I agree entirely with Aaron- in fact he summed up my own attitudes pretty well.

Anyway, putting aside all the spooked, baseless rabble so far expressed in this thread, I believe this election is definitely a positive in that Australians are waking up to how pathetic our two major candidates truly are.
More and more people will start eying other candidates, and I'm perfectly happy that the Greens are particularly prominent one of them.

So long as the other parties are smart and would sooner try to form a coalition with each other than divide themselves up on who is (or WAS) more 'Labor' than 'Liberal', we might make some progress.

After all, I reckon Family First and the Greens would actually have more in common with each other than with either Liberal and Labor- for the sole reason that they both appear to be substantially honest, actually take their job seriously and have the well-being of Australians on their mind.

Examinator

Who is the ‘we’ you keep referring to?

As for ‘argument that is predicated on the sole basis of a competition between extremes/absolutes’…

This assumes that the current ‘extremes’ give us the framework of viability, that viable solutions have to pick some kind of middle ground within them. But if a given extreme position is not able to satisfy a threshold test of logical soundness, then there is no reason to accord it the status of one of the given extremes within which alternative proposals must fit.

You say my questions cannot be answered ‘in the absolute they demand’? What is that supposed to mean? How about you try and answer them otherwise than in a supposedly demanded absolute, but still in such a way as to satisfy a threshold test of logical soundess? Please try, and let’s see what you can come up with.

There are serious problems with arguing that the laws of probability suggest “the *appropriate* answer [to practical human problems] is more likely to be found within the +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean.”

This assumes that the proposition is an empirical one in the first place, and amenable to statistical analysis. It might be, but it might not be. All or most ethical questions for example cannot be solved by reference to quantification or statistical analysis.

Also if the proposition is not capable of satisfying the threshold test of being logically sound in the first place, the question of its empirical basis does not arise; any more than we statistically analyse the viability of a solution based on invisible pink unicorns.

Nature imposes certain limits on human action and production possibilities. These limitations are not a social construct, do not originate in a cultural ‘narrative’, and cannot be made to disappear by re-arranging human institutions or property titles, in other words, cannot be made to disappear by policy action.

Rather, these limitations on human action and production possibilities follow directly from physical laws which are knowable, and which have logical consequences. *If* the premises are factually true, and *if* the deductions therefrom are logically valid and internally and externally consistent, then to that extent, we are capable of some minimal logical knowledge about limits on human action and production possibilities.

One of these logical consequences is that central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo. It is important to understand that we know this not just from empirical evidence, but because the basic proposition does not meet the threshold test of constituting a logically sound proposition.

Unless you, or anyone, is able to show that the proposition involved in seeking policy solutions is capable of constituting a logically sound proposition, then the expectation that policy solutions are viable, is in no better position than a superstition.

The fact that this conclusion disproves assumptions about the efficacy of government is no more a proof against it, than that it disproves assumptions about the efficacy of rain dances. Or should rain dances be one of the 'extremes' within which we accommodate our possible alternatives? And if not, why not?

If the advocates of policy action are not able to show in theory how government policies are able to produce net benefits considering all costs both economic and non-economic, then the intellectually honest thing to do is to re-think the claim that they can, not to argue that it can’t be true because it contradicts a fondly-held belief.

Please either let us have your honest attempt to answer my questions, avoiding what absolutes you will so long as you attempt to satisfy the minimum of logic; or admit that you can’t and that it follows that there is no reason why alternatives should accommodate the belief in policy solutions, nor avoid the extreme of denouncing them as unfounded.

For a man hated so much by Ms Gillard it is hilarious that she has now adopted his policies in order to fool the voters. She pretends

1. be tough on illegal immigrants
2. be a fiscal conservative
3. oppose gay marriage

How gullible can the public be. Could you imagine John Howard

1. Being soft on illegal immigration
2. being a wasteful spender of tax payer money
3. supporting gay marriage

At least the Greens are honest about what they believe even if their policies are totally bereft of any morals.

Also I must insist we debate at a certain level of intelligence.
That means no more "extremes" "middle ground/centrist", "left/right" garbage (because they're nothing but moronic ignorant non-existent perceptions). And while we're at it, let's drop the vague hints of ominous (and conveniently un-elaborated) doomsday scenarios. And the silly stereotypes. The actual chances of the Greens secretly turning us into a flower-power marxist state are about as likely as One Nation building gas chambers and flying 20 foot flags with Pauline Hanson's face on it if elected, or Family First making everyone wear a burka (all of which are ZERO, for those who are stupid and have never bothered to check out each party's site).
This isn't kindergarten, grow up.

Instead, why don't we be big boys and girls and actually critically evaluate each minor party. I mean actually list them all and do a rundown.
For example, if we actually have a problem with any policy (or alternatively, past performance) then we can actually talk about it.

Also what exactly is the "middle?" Can anyone here actually list out what kind of policies a "middle" or "centrist" candidate would endorse, and why this sets them apart from the "extremes"?
I have a feeling I'm going to be fed parrot lines by people who less-than-understand what they even say. But please, prove me wrong.

Peter Hume,

Examinator is right about your three questions: they are pure, but for the sake of purity, not reason or practicality. Question a) ignores the values we impose through instincts such as survival and compassion, while questions b) and c) deny our human curiosity. Even individually, they are questions to obstruct and distract, to prevent action and change. Yes, that means I'm not going to try to answer them either.

As for your argument about "threshold tests", the idea "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo" is not even remotely logical. If, for example, it is human nature to consume of vital but renewable resources 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. I don't see what's superstitious about a plan like that.

One need only hear the word "extinction", or even "deregulation", to think of counterexamples involving inaction.

I suspect that your scepticism is, deep down, of the government, rather than of all forms of societal organisation or progress. That said, maybe I'd just prefer to believe that than to consider the evidence in front of me.

Cheers,

Aaron