More half-witted self-contradiction and open-ended self-entitlement from the left wing.

mikk
Thank you for displaying your complete moral and intellectual confusion.

So you don't believe in private property, and you don't believe in the state?

So how is anything to be produced? We are to starve getting the permission of everyone in the world who is an equal communal co-owner, presumably. You obviously haven't thought through your ideas at the most basic level.

The idea that private property in land is what causes starvation and hunger is simple idiocy. It's the other way around. If private property in land were abolished, thousands of millions of people would starve to death. If, according to your theory, anyone has the right to land and to enforce that right on the ground that they don't have it, then obviously nobody would ever have a right to land and you're back to your genocidal tendencies based on complete economic and ethical ignorance.

Yours is nothing but a creed of aggressive violence. By contrast, a social order based on private property is the principle of minimising aggressive violence, your failure to understand it notwithstanding.

Poirot
You're the one who thinks government presumptively represents "society", better than society represents itself, remember? You're the one who assumes people have no right to liberty and property but what the government decides to leave them, remember? You're the one who assumes that government action intrinsically and irrefutably imports social benefits, even if it can't be rationally demonstrated? (Anyone who doubts it is a "denialist", remember?) You're the one who assumes that government has the right to kill people to force them to obey remember?

Sparkq

‘I would like to know where the figures of 70% to 80% in support of gay marriage and euthanasia come from.’

Simple. Just Google 'polls euthanasia same sex marriage Australia'.

You'll find heaps of poll results that show where those figures come from.

As for why our governments remain so stubbornly opposed to enacting legislation that reflects overwhelming public opinion, my guess is that Australian governments have always taken their cues on social policy from the UK and US, not from the Australian people. As soon as either of those countries reform their euthanasia and same sex marriage laws, Australia will automatically follow.

JKJ,

You're the one denigrating "lefties" and lauding "righties".

You are the one constructing big fat strawmen - such as:

"You're the one who assumes that government has the right to kill people to force them to obey remember?"

Can't you "discuss" without hiding behind your strawman?

Regarding your line to mikk:

"Yours is nothing but a creed of aggressive violence..."

You're always banging on about so-called violence...

Yet your style is laden with insulting rhetoric and dripping with belligerence.

We take our cues from that.

Your bellicose attitude is not worth the time it takes to tap a reply, let alone the brain power to achieve it.

Bye

<< Ludwig never ceases to urge large-scale government attacks on society to achieve his anti-human religion of sustainability… >>

Haaaa hahaha Jardine.

Hope you are cumfy there in your padded cell! ( :>)

When was the last time any government had a true majority of the vote? Menzies?

If we had genuine proportional representation, they'd get even less. (the Senate doesn't count. Only 6 seats per election, regardless of a state's population? What a joke!).

Perhaps we should have policy plebiscites concurrently.
Parliament must select 2 or 3 "issues" of current concern, that both major parties are likely to campaign on.

The results of the plebiscites cannot be contradicted, even if the winning party had an opposing policy (e.g. party wants carbon tax, but plebiscite says "No."

Only 33% voted Labor, that means that 66% do not want heir policies.