The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Liberals should show respect to potential allies > Comments

The Liberals should show respect to potential allies : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 2/10/2013

The Liberals do not own the word 'liberal' and need the goodwill of minor parties in the Senate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The 'voter confusion' argument cuts both ways. Surely it's more likely that the Liberals received votes intended for the Liberal Democrats because voters were confused into thinking the Liberals stand for liberty?

Actually to avoid voter confusion, maybe the Labor and Liberal parties should be re-named the "socialist fascist corporatist party (left faction)" and the ""socialist fascist corporate party (right faction)". That would be more accurarate wouldn't it? How about the "Totally Lacking in Principles Party (left wing)" and "Totally Lacking in Principles Party (right wing). At least it would be less misleading and deceptive!

It is precisely because of the similarity between the major parties that the minor parties got such a fillip in the last election from voters disgusted with the usual creed of endless government control of everything.

More strength to your arm, David, and while you're at it could you please put an end to the nauseating propaganda issuing 24/7 from the ABC?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 9:11:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Abbott's trip to Indonesia is anything to go by, I think the author's hope that all minor parties in the Senate be shown a fair degree of respect will come about. As Paul Kelly wrote in The Australia, Abbott is making the transition from scrapper to statesman.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbott-from-scrapper-to-statesman/story-e6frg6n6-1226731119138
On another point, I disagree with what the author says on voluntary as opposed to mandatory voting.
Being required to front the polling booths to elect our Federal and State governments is not an onerous imposition on anyone. If you don't like the choices, vote informal.
The alternative is seen in countries where 50% and less of the eligible voters bother to show up on election day.
I do, however, think that an optional preferential system could be used in the Senate elections. Instead of having to vote above the line or having to number all the boxes, perhaps it could be a requirement that a voter only number the number of boxes as there are positions vacant. Or go above the line.
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:02:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of the words liberal and liberalism, both words are now used as words of abuse against anyone of a left/progressive persuasion by those on the right side of the culture wars in the USA. And in other parts of the world too - increasingly so.

Perhaps even more so as used by advocates of old fashioned "traditionalist" and/or "orthodox" back to Biblical basics religionists.
Never mind that once-upon-a-time The USA actually defined itself as the champion of liberal democracy and promoted liberal democracy as a universal ideal.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:28:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Halduell
“The alternative [to compulsory voting] is seen in countries where 50% and less of the eligible voters bother to show up on election day.”
You seem to be engaging in a bit of a tautology. You could just as well say, “We can’t have voluntary voting because many people will not vote!” Well, yes.
Why is it a given wrong that 50% of the eligible voters won’t vote? Where's the problem?
Professional market researchers estimate what the general population are thinking on a variety of products and services by polling not more than 2,000 people. This could be below 4% of the population. So what’s wrong with choosing our representatives with that 44% of the population who actually have an interest in what is going on in the political world?
Posted by Edward Carson, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 12:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daffy
The term liberal originally denoted those in favour of liberty: low taxes, small government, freedom of trade, voluntary relations: what are today called libertarians.

The term was misappropriated by the left wing in the 20th century to describe their platform of thoroughgoing coercive control of even voluntary relations: such as criminalising freedom of association ("anti-discrimination", "industrial relations", speech codes, race-based laws etc).

There is no such thing as a human right to violate the person or property of others and in the final analysis, that's all that the left-wing stand for on everything, as David G and Lyn are getting blown out of the water for her thread today.

What the left stands for is the opposite of liberty, and so it is perfectly appropriate that, in America where liberal is used to mean left-wing, it should be used as a term of abuse.

Socialism cannot work in its pure form owing to the economic calculation problem. For this reason, since by definition socialists don’t want capitalism, they must always fall back to some form or other of production goods nominally in private hands, but with a starting presumption in favour of the state's wisdom and power to dictate any and every aspect of its use. It is, in a word, fascist.

That’s what fascism means. Google “Hitler economic policies” and see if you can find any that left-liberals *disagree* with. Thus fascism is a species of the genus socialism, and so-called left-liberalism is the same thing.

"Never mind that once-upon-a-time The USA actually defined itself as the champion of liberal democracy and promoted liberal democracy as a universal ideal."

That's referring to liberal meaning libertarian, not liberal meaning socialist fascist.

If you actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will see that they are libertarian documents, setting up liberal – libertarian - state. The socialist programs of the left wing are explicitly illegal: see Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. The only thing "progressive" about so-called progressives is their belief in the progressive expansion of government power over everything - the exact opposite of liberty.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 12:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

I would be quite happy for the Liberal Party to be renamed the "socialist fascist corporate party (right faction)" if we can get the title of the Governor-General to be changed to "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief".
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 2 October 2013 3:10:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy