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 > No reality holiday from this population challenge > Comments

No reality holiday from this population challenge : Comments

By Asher Judah, published 20/5/2011

As much as some would like to see a slowdown in the pace of growth, the socioeconomic costs of doing so far outweigh the benefits.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. All
Only

Mainstream party politicians
Corporate CEOs
Media lackeys and jockeys
Swelled headed investors
Immigrants and assorted other ALIEN invaders

would want continued immigration growth continued economic growth paid for by decreased liberty for the masses.

Because life is becoming so difficult, I ask these folk through the mindstream what they want us ordinary hard working Australians to do?

The answer comes back in the vague form of a clip from the film ID4:

DIE! DIE!

I sense a countdown is indeed in progress as oil runs out.

And Then?

Check Mate!
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 27 May 2011 12:56:00 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
Well said, Yabby. I would like to see the growth advocates provide real examples of the success of their model instead of the depth commentaries on economic computer models. The irony is that the debate parallels that of the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines, except that over there the economists are citing the infrastructure shortfall resultant from the high population growth rate, and the Catholic Bishops are claiming that the problem is one of Government mismanagement and corruption, and has nothing to do with population growth.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/church-philippine-govt-clash-over-family-planning/443553

Now, if the Philippines is having trouble providing the infrastructure for a living standard far lower than Australia's, is it any wonder to see the massive debt and infrastructure shortfalls here?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 27 May 2011 10:34:15 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
Oops- smile Hume, you just fell into my trap
-
"I will respond to your argument when you can present it without a load of bitter insult, misrepresentation, allegations of my supposedly supporting incitement to extermination, alleging that I am “itching for Nazi interventions”, and similar ad hominem nonsense.
I assure you and everyone else, that stripped of these dirty tactics you are unable to sustain your argument."
-
You do realize I just got you to word-for-word, describe your own conduct in every forum discussion? After all, YOU were the one who implied others were communists, anti-capitalists, nazis, fascists and wanted to jail people for 'breeding' and 'disagreeing' when no such allegation were made by us- particularly myself when you tried to imply all of the above on me several times.
So where does that leave you?
But in other words, you refuse to answer my questions- that's too bad.

And sadly, the rest of your replies still dance around the obvious points.
(a) When you say "democracy" one time I give you an answer that DOES debunk your argument, because your next reply you promptly stop talking about it and you pretend we were really talking about authoritative government. Nonetheless, an elected government is held to far more shareholders and civil/human rights/ethics laws than a private company- so there's your moral superiority (not to mention accountability- which you avoided ever since I told you).
(b) Most important purposes- lets see, rescue work, remote infrastructure, medical care- these three things usually don't work very well under an enticement for profit and are rarely handled at all (let alone well) by business.
(c) Again with the communist accusation. Poor Peter, you really do see the world as full of communists out to get you, don't you? The fact that you seem to actually believe people are socialists when they are obviously nothing close is really quite sad (actually it's funny).

I don't expect you to answer these questions either of course, because you are clearly trying to avoid me.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 28 May 2011 9:02:43 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
Fester, thanks for that link, it makes the point.

What chance do the poor have, when the church is fighting the
Govt and wants to keep them poor?

With examples like that, I can only express my disgust at
the church claiming to be humane. They should be ashamed of themselves, they really should.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 28 May 2011 9:22:13 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
Hazza

The logic of your argument still depends on my personality, which is why you can’t make out your argument without referring to my alleged personality defects, my alleged ulterior motives, my alleged malicious intentions, my supposed deliberate misrepresentations, my supposed willful evasions, and other ad hominem rubbish.

Let’s try some of your tactics of argument on you:
Why do you support exterminating millions of people?
Why does your mental retardation stop your from conceding what is yet to be proved?
Why do you support Nazi interventions?

How do you like it? That’s the standard of intellectual muck you’re serving up – and then have the gall to accuse me of desperation!

The issue is on policy – whether government can produce an improvement, all things considered. My argument opposes, and your argument supports, policy and the governmental ownership and control of means of production – to quote some of your recent examples “rescue work, remote infrastructure, medical care”. If you didn’t, you’d be in favour of the voluntary funding and private ownership of these, which you aren’t, which is why there’s an issue.

So to the extent you are in favour of such government ownership and control of the means of production, you are in favour of socialism, no matter matter how much you try to squirm out of it by insulting and misrepresenting me, or by calling it something else.

Similarly, the whole point of proposing policy action is that policies can be enforced, whereas voluntary action can’t. Since you are proposing policies to enforce your socialist political opinions, and since law and policy are enforced ultimately by threats of imprisonment, therefore it is not dishonest or perverse of me to accuse you of advocating the jailing of people who disagree with your political opinions – that’s exactly what you’re doing, else your proposals would be voluntary!

Thus my accusing you of socialism and authoritarianism is not based on your personality, it’s based on your argument; whereas your argument that it’s perverse of me to accuse you so, is based on semantics and personality, not on my argument.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 29 May 2011 3:00:13 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
a) Your ethical argument fails to make out a justification for the unprovoked aggression you are in favour of, and therefore your argument fails on that account.

Government is not bound by more rules than business. By definition government involves a claim of a right to impose rules on subjects from which the government is exempt; else we would all have an equal right to tax and claim jurisdiction.

For example, by law, “misleading and deceptive conduct” is illegal but only “in trade or commerce”, not in government or politics. A recent example is the carbon tax. If Gillard was a private businesswomen who took billions on the basis of a facile misrepresentation, she would be in prison for years. Therefore your argument fails on that account too.

Voting is only once every three years, it provides no vote on any particular proposed law or policy, it imposes on the minority what they don’t want, in practice a minority can impose on a majority, and the person you vote for has no legal obligation whatsoever to perform any of his promises. By contrast every single transaction in the market is subject to the law against fraud, and being voluntary, represents the wishes of the parties to it, otherwise it wouldn’t take place. Therefore your same argument fails on that account.

You have also been disproved many times over in this article http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/

Therefore your argument as to the alleged moral superiority and greater representativeness of government fails many times over.

b) The question is whether private or government services satisfy the most urgent wants of those services’ consumers, as judged from *the people’s* point of view, not *yours*, so that argument fails.

“Shareholders” is a red herring. A citizen or political voter does not, by that fact, have a right to an equal or any share whatsoever in the property of the state. A private shareholder is unconditionally subject to the decisions of the consumers of the product whether to buy or abstain from buying. So your argument fails on that count too.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 29 May 2011 3:06:03 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. All

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