriginals badly. And the “powers that be” have also treated the chinese, lebanese, irish and various other groups badly. So let’s create a special policy for every race that has been treated differently in the past. And let’s assume that if they have been treated badly, then we should control their behaviour to make them “good” again.
As for the idea of helping people. I totally agree. I think it is always morally appropriate for people to try and help others when they are in a bad state. But that applies just as much to chinese, greek, indian, african and (gasp) yes, even whites.
My last para was about the fact that chinese people tend to get drunk quicker than white people. That isn’t a secret.
July 8, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
hmm I have few mates in Dalian that would put most people to shame so the argument that chinese people get drunk quicker is a pretty sterotypical view point that may exist in your limited sphere but certainly not reflected in mine. But I digress frm the main point I want to make.
Lets looke at the dfinition of racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I think you strike out on all 3 points on calling me a racist. Wanting to offer help to to a group of people (acknolwdging that we played a part in the creation of the situation)so that we should be part of the solution can harldy be called racism. Following the denifition of racism how can there be “good racism”? It baffles the mind its like saying I it’s ungood (perhaps a bit of orwellian double speak)
Following the logic of your argument then Abraham Lincoln was a good racist because he sort to “free the slaves”. That is he sort favourable treatment for negroes by chnaging the status quo that was accepted at the time. hmm not sure too many would agree with you there. Being slaves these people could not sort out there own problems ( I don’t think you could disgree with that). They needed outside assitance.
July 8, 2009 at 11:15 pm |
I didn’t get a chance to complete what I was saying so here is round 2. The point I was attempting to make about social conditioning is not to point out the obvious that it is based on shared cultural experince. But merely that we created the conditions suitable that contributed to social conditioning over generations. At little early colinal aborginal history will show that Aboriginals where paid in rum for various tasks including fighting each other for colonial entertainment. Much like stephenson experiment with the Rhesus monkeys a change social condition was influced by an external factor.
Organizations such as the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programs Unit acklowledge that there is an issue.
“The CAAAPU philosophy is simple and clear. As grog is the biggest problem facing Aboriginal people in Central Australia, alcohol abuse should be tackled immediately”
So please don’t paint me as some sort of person making myself feel superior or thinking other people are inferior. When sections of the aboriginal community are highlighting the issue I can not be accused of promoting my will on them far from it. I believe the policy should assist them in their endeavours to minimise the destruction that is caused to their communities. Once again for the slow ones out there, john, my point is that we created this situation and hence have a responsibility to assist in it’s solution.
The argument of free choice to get themselves out of trouble “as we all do” does not hold water 100% of the time as I have illistrated with negroes in my previous post.
July 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
“As your analogy to victims of Nazis makes no sense. The money was paid to the immediate families of the victims. But the aboriginal victims have been dead for over 200 years. You’re a bit Late.”
Sorry John incorrect. While you are correct in the original 1952 agreement of Germany paying pensions to survivors and heirs (well there was the exception that they paid 450M Marks to the World Jewish conference, but I won’t dwell on that) you have to remember that in 1998 the Claims conference terms were renegotiated under a unified Germany. Payments were made not as direct pensions but Jewish Claims conference organisation to be distributed by them. Hmm so the German government paid an independent organisation money for past crimes.
So sorry John, there is relevance here. Acknowledgement by a government/people that previous generations have committed a crime/atrocity against another group of people and that they have responsibility to provide assistance in generating solution or help is central to my argument. So there
July 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
VGH a couple of posts ago
“Following the logic of your argument then Abraham Lincoln was a good racist because he sort to “free the slaves”. That is he sort favourable treatment for negroes by chnaging the status quo that was accepted at the time. hmm not sure too many would agree with you there. Being slaves these people could not sort out there own problems ( I don’t think you could disgree with that). They needed outside assitance.”
Sorry to butt in, but I couldn’t let this slide. All that Pres Lincoln did was to make it illegal for one person to own another, there was no difference
July 10, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
VGH a couple of posts ago
“Following the logic of your argument then Abraham Lincoln was a good racist because he sort to “free the slaves”. That is he sort favourable treatment for negroes by chnaging the status quo that was accepted at the time. hmm not sure too many would agree with you there. Being slaves these people could not sort out there own problems ( I don’t think you could disgree with that). They needed outside assitance.”
Sorry to butt in, but I couldn’t let this slide. All that Pres Lincoln did was to make it illegal for one person to own another, there was no difference based on race, creed or colour. It gave people more equality of treatment by government, not less so. It’s the reverse here, given the per-capita govt spend on aboriginals living in the communities versus the general population.
Secondly, Australia was taken by conquest and in that situation the overrun population really has very few choices, 1; conform to he new regime, at least to a workable extent, 2; run an organised resistance or 3; move on to somewhere else. Just because the conquest of Australia took place fairly recently, how does it make it different from the Norman invasion of Britian, or the Roman invasion of Britian, or the Spanish invasion of Central America, or Alexander the Great’s Tour of Europe. I don’t see too many decendants making claims over any of these conquests. Please stop judging history by today’s OTT moral standards
July 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm |
My fault. I shouldn’t have started. I’m not going to go through point by point. To each their own. But a few comments…
When suggesting your comments were racist, I wasn’t trying to insult you or suggest that made you a bad person. I was suggesting you were supporting different treatment for people based on their race. Many people consider that racism. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad at a personal level (indeed — I think it’s quite normal and appropriate in some circumstances), though I don’t like it when the government does it, because I think they should treat all humans equally.
The definition you supply is closer to “racial bigotry” in my vernacular. I sometimes get a hint of that in the thinking behind support for racist policies.
I think the only way to justify treating an entire race like vulnerable children is if you make some assumption about them being generally inferior. Though I accept this isn’t a conscious thought process in most people.
If a white person needs help, you should help them. If an aboriginal person is well adjusted and doing well in the world, there is no need to help them. Race shouldn’t be the factor, unless you’re assuming that race necessarily causes the problem. I don’t think that’s true. I agree previous social conditions matter… but that is true for everybody and doesn’t justify a blanket rule based on race.
Also, what Lincoln did was “treat black people equally” (well… nearly). That is different from the policy of “treat black people differently”. I prefer Lincoln’s approach.
And I agree some aboriginal communities have a problem with alcohol, which may necessitate different policies. By all means, consider policies that address problems when identified. But please base them on the existence of a problem, not the existence of a race.
The well-adjusted inner-city aboriginal lawyer with 2.4 kids and a mortgage should not be treated the same as an unemployed uneducated violent alcoholic aboriginal in a town of 50 people in the middle of the outback. What mattered in those examples (and with all people) is the other adjectives, not the race.
Anyway — I didn’t mean to have a go at you. All comments are said with a cheeky smile. Peace.
July 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
Hi Cameron, First please don’t apologise for butting in. That’s the reason I particularly like discussion forums over a debate. A debate infers a winner and loser and in my experience ensures that people become more entrenched with their position and less open to alternative ideas. If my points make no sense then I am happy if someone challenges them so I can either a) clarify b) refine with further cases c) change my position if I am wrong. As I would expect of others.
Your 100% correct that the outcome desired of Honest Abe was to remove the right of one person to own another. However if you read some of his speeches on this (think his famous “House divided” speech) and you can see the policy was based on removing slavery. Now who were slaves? Negroes ( I am prepared that there were a small and I do mean small number of Native Americans and Mexicans). So the actual policy was to free the negroes. It may not have been specifically implied in the policy but given the major beneficiaries (by a long way) were negro’s so by John’s strict definition of giving benefit to a specific group by policy this would be racism (there is an argument Abe could be considered a racist as he opposed suffrage for negroes).
Look if someone really wants to pick me up on this go for it but I really hope we can put an end to this section. It really takes away from the central point I was trying to make. My comments were only made in that post in response to being called a racist. Which John has cleared up his position in a subsequent post.
I would just like to point out that I never tried to make a link between Abe and Indigenous policy. I really don’t think a link exists (as I just said above I was using Abe to test JH’s racist theory). Furthermore when I talk about policy I have never made position that “money is the solution” (in fact I can site numerous examples of poor spending where outcomes have not been achieved nor correctly thought about in the policy planning phase) nor have I made an argument that I proposed a dictatorial approach to the solution. If you review my posts at no point did I say we will solve their issues. I clearly and purposefully chose the words “help” and “assist”. There are issues here that have been tried to be resolved from a top down approach and have failed dismally and that is not the way to solve these issues (which are acknoledged by numerous ideigenous NFP’s – this is not some self proclaimed issue).
Lastly on your point that “Australia was taken by conquest and in that situation the overrun population really has very few choices 1; conform to he new regime, at least to a workable extent 2; run an organised resistance or 3; move on to somewhere else.”
For me it is a little hard to make a 100% clear cut decision on the colonization/invasion arguments. But since you have made it clear you subscribe to the invasion argument I will address these points on that basis “2; run an organised resistance” – works pretty well in town/ higher density areas. But 68% of the indigenous population live in regional or remote areas (source APC July 2009). A little difficult to be organised in such a large country where your separated by the tyranny of distance. “3; move on to somewhere else” – little difficult wouldn’t you say? Might work well in Americas, Europe or Asia. But Australia is the only continent & country in the world (let’s not count the icey rock). That choice is not freely available. That leaves “1; conform to he new regime, at least to a workable extent”. Not really a choice then if the other two options have been excluded
John thanks for clarifying some of your points. I’ll cover of your points in my next post
July 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
John, I don’t want to turn this into linguistic or etymological lecture but the terms racist and bigotry have very negative conditions and are both highly emotive terms. Neither have particularly savory meanings so in reference to what was being discussed here I would choose you words carefully as I do not believe that wanting to assist people’s specific problems is either racist or bigoted. and yes I do take offence to this.
It was my fault originally not to completely state my position in full on this as I saw my posts getting quite long and people tend to zone out after a few lines. Alcohol is not the only issue involved here (but it is recognized by the aboriginal community as one of the main ones)
In rereading David’s post I realise that I was a little hot headed when I wrote my reply however when looking at this from a purely law and order point of view I am not sure that you can’t have a policy. I am not saying what that policy should be but you can’t ignore the facts….. there is a problem!
Fact 1.
“Indigenous women were 22 times more likely and indigenous men 17 times more likely to be in prison”
Fact 2.
“Indigenous Juveniles were 28 times as likely to be detained as non-indigenous juveniles at 30 June 2007″
I would say they are some pretty dramatic statistics wouldn’t you? Oh yeah and your example on the inner city lawyer being well adjusted. Of course there will always be exceptions (any system you have will always have exceptions – even free choice..perhaps anarchy is in order).
But to your point about the violent uneducated communities outback… well interesting enough the remote outback is the only area in Australia where statistically the non-indigenous people have higher rates of risky/high levels of drinking. Did you know that Major Cities actually have the highest level of indigenous adults drinking to risky/high levels?
So to polish off. There are numerous significant problems/issues affecting aboriginals (were statistically they are well above the general population norm). – not just law and order
- Indigenous unemployment 15%
- Non Indigenous unemployment 5%
- Indigenous 19 year olds completed year 12 – 44%
- Non Indigenous 19 year olds completed year 12 – 77%
- Indigenous Male life expectancy – 67.2 years
- Non Indigenous Male life expectancy – 78.7 years
- Indigenous women life expectancy – 72.9 years
- Non Indigenous women life expectancy – 82.6 years
- Infant mortality 2-3 times higher for indigenous infants than no indigenous
I could go on with the facts but I need to do some work. Bury you head in the sand if you want to but there are some significant issues that will need to be addressed. I am outcome focused and whether you like it or not there are some policies which need to based the outcome for a specific group of people given the significant disadvantage they are at.
July 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
I take it your point is that aboriginal socialism and the welfare state have failed terribly. I agree.
You can take offense if you like. If you want to base policies on race, then that is racist. Or racialist. Or “discriminating on the basis of race” if you like… though that is a long way of saying it. Either way, there is a long-standing moral argument that the government should not make different rules for different races. Or different sexes. Or different anything. People in the same situation should be treated equally.
If somebody has a problem, help them. But that help shouldn’t be conditional on the colour of their skin.
As for the different outcomes for aboriginals… there is a lot about this and I don’t have time to explain it all. The basic conclusion is that the primary problem is with the aboriginal socialist homelands. The secondary problem is with aboriginal welfare dependence.
If an aboriginal person isn’t caught in either of these nets, then they perform just as well as average Australians. This isn’t surprising, because at the end of the day aboriginal people are just as capable as the rest of us.
I know you didn’t say otherwise, and I’m sure you don’t consciously think otherwise… but the constant infantalisation of aboriginals seems to implicitly base itself on the idea that aboriginals just can’t cope with life the same way an abused white person, or orphaned vietnamese person, or a depressed indian can. Treat all groups with human dignity and an assumption of personal responsibility and you will get a good outcome. Treat them like kids and you’ll get kids.
You can bury your head in the sand if you like. But at some point you need to decide whether you want to help people, or whether you just want to look like you’re helping people. There is a big difference.
July 17, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
Interesting comments. So what’s your view on Affirmative Action?
July 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
Plan to increase marginal tax by 8.5% on low-income workers
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/07/28/plan-to-increase-marginal-tax-by-8-5/
August 15, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
Salutations and Greetings am here only trying to post to make my first post on this board and just wanted to say hi.
August 17, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
I would be interested in LDP’s position on this new proposal of “computer network protection” amendments to the “Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)” ( more info here: http://www.efa.org.au/2009/08/07/tiaa_submission/ )
August 19, 2009 at 4:11 am |
First would like to say hello to everyone. This is a pretty nice site. Cant wait to see whateveryone else has to offer here as well.
Who here is into gaming? I prefer online mafia gangster type of games or rpg first person shooters.
sites like http://www.mafialifestyle.com
its my personal site. However no referral link as you can see above. check it out if you can.
What sites do you play ill surely check them out as well.
thanks,
MafiaLifeStyle
August 20, 2009 at 3:43 am |
Have you all tried this yet?
Mafia games online are huge and growing fast. Game-Script.net has launched they’re newest version.
[b]version: 3[/b]
You can get it on discount right now save 50%
http://www.game-script.net/
Mafia game script v3 open now. V4 coming soon. Join the forum, or keep track of the site and watch for new features coming soon
this is great for mmorpg game scripts, rpg game scripts, and mafia game scripts is what its geared towards.
August 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
Does the LDP have any policy on biosecurity, chiefly the role of AQIS policing our borders, and the use of internal borders such as the fruit fly exclusion zone?
August 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
? !
September 18, 2009 at 8:51 am |
The new website is a huge improvement, congratulations all round.
Some policies have not been updated along with the website, unfortunately. That needs to change. There’s still reference to the Kyoto Protocol, and it’s a long-dead issue (and I won’t get into the serious deficiencies with the rest of the global warming policy). The policy on gay rights is hilariously titled “Lifestyle Choices” – it’s not a choice, and it’s not a lifestyle. I could go on, but nothing changes, so why bother?
September 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
Thanks for sharing, just added myself to your blog. visit us at camden lock market,
October 8, 2009 at 3:04 am |
Hi guys,
i am new to this board. So i wanna introduce myself. I am a 18 year old girl. I got some pictures on http://www.sexfilmchen.com
Pls write me
October 20, 2009 at 4:43 am |
Many of you reading this are like me, you bought a timeshare thinking it was a good investment,
that you would save money on your annual vacation only to ultimately realize that the economy
wouldn’t stay the same and you wouldn’t be taking an annual vacation. Not only that,
but now you are now spending a ton of money on annual fees and maintenance for a vacation
you are not even taking.
http://sellmytimeshare1.com/
If you are like me, that’s what owning a timeshare has become. A drain on your wallet and a reminder that you
are stuck in something that you can no longer use and worse; you have to continue to pay for it.
What many of you don’t know is that you are not stuck! It is possible to sell your timeshare and there are
people out there that can help you do it. People who specialize in selling or renting timeshares can promote your
property to people who are looking to buy them.
What many of you also might not realize is that you don’t need to sell your timeshare. You can rent it too! You can even swap your timeshare! Let’s say you don’t want to get rid of it permanently, you are just going through a rough time and expect things to improve in the coming years. Or, let’s assume that you’ve been going to the same destination for years now and want to take a break; try somewhere else for a year or so.
The same experts that would sell your timeshare can also help you rent it out! This is an option that many timeshare owners don’t consider but one that you should if you are in this situation but not ready to sell your investment.
If you are ready to sell or rent your timeshare, where do you turn? There are experts in renting or selling timeshare properties that can help you. You can contact them through a number of sites such as this one: . Enter your contact information and someone will contact you within a day to give you your options. There’s no obligation to find out what you can do with your timeshare.
http://sellmytimeshare1.com/
November 15, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
Much of my, behind If there?Redundant questions, hat sich Dr.The work by, strategy is called.In India we anal, would be enough is or.Months Price:, regarding what you.,
November 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm |
A close look, the child could?Cheaper and easier, will usually fall.So today when, each month Using.Corn flour or anal, to the benefit on them In.And where to, A appear after.,