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 > Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead > Comments

Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 14/4/2011

Extreme positions are not the hallmark of real world political philosophies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Libertarians may or may not be able to debate successfully that freedom is good for the economy.

As far as I am concerned, that doesn't matter. If freedom also brings about economic prosperity, then well and good, that would be a bonus, but not the determining factor.

The alternative to freedom is coercion and violence. That is simply unacceptable, even IF it brings about some "common good".

Ideally, no form of violence is right, but as a compromise we do commonly accept the right to use violence in self-defense. That is a pragmatic approach and that is where it should stop. While it is acceptable to say "It is OK to kill somebody who threatens me with a knife before they kill me", we should not compromise any further by saying for example "it is OK to take someone else's property/body-organs by force because I need it" or "it is OK to force someone do work for me because I really need that work done".

Just as we should limit our personal violence to self-defense (and blessed be they who are willing to do with no violence at all and turn the other cheek), so we must similarly limit the level of violence of our state, which is after all only there in order to represent us.

The state was formed as a self-defense pact, a mechanism that is used to protect us from both external and internal threats. Morally, that is the only mandate a state has, and that's where it should stay.

It is a pragmatic compromise already.

The fact that some people want to form a civilization or to make it a success, is not sacred enough to justify violence. "I want a more-advanced society" is not different in essence than "I want a bigger house" or "I want my neighbour's red-shining car".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 14 April 2011 3:20:02 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
Peter Hume,

I refer you to this definition--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

which is the consensus.

My statement that economics is 'not a science' has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist ideology ( where did you get that idea?) it's based on my acquaintance with economics at business school where it was obvious that some of the basic assumptions of economics were nothing more than philosophical speculation, many 'laws' in economics are simply ideology.

Fortunately there has been progress made recently towards placing economics on a scientific basis, sometimes by scientists not economists. Read the 'Bonus Myth' in the 9/4/11 issue of 'New Scientist'-- another cherished economic dogma has been undermined.

I recommend economist Prof Steve Keen's 'Debunking Economics' which was a pleasure to read as it confirmed my undergraduate scepticism of the subject.

Your straw man is in flames.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 14 April 2011 4:28:22 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
Peter; It's funny your characterisation of Marxism refuting the idea of genuine social (including economic) science;and your use of the term "Marxian ideology", when within the frames of reference of Marxism itself 'Ideology' are those ideas which obscure real interests in the process of legitimising the prevailing regime of economic and political power.

You say also Marxism has been refuted 'by science' (I assume you mean Austrian economics) also, but are not specific. The Marxist/Marxian tradition is a diverse one, though, encompassing theories of monopoly and of imperialism that remain relevant. The debate over the labour theory of value goes on also - and is a matter of interpretation. (eg: labour and nature as the source of value; value as purely subjective; value of nature regardless of the impact of labour etc)

Rejection of arguments about falling rates of profit take place in the context of Marxism's declining real-world influence - reinforcing the 'consensus' against its 'relevance'. But in reality falling rates of profit have been reversed due to: increases in the rate of exploitation, a falling labour share of the economy, the practice of neo-colonialism - and all this has remained 'palatable' in the advanced capitalist world because improvements in technology have seen material living standards rise regardless.

Nonetheless if you're a genuine libertarian I'd be interested in your view of Abbott and 'work for the dole' after 6 months. And if you oppose this, but also welfare - how you'd propose to deal with crime, homelessness,and massively increasing costs for the justice system. Not to mention the real-world human cost. But I'm getting ahead of myself - I'd be interested in your answer, though.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 14 April 2011 5:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I also agree liberalism is a diverse tradition. There's economic liberalism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, political liberalism, neo-liberalism.

But unfortunately views outside the classical liberal/neo-liberal mold have been expulsed from the Liberal Party. Even the place of 'classical liberalism' in the Liberal party is in doubt with equivocations on personal liberty. (for instance: treatment of refugees) And real compassionate conservatism has been replaced by a shallow populism of scapegoating and 'divide and conquer'.

But responding to Chris on one issue - that of tax. I don't think international competition need drive us to extremes. In the US Company Tax hovers around 35% - Here in Australia it's 30% There's room to move.

Yes there are limits to the tax of capital; and there are downward pressures on corporate tax. Some - such as Ireland - took cuts in corporate tax to extremes. It didn't end up doing them any good.

And there are other factors like education and infrastructure. If there's a 'downward auction' on tax, and the consequence is inferior education and infrastructure - then we all lose. Public Private Partnerships have proved a less efficient alternative too - and open to abuse.

But given the gap between the US and Australia on Company Tax I think we have more room to move than many think. And there is scope for more progressive tax of labour, wealth, inheritences, dividends. Dividend Imputation alone costs over $20 billion a year; yet there are plenty of countries who do well without it.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 14 April 2011 5:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

A more appropriate analogy would be, is it it EVER ok to comitt an act of violence. Ie. Would it be ok to kill one person if in doing so, you could save the entire planet and everythin on it?

This is an analogy for the age old debate on whether it is better to be right, or whether it is better to be good.

I don't think there's any question that the right thing is, that it is never ok to hurt someone else. However, depending upon how you see things, the good can sometimes be served by doing so. Ie, in your example above in terms of self defence. What about in my example, of a preemptive and collective 'self defence?

I can see that libertarian philsosophy is ,in its pure laboratory sense, right or moral for the individual. Where I am yet to be convinced is whether it will be for the common good. Or if that even matters? Of course there are also difficulties with defining the common good.
Posted by PaulL, Thursday, 14 April 2011 6:30:09 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
From what I have seen over the last forty years, and the recent remarks on this web, It is fairly obvious from the remarks of those fanatics of the liberal party, that their only vision is the destruction of the labor party, and the only vision of those of the labor party, is to destroy the liberal party, and I hope they both succeed, and maybe somebody intelligent will start a party with integrity and intelligence to step in and run the country intelligently, ensuring that our Australian manufacturing and farming industries have priority, and not destroyed with the export mining reciprocal imports of those cheap clothing and other goods that the stores are depending on so dearly. Sure we have fanatics who don't even know what is needed to obtain a good economy away from those recessions that both parties have driven our country into over the last thirty or so years, Paul Keating, John Howard, Peter Costello and Wayne Swan. If you are going to blame any of the guilty people, you have to blame all responsible without favour, except if you are a fanatic and corrupt of course. Do these parties promise to abide by the constitution they used to register with the electoral commission – no. Can they be trusted – no. Why can't they - after providing the commission with their constitution, obey it, and demand that all persons joining have to also honour and obey it so we know what they are doing, and so will they.
Posted by merv09, Thursday, 14 April 2011 7:45:10 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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