The definition of neo-liberal is a movable feast, but I suspect Dr Tomlinson's definition is along the lines of someone who wants to balance community needs with expectations, with budgets - that is someone who wants to govern, as opposed to grandstand. What society can afford, as opposed to what certain groups may consider to be their right, is not his problem. Fortunately his like will never be in government. My chief concern is he might be allowed near the front of a lecture hall.

Forest Gump put as succinctly as it is possible with the observation, stupid is as stupid does; and given Keynesian economics had created a period of unprecedented post war prosperity. And only dismantled by neo libs with fixed ideas about earning your own income?

Ideas which they seem to believe just don't apply to them; given most of them "earn" theirs, it would seem, from the bent or broken backs of others or sweat of other brows or the patently purloined ideas of others?

There is a christian tradition of simply tithing 10% of your income so as to provide a not for profit fund for the provision of some christian charity for those less fortunate?

And basically if everyone including all the current tax avoiders and most multinationals, tithed 10%, we could all have enough to get by without anyone having the unmitigated hide to wince?
Rhrosty

Onward Christian soldier, let's split: you hit the elusive neo-liberal monster while I tackle the one from Loch-Ness.

But wait, miracles do happen and when one shoots long enough in all directions, eventually they will hit the target.

...As the author did when writing: "The only way that we could get close to providing appropriate compensation would be if the government were to introduce a Universal Basic Income paid at a level above the Henderson Poverty Line."

Yes, I have written many times in support of a Negative Income Tax.
Yes, we can afford a guaranteed Universal Basic Income for EVERYONE (which for most of us will take the form of an income-tax offset rather than direct payments).

But in turn, all other welfare perks must be removed: government should stay completely out of health, education, arts, sports, business-subsidies, etc. so everyone can decide for themselves what they should do with their money. Everyone will have a minimum amount of cash to begin with, then if they want education they could spend some of it on education and if they want health then they could spend some of it either directly on health or on purchasing an appropriate health insurance.

(and if one wants more money above that minimum, then they could either start a business or look for employment)

---

"increasing the rate of a GST to 15% won't be the end of civilisation as we know it"

In that case, why bother!?

---

Curmudgeon, sorry but his communist kind have been in government every day since about 1972. his communist pipe dreams are so deeply embedded in the land of OZ that even LNP governments introduce communist policies every day.

Rhosty, sounds easy when you say it fast but 1, everything you & the article author complain about was inflicted on the land of OZ by communists, NOT conservatives.

http://mailstar.net/xTrots.html

2, tithing 10% of YOUR income to YOUR church was for more than one purpose. EG, education, health care, life insurance, social work, welfare, arts, entertainment, sport or social & congregation cohesion or development was church business.

Yuyutsu, not a bad idea, the Australian Democrats had GMI on their policy books 30 years ago. But now that i am older & wondering about incentives for work, there may be better ways to skin the cat. EG providing a commune to the poor, to live in.

imacentristmoderate

I would take issue.. the author is a different type of extremist to the one's in govt. If you think the one's in government are bad - I don't disagree on this point - you may change your tune if Tomlinson is put in charge of anything. Admittedly this is a moot point, but its one of those nightmare scenarios that keep anyone with sense awake at night..

Notice how the statist
a) does not define neoliberalism?
b) does not define the State?
c) confuses the State with society, and society with the State, without any explanation or justifiction of this sleigh of hand?
d) confuses consensual with coerced transactions?
e) does not state what any of the optimums are that he claims to know, nor how he knows what they are?
f) does not give any explanation for his assumption to know what is the foundation and centrepiece of his entire political ideology, but which he just pretends deosn't exist?
h) just conveniently ignores that he has a vested interest as a dependent member of the ruling parasite class - ideology propagation branch?

The article is just more of the professional government fundament-licking class, writing their usual back-to-front non-critique of the principles of liberty and proprety, misrepresenting all they discuss by grotesque caricatures, and assuming that in the State we have magically found an all-good, all-caring, all-knowing, all-competent, selfless disinterested moral and economic superbeing? It's the statists, not the libertarians, guilty of throwing guys out their government helicopters, fool.

Real fairy floss stuff, and laughable if it weren't for the author's corrupt vested interest.

I suggest instead of exhibiting your ignorance so badly John, you read Human Action by Mises and get back to us with your rational refutation.

(Note that's *rational*, not misrepresentations, not assuming what's in issue, not double standards, not self-contradictions, not just sliming over the issues of aggressive violence that you advocate, not just squarking emotive slogans. You can start by actually representing the arguments correctly, fool - if you can.)

The term bigot applies to someone who is intolerant of others opinions.

This description applies to John Tomlinson who thinks that the majority of Australians who have woken up from the nightmare of Labor incompetence.

free face lifts, free boob jobs, free teeth cleaning, free killing of babies but don't forget nurses are always underpaid, cleaners are always underpaid and you can't ask any contribution from those using the services. Its called socialist economics and of course the wind farms can supply the hospitals at a very low cost.

By the way, John, Pinochet was a national socialist like you. He's on your side. Remember? Like you, he believes that people have no rights but what government says they have. That's what you believe, isn't it? People have no right to their own income whatsoever until government has first taken as much as it wants and unilaterally decides on pain of imprisonment if they don't agree.

Yes? That's what you think isn't it?

Libertarians are in favour of the non-aggression principle, so your nasty remark about national socialist *governments* throwing people from helicopters was either 1. ignorant or 2. dishonest.

Which was it, John?

Well, looks like human freedom is not such a scourge and a plague after all, and the State is not such a big teat of milk of human kindness after all, eh John?

That's a complete fail on John's part.

According to "visiting scholar" John Tomlinson, neo liberals are illogical cheapskates who want to destroy welfare, and make the poor beg for their supper. Well Peter, as a neo liberal myself, I would like to fire a broadside back at you.

I don't know what a "visiting scholar" is, but I presume it means that you have never done a day's work in your life. You must exist financially out of your daddy's trust fund, or you have found a way to make the taxpayer's fund your work free lifestyle. If the latter, then I can well understand your fear of neo liberals taking away your academic sinecure and forcing you to get a real job.

Now Peter, you obviously regard yourself as a super intelligent brain. So, how is it that you can not figure out that no society can spend more than it earns? If you are hankering after socialist economics, you are not a super intelligent brain, Peter, you are a complete idiot. Just in case you did not notice the passing of history, because you were too busy discussing economic theory with your work shy peers in some university coffee house, socialism failed everywhere that it was tried.

You can go on, and on, about the inequalities and absurdities of the free market, as opposed to more equitable planned economy. But in the end, the free market was better than the planned market. The free market is exactly like democracy, Peter. Democracy may be the worse form of government ever invented, but it just happens to beat everything else that has been tried.

But Peter is a True Believer in the planned economy. He is never going to let the inconvenient facts get in the way of a good social theory. Don't worry about deficits because money falls from the skies. If it doesn't, just borrow it from German bankers forever and don't pay them back. Then tell the bankers that you can never pay them back unless they give you more money. It works for the socialist Greeks.

This article is excessive, It is full of assertion with no supporting evidence . The statement: "Conniving, two-timing, ruthless, duplicity, lying, cheating, crawling, denying and stubborn pig-headedness are better predictors of how far a politician will get on the greasy pole" may in part be true. But it needed at least some minimal support. For an academic, who must face the requirement to supply supporting evidence for their statements, it is an intellectually empty article. It should never have been published.

Peter Bowden

PeterBo

You’re quite right, of course, but that’s par for the course in Tomlinson’s articles.

Yuyutsu sums it up rather well: it’s another emotive attack on an evil monster confected from Tomlinson’s own imagination.

Proposing that the Mont Pelerin society advocates throwing people from helicopters because Friedman once advised Pinochet is a new low, though, even for John.

The astonishing thing is that this guy apparently earns a living as an academic