Andreas on April 18, 2012, 02:22:09 am
Somehow I don't think a return to conservative rule will perform any miracle for Australia.
More of the same, as with any two-party system.

Anything is better than a commie-fascist government which claims the high ground by pandering to PCness, backed by a compliant press and taking away our freedoms chunk by large chunk.

Thus far, this government:
1. Has taken away our freedom to choose a cause by ramming the greenie Carbon (aka Carbon Dioxide, aka Breathing) Tax on us after swearing up and down it won't.
2. Has taken away our freedom to choose which charity we give to by hitting us with a tax to help Queensland after the floods.
3. Is in the process of taking away our freedom to information via the Internet Filter.
4. Is in the process of taking away our freedom to dissent by creating a "media watchdog" of idealogues.
5. Has taken away our freedom to choose the most competent person for the job with their laws against so-called "discrimination" (don't even get me started on the political entity that is Fair Work Australia; just one phrase: Craig Thompson Affair).

Conservative rule may not create miracles, but we don't really need that. What this country needs is the reversal of the above assaults on our freedoms. What the progressive tax-and-give crowd wrecked in less than 12 months in 2008 took the conservatives 20 years to build up. That is the basic fact that escapes all commies: It is harder to save than to spend.
BS. The conservatives will manage to annul anything they don't like, while strengthening the initiatives they agree with: Which is, your freedom is ever decreased. Your buying into the bogus dichotomy is EXACTLY why they're getting you. Good cop, bad cop, and the public is dumb enough to buy it.

Why do you think Obama isn't repealing the Patriot act? He works for the Government, both parties do. More control is to both parties' benefit, in their war on the freedom of the people to choose something else.

Cam on April 18, 2012, 06:33:41 am
BS. The conservatives will manage to annul anything they don't like, while strengthening the initiatives they agree with: Which is, your freedom is ever decreased. Your buying into the bogus dichotomy is EXACTLY why they're getting you. Good cop, bad cop, and the public is dumb enough to buy it.

Why do you think Obama isn't repealing the Patriot act? He works for the Government, both parties do. More control is to both parties' benefit, in their war on the freedom of the people to choose something else.

Really? I didn't see any of my freedoms disappearing under the previous conservative government. In fact, that government put Australia in the blue financially. That's right. Australia had not only a budget surplus, but had savings. That gave us a lot of leeway when the GFC hit. Unfortunately, we are in debt now, just like every other country out there. Greece shows what happens when a nation is under crippling debt: the citizens' freedoms had to be curtailed in order to bring the budget back to acceptable levels. The US is heading that way.

Whether you like it or not, having assets gives you freedom, or at least, gives you more choices.

I can point out many more examples, but I know it is futile. Those who believe hat both are the same are nothing more than drones who want us to despair and not bother to change the status quo out of apathy.

macsnafu on April 18, 2012, 10:51:14 am
Well, I'd be willing to be that Australia's politics isn't *exactly* like U.S. politics. Maybe their conservatives are a little slow on their bait-and-switch tactics that U.S. Republicans like to use.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Andreas on April 18, 2012, 02:48:38 pm
Those who believe hat both are the same are nothing more than drones who want us to despair and not bother to change the status quo out of apathy.
And here I was, hoping you'd get over your pointless complacency, and change the status quo...

Cam on April 19, 2012, 04:29:13 am
Well, I'd be willing to be that Australia's politics isn't *exactly* like U.S. politics. Maybe their conservatives are a little slow on their bait-and-switch tactics that U.S. Republicans like to use.


Actually, the current conservative Opposition leader has been under intense media attack, at least as bad as Bush was. He has ferals running up to him and yelling at him while he was in a cafe with a friend for a drink.

Through it all, he kept his dignity, much like Bush and John Howard, the previous conservative PM of Australia, and didn't even attack his detractors back even when presented with a wide open goal. The guy is so old school gentleman, it isn't funny. Add to that, he is a Rhodes scholar, a volunteer firefighter and a surf lifesaver.

Same as the latte-sipping progressives across the way? Not bleeding likely.


Oh, and Andreas, only a fool challenges the status quo for no reason other than to challenge the status quo. Change for change's sake never ends well.

macsnafu on April 19, 2012, 08:53:21 am
Actually, the current conservative Opposition leader has been under intense media attack, at least as bad as Bush was. He has ferals running up to him and yelling at him while he was in a cafe with a friend for a drink.

Through it all, he kept his dignity, much like Bush and John Howard, the previous conservative PM of Australia, and didn't even attack his detractors back even when presented with a wide open goal. The guy is so old school gentleman, it isn't funny. Add to that, he is a Rhodes scholar, a volunteer firefighter and a surf lifesaver.
Democratic President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, too, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.
Quote
Oh, and Andreas, only a fool challenges the status quo for no reason other than to challenge the status quo. Change for change's sake never ends well.

I don't know about Andreas, but I recognize that the mere existence of a government hinges upon the initiation of force (involuntary taxaction and monopoly claim of authority over an area of land), and thus is fundamentally flawed from a libertarian point of view, and this is before they enact any particular policies.  As a kid, I was certainly no rebel, and merely accepted the government's authority.  My current position came about from my own exploration of political philosophy.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Andreas on April 19, 2012, 03:26:46 pm
If the status quo is that there are two parties, one supposedly good (whichever you fancy), and one supposedly bad (the other one)... then it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that everybody is being lied to.

Cam on April 20, 2012, 01:52:43 am
Democratic President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, too, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

By itself, nothing. But if you only look at one little point in order to prove your point, you are not worth debating.

I don't know about Andreas, but I recognize that the mere existence of a government hinges upon the initiation of force (involuntary taxaction and monopoly claim of authority over an area of land), and thus is fundamentally flawed from a libertarian point of view, and this is before they enact any particular policies.  As a kid, I was certainly no rebel, and merely accepted the government's authority.  My current position came about from my own exploration of political philosophy.

A central body of some sort is always required. To upkeep the roads and public spaces, if nothing else.

Beyond that, this is one of the problems that Ceres faced: the lack of a central body meant that they had no standing defensive force. This is a major drawback when an external power comes calling, especially if that external power don't really care about the lives of the people of Ceres, just the riches it contains. If it had not been for the intervention of the miners, Ceres would now be an Earth colony. And if the Earth forces were ruthless enough, they'd just send more warships. That one cannon won't save Ceres. It may be able to fire once before all life on Ceres is turned into cinders. So Earth lose 1 ship. So what?

That is why I said in my first post that I have some philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of an anarchic society like Ceres. This is one of the reasons.

Andreas on April 20, 2012, 04:49:16 am
Hey, Cam.
Just out of curiosity - do you think that Rupert Murdoch supports conservative viewpoints?

Cam on April 20, 2012, 05:00:51 am
Hey, Cam.
Just out of curiosity - do you think that Rupert Murdoch supports conservative viewpoints?

I don't know. I haven't seen anything written or spoken about by Murdoch before.

However, I do know that he is a supporter of Obama. Read into that what you will. I will withhold judgement.

macsnafu on April 20, 2012, 09:25:10 am
Democratic President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, too, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

By itself, nothing. But if you only look at one little point in order to prove your point, you are not worth debating. 
I can't debate an argument that doesn't make sense to me.
Quote

I don't know about Andreas, but I recognize that the mere existence of a government hinges upon the initiation of force (involuntary taxaction and monopoly claim of authority over an area of land), and thus is fundamentally flawed from a libertarian point of view, and this is before they enact any particular policies.  As a kid, I was certainly no rebel, and merely accepted the government's authority.  My current position came about from my own exploration of political philosophy.

A central body of some sort is always required. To upkeep the roads and public spaces, if nothing else.

Beyond that, this is one of the problems that Ceres faced: the lack of a central body meant that they had no standing defensive force. This is a major drawback when an external power comes calling, especially if that external power don't really care about the lives of the people of Ceres, just the riches it contains. If it had not been for the intervention of the miners, Ceres would now be an Earth colony. And if the Earth forces were ruthless enough, they'd just send more warships. That one cannon won't save Ceres. It may be able to fire once before all life on Ceres is turned into cinders. So Earth lose 1 ship. So what?

That is why I said in my first post that I have some philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of an anarchic society like Ceres. This is one of the reasons.

Fine, but that's not what I was responding to.  I was merely explaining that I'm not challenging the status quo merely to challenge the status quo, that I have good, philosophical reasons for it.    You don't agree with my reasons, that's your problem, not mine.  If you want to carry the argument in that direction, once again, I can re-hash or repost some old arguments for you.

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Cam on April 20, 2012, 10:28:41 am
You don't agree with my reasons, that's your problem, not mine.

No, actually. It is yours.

You can have all the good points and great beliefs you want. But if you are the ONLY one who believes it, you are not going to change the world. Heck, you won't even be able to change your LIFE. You'll just end up a bitter person, the classic old man railing against the world for never listening to him.

The key to change is to be able to convince. Your post? Not convincing. In fact, consider your condescending self ignored.

macsnafu on April 20, 2012, 04:01:35 pm
You don't agree with my reasons, that's your problem, not mine.

No, actually. It is yours.

You can have all the good points and great beliefs you want. But if you are the ONLY one who believes it, you are not going to change the world. Heck, you won't even be able to change your LIFE. You'll just end up a bitter person, the classic old man railing against the world for never listening to him.

The key to change is to be able to convince. Your post? Not convincing. In fact, consider your condescending self ignored.

Again, that was my point.  Convincing at what?  You went off on a tangent.

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Andreas on April 20, 2012, 04:03:55 pm
You don't agree with my reasons, that's your problem, not mine.

No, actually. It is yours.

You can have all the good points and great beliefs you want. But if you are the ONLY one who believes it, you are not going to change the world. Heck, you won't even be able to change your LIFE. You'll just end up a bitter person, the classic old man railing against the world for never listening to him.

The key to change is to be able to convince. Your post? Not convincing. In fact, consider your condescending self ignored.

Hello, 911? We have a situation, yeah, a pot is calling the kettle black.
No offense, but that was all rather condescending, and I don't really think macsnafu has said anything that warrants blowing up in his face like that.
This is the internets, and everybody is entitled to ignore whatever the hell they will, but then, nobody is forced to enter into a discussion they don't want to follow through on, either.

mellyrn on April 29, 2012, 01:20:19 pm
Quote
A central body of some sort is always required.

Imagine a community that had a "roads & bridges" team and a volunteer fire department and a farmers' market and a medical-services co-op and a builders' guild and a few other such groups.  It would be possible to point to any one of these teams and call it a "central body of some sort", required to get the job in question done -- even if the overall society had no central body to, say, determine just what teams (and how big and how funded & staffed, &c) were to be created.  But when you write, "a central body of some sort is always required", I understand you to mean that it's that central planning body that is "always" required.  Is that in fact what you mean, or do you only mean that humans work in groups to get larger projects accomplished?

Humans do form groups (in fact, tend to die in solitary).  They even organize their groups.  If the word "government" is to be defined as "any human organizing at all", it's too vague to be of any use.  Nobody disputes that humans act in organized groups.  To qualify as a "government", it seems to me that it must involve some people forcing (or able, or permitted, to force) other people to take certain actions -- and I mean "forcing them to act" in exactly that positive sense; forcing someone to refrain from an action is a wholly different matter.  To force someone to (positively) act is to co-opt their time & energy & attention, i.e., their most fundamental "property"; to forcibly prevent some specific use of their time & energy does not deprive them of that time & energy, which remain theirs to use for something else.

 

anything