Hey Trashcanman

Perhaps I should have asked whose manner, disposition, feelings, and position with regard to governing or whose tendencies or orientations suggest competence?

Then it would have been clear in simple unnuaned terms ... eh?

regards keith

Yep, and my answer would have been:

"Neither. We really need to get them to sing, dance and cook to decide who will be 'Australia's Next Prime Minister'!"

"My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions"
[Bible, 1 Kings, chapter 12, verse 14]

Aaron Nielsen is right - the Greens ARE different... worse!

If you already feel that your personal freedom is being quashed under Labor and so-called Liberals, wait till the Greens are in power to get a taste of how life were in the U.S.S.R, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Fascist Japan, etc.

Peter Hume,

You pose your three questions in rhetorical and absolute terms, with the predisposition that they cannot be answered. Yet, you yourself prove them to be invalid, by your reliance on them being isolated from anything tangible. If anyone followed your advice, they'd never go anywhere, do anything or talk to anyone, because you can never be completely certain in advance that the costs won't outweigh the benefits.

I proposed a policy to limit consumption of a renewable resource to a sustainable rate. This completely debunks your assertion that "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo". Leadership on this scale is not "miraculous": it's happened many times before, to bring us hospitals, fire stations, schools and weekends. None of these is perfect, sure, but they contribute to the common good.

Perhaps I should take back my suspicion that there's something to your opinion other than obstructionism. I don't care that you disagree with a government policy, but you are making a dishonest, extreme and impracticable argument for your chosen course of inaction. If you ever hope to stop contributing to the problems, stop telling us what we can't do, and start suggesting something we can.

Cheers,

Aaron

now what was that you said about bias?

“Yet, you yourself prove [the three questions] to be invalid, by your reliance on them being isolated from anything tangible. If anyone followed your advice, they'd never go anywhere, do anything or talk to anyone, because you can never be completely certain in advance that the costs won't outweigh the benefits.”

My questions are not isolated from anything tangible, and do not require absolute knowledge or complete certainty.

I’ll give you examples.

I take it you’re agreeing that facts, of themselves, do not supply value judgments.

But that doesn’t make value judgments invalid, including about tangible things. We can and do value things as a means to an end, like a hammer, and as an end value in themselves, like the beauty of a waterfall. Both of these instrumental values, and end values, can either be about tangible things – an apple – or about intangible things – the environment or compassion.

Suppose I want to visit a friend, or buy an apple, or reduce my carbon emissions. I don’t need absolute certainty that the costs will outweigh the benefits to take action. I only need to satisfy the logical minimum. If the friend wants me to visit, no problem arises. Or suppose someone offers me an apple at a price I am ready, willing and able to pay. Or suppose I decide I’ll stop using a heater. No problem arises. It is not illogical to assume that the personal and social benefits of doing all these things, outweigh the costs, because all the transactions are either consensual, or don’t violate anyone else’s self-ownership or proerty. Each person benefits from the transaction or suffers no loss, and value is created: a win/win.

Therefore the problems I raised do not require one to stop going anywhere, isolation from anything tangible, or complete certainty as you allege.

The problem with proving benefits of actions is when the transactions aren’t consensual, but are based on coercion or threats. If A wants to rape B, then how do you prove that there is a net benefit? Well it’s a lot harder, isn’t it