You suspected correctly Aaron.

Peter is a radical and anti-government in terms of strongly opposing tried and true legislation and policies, somehow fooling himself into believing that his opinions may one day influence some Australians. Peter is all for allowing people to create and implement their own laws.

Few Australian parents and families would be persuaded into agreement, if Peter ever had his way, for the age of consent to be lowered; particularly most Ozzie Dads and/or Guardians of young teenage girls and boys.

Continue on your mission Peter; it is fruitless.

Aaron,

No Gillard and Labor's obvious incompetence don't imply Abbott and the Coalition are competent. That's illogical. Abbott and the Liberals, independantly of the impression created by Gillard and Labor, do give the impression of competence.

The Australian electorate is clever enough to work that out and will base their vote on that criteria this election.

Few people vote 'by default'.

Abbott wants the job to lead us back to no debt, no waste and a controlled border. He's said so and continues to say so.

Gillard want's the job to lead us to move forward... but she's isn't saying from where to where and, thankfully, she's not saying that so much now.

Brown simply wants the balance of power ... he keeps saying that too.

Now which attitude potrays competence?

Keith,

Firstly, no attitude can portray competence... it's non-sensical.

It can portray ethos, desire, intentions, motivations... but an attitude in itself does not represent competence...

Secondly,

"Brown just wants the balance of power"

Likewise, Abbott and Gillard just want the prime ministership...

But, in your obvious bias over balance, as you move from Abbott, through Gillard, to Brown, you gradually simplify their positions down to the most base level.

Aaron,
By the way the expression is Hobs' choice not Hobson's if you are going to quote get it right.

Examinator,

"By the way the expression is Hobs' choice not Hobson's if you are going to quote get it right."

Firstly, I didn't put that subtitle in; an editor did. It's appropriate, but it wasn't in my copy (so thanks to whoever did that).

Secondly, "Hobs'" refers to more than one Hob. If you mean someone called Hobs, it should be "Hobs's".

Thirdly, if you mean the philosopher Thomas Hobs, his name is actually spelt Hobbes.

Fourthly, the expression "Hobson's choice" is correct. The reference to Hobbes is a common mispronunciation, as well as a commonly-held misconception because Hobbes is quite widely known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

While I'm here, is there anything else I can help you with? Not that I don't sound smarmy enough already, but if I can help, I will. :)

Cheers,

Aaron

Aaron
The fact that positive science does not of itself supply value judgments, does not ‘ignore the values we impose through instincts such as survival and compassion’.

Let’s assume that measurements of temperature show that the globe is warming so as to endanger human survival. The measurements of temperature themselves, and climate science, don’t supply the value judgment that we should do something. The value that we place on human life supplies the value judgment that we should do something.

You say that questions how anyone is to know whether policy provides net benefits (including benefits in non-economic terms) “deny our human curiosity”.

How do they deny our human curiosity? If anything, they should provoke human curiosity: - to wonder whether you, or anyone, can answer these questions, on which the justification of government policy depends.

“If … renewable resources… [risk consumption] to the point of exhaustion, then it would be far better to implement a policy to limit that consumption to the rate at which they can be replenished.”

Only if *policy itself* does not cause greater waste of resources, or deaths by starvation, for example by diverting global production into loss-making activities.

“I don't see what's superstitious about a plan like that.”

What’s superstitious is that it is irrational. Why? Because you are unable to know or show whether a given policy entails greater waste of natural resources, and I can show why it does.

As with drowning witches, the people advocating policy are unable to know whether it can provide the benefits they say it can; while they ignore the cost in terms of human lives and suffering by assuming it’s all worth it for a higher goal.

Thus even if there were no issue as to the climate science, policy action on global warming is not ethically justified by ‘science’. And even if there were no issue about the likelihood of massive corruption, policy action on global warming is not practically justified by its net economic and non-economic benefits.

It is based on a circular irrational faith in miraculous government.