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 > A politically correct legacy > Comments

A politically correct legacy : Comments

By Jay Thompson, published 6/12/2007

John Howard's legacy is of a man who used stereotyping and broad-ranging terminology to identify and attack those who were critical of his vision.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Bravo. In my opinion we have been systematically enveloped by a grey cloud of stifling political correctness over the past 11 years.

A political correctness that doesnt allow any real questions to be asked.

An example. People on the left occasionally make silly comments about all kinds of hot-spot cultural topics. When ever they do the screaming harpies on the "right" immediately swing into action and blow everything out of proportion.

By contrast consider a certainly Bolt, a person who engages in character assassination and bullying in almost every column that he writes. In doing so he specialises in taking and putting other peoples statements out of context and either reversing what they were trying to say, or giving their statement(s) a completely different meaning. And he more often than not uses a single sentence or phrase in this exercise of mis-representation.

He also tells blatant lies.

And yet he is never ever criticised for this exercise in toxic journalism.

If anyone on the left wrote or writes like him they would be villified by the screaming harpies on the "right" including Bolt himself.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 6 December 2007 9:28:32 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
This is new - and relevant.

Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2246973658225588456&hl=en-GB

- or in instalments on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tLO87vzNQ

- a critique of the story of our "heroic" involvement in East Timor, with plenty of historically documented facts.

Enjoy!
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 6 December 2007 9:35:41 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
It’s to be hoped his PhD is more “in depth” than this quaint little offering.

We all know what Janet Albrechtsen thinks; some of us agree with her, and some of us don’t. We don’t need a lecture on the thoughts of a journalist.

I just love it when these fluffy-cheeked youths presume to instruct the rest of us, in the belief that they have discovered something we don’t know.

To suggest, as this one does, that the left has “called into question what an ‘ordinary’ citizen is”, in a positive way, is total hogwash. Nothing is more elitist and disdainful of ‘ordinary citizens’ than the leftist dogma imposed on society from time to time by malcontent swinging voters. This boy wouldn’t remember how ‘ordinary’ citizens fared under the Fabian, Whitlam, and the leftists Hawke and Keating. The ‘ordinary’ citizens – the workers by some definitions – have never had it as bad as they did under those arrogant villains.

We have had a change of government, and that’s that. But the naïve smugness of this lad, commenting on why the change occurred (“…many of those women and men who voted against the Howard in the recent election do not share the his views…”) indicates that he isn’t aware that most people vote the same way at every election, and only a very, very few who change their minds change governments.

Rubbish the “legacy” of John Howard all you like, Mr. Smartypants. He cleaned up the mess left by your left wing idols, and gave Australia the best decade ever.

It’s doubtful that we will be seeing a similar critique of Kevin Rudd from you after the swinging simpletons who put him in Government realise their dreadful error and swing back again.

It is said that ignorance is bliss. You must be deliriously happy
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 6 December 2007 9:48:28 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
And from Leigh's comments, he seems to be deliriously unhappy ... sad really, putting it all on the "simpletons" as he does.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 6 December 2007 10:09:20 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
What a tragic response from Leigh - a tired old grump who stopped thinking last century. I wonder what he was like as a young man? Just as hypocritical as he is, I hear you call? No, I think he could probably think, once.

Leigh laments: "I just love it when these fluffy-cheeked youths presume to instruct the rest of us, in the belief that they have discovered something we don’t know." And then proceeds from his rocking chair to 'instruct the rest of us' on what he calls 'the leftist dogma imposed on society from time to time by malcontent swinging voters' presuming to tell us all what he thinks we don't know.

This particular Mr Smartypants won't be deflected by you, Leigh, with your insults about 'swinging simpletons' and the presumption that they got it wrong, the ungrateful wretches.

When it comes to a critique of the Howard years, Leigh, it must be said that his government will be remembered as the most divisive, the most mediocre, the meanest, the most dishonest and the least moral in memory.

Now we can try to get back to being a country to be proud of, where dissent is accepted, where the voices of Indigenous Australians can be heard again, where the poor won't be humiliated by ideological government, where ordinary people will be protected from the greed of profiteers, where diversity is regarded as a blessing not something to be afraid of, where war will only be waged for ethical reasons, where care for the environment is not just an economic afterthought, where refugees and their children will not be vilified, where Australians will not be tortured by nations claiming to be our allies, where workers can negotiate collectively for fair conditions, where old people and the sick are looked after with dignity and decency and where young people are cherished for their naivety and idealism rather than being put down.

If you think John Howard gave Australia 'the best decade ever', Leigh, I can understand why you would talk about ignorance being bliss.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 6 December 2007 10:42:20 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
I totally agree FrankGol. Could not have said it any better myself.

Furthermore, even in economic terms, Howard did not give us the best decade ever. It was the Hawke/Keating government that made all the structural changes to enable our economy to enjoy this sustained period of economic growth.

Howard was also lucky to be in power when the whole world economy was experiencing growth. Our situation is not so remarkable when you compare it to other developed nations.

Howard's contribution was to pander to the worst in people's natures thereby creating a nation that is more selfish and less accepting of others who are different in any way. That is something to be ashamed of not to celebrate.
Posted by lola, Thursday, 6 December 2007 11:30:47 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
Leigh is correct.

Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the left wing, which believes in taking things in its own hands rather than leaving things to providence, is more moral than the right wing. Rather, socialism, by definition, is immoral, for it presumes right over other people's property.

The right wing, on the other hand, is branded immoral by virtue of its leaving things to take their own course. If the right wing could help the poor without stealing from the non-poor, the left would have a case. But it is not possible to help the poor without stealing from the non-poor, therefore the left does not have a case.

Socialism is, in essence, evil and dark. It is pursued by people who fancy themselves philanthropists, but who only remotely resemble philanthropists when they are given the opportunity to distribute other people's money. When they are not given such opportunity (ie when a right-wing government is in power), they resemble self-centred capitalists: they fight for the preservation of their property with feral tenacity.

Overall, the left wing use philanthropy as a disguise for their own covetousness: they tell us they are very concerned for people like aborigines and poor people, when they are actually just annoyed with those who have more than they. They also use philanthropy to conceal their desire for a “because I say so” power over others: socialists are people who love telling others what to do.

Socialism is a secular attempt at imitating Christianity. But because Christianity ASKS people to given, and socialism FORCES people to give, socialism is about as anti-Christian as it comes. The right wing, on the other hand, leaves things up to providence. Therefore whilst no political system can stand as 'Christian', the right wing nevertheless FACILITATES Christianity, whereas the left wing, utilising coercion, is the antithesis of Christianity.

Most Christians recognise this, and therefore most Christians are anti-socialist: they recognise that no system which forces property from the hands of those who earned it, can be in accord with Christianity.
Posted by Liberty, Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:26:28 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
Bollocks.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:35:40 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
Liberty, you amaze me.

I find it hard to believe that I actually live in the same world as people like you who have such a narrow understanding of society and human behaviour. You are extremely simplistic and too focussed on materialism which is a key problem that the 'right' have. There are more important things in society than neverending accumulation of wealth - which is something that only the left seem to comprehend.
Posted by lola, Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:46:52 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
Liberty is a troll and nothing more. He previously posted that women's rightful place was to stay at home raising kids and supporting their husbands. He also argues that it's better to pay less taxes than to live in a country with minimal poverty (e.g. Norway or Sweden), because "individual liberty" is the only thing that matters. And that if only the "working classes" would understand "right-wing ideology" then they would accept that WorkChoices was good for them, even if it left them worse off.
Posted by dnicholson, Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:32:17 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
FRankgol writes 'Now we can try to get back to being a country to be proud of, where dissent is accepted, where the voices of Indigenous Australians can be heard again, where the poor won't be humiliated by ideological government'

I would suggest that the poor are humiliated when they can't or won't work. Under Mr Howard employment has never been easier to come by and wages have never been higher. The reason for poverty has nothing to do with the generous welfare available. Under decades of State Labour Governments we have had an avalanche of child abuse among indigenous people. No doubt the symbolism of saying 'sorry' is more important to the socialist than actually preventing these barbaric practices. No doubt it will be those who made their money by capitalism that will now impose their socialist ideologies on people now trying to get a start in life.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:51:00 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
Liberty,

See what happens when you agree with me and then exert your right to express your own opinion: you are jumped on by the morons who currently seem to be in the majority on OLO.

I thought Q & A's "bollocks" was pretty deep and meaningful. Most of the morons at least make an effort to express themselves, but even their poor efforts are beyond Q&A.

Have your say, and don't take any notice of the idiots; the crap they come up with is not worth reading, let alone responding to.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:51:04 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
Leigh
I totally agree with everything you say too.
Posted by jackson, Thursday, 6 December 2007 3:19:53 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
runner

Three of the oldest debating trick in the world and among the most transparent:

(a) Deflect a positive issue (listening to Indigenous voices again) towards a nasty negative (child abuse) to avoid discussion of the first issue. So to repeat: Let's start to listen to Indigenous people before we tell them yet again what's best for them.

(b) Set up a false dichotomy - the symbolism of saying 'sorry' to Indigenous people is alleged to be more important than preventing 'barbaric practices' - and then assert that those who support the first don't support the second. To clarify: my post didn't mention the 'sorry' word, but now that you mention it, it's not a question of either/or. Let's take symbolic actions AND prevent child abuse too.

(c) Kick up dust with irrelevant business without too much regard for the facts - it's "under decades of State Labor Governments" that we have had "an avalanche of child abuse among indigenous people".

Decades of Labor Governments? Are you referring to the NT where the ALP had held power only since 2001 while the Coalition has governed for the entire period before that? Or WA where the ALP has held power there since 2001 but before that the Coalition held office for 25 out of the past 40 years? Or SA where the Coalition has held office for the majority of the time up to 2002 (starting with Playford’s 27 years)?

And given that the Federal Government has the power to over-rule the States and has done so in the case of the NT - and given that the Coalition has been in power federally for over a decade - I suppose you'd agree that child abuse is all Howard's fault?

Do you think child abusers ask themselves which Party is in power before they abuse a child?

Leigh, Q&A is right. Sometimes the only appropriate response to some posts is Bollocks!
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 6 December 2007 3:55:18 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
Do the right wing funadamentalists not know that they lost the election.

That both of their idols have forsaken them!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 December 2007 4:00:52 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
Thompson hits the nail on the head. His claims are spot on and I've yet to see any decent analysis that contradicts them.

Most of leigh's criticism isn't directed at the article, but more of a tirade against the fact that a youthful author had the temerity to express views he disagrees with.

He also follows with: "Have your say, and don't take any notice of the idiots; the crap they come up with is not worth reading, let alone responding to."

Which, translated to its simplest form, is the electronic equivalent of shouting out some inflammatory remarks then putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!'

As far as Liberty's comments go, he's talking about pure socialism and pretending this is what 'left wing' politics in the current era is all about, which is pretty far from the truth.
Economic and social issues are two very different ideals, plus he doesn't appear to have any real understanding of the social-libertarian economic model which is used by pretty much all western nations today, with a sliding scale of government intervention vs free market economics. Truly, the old 'socialist' whipping horse has been well and truly flogged, and is utterly irrelevant.
The truth is, on the economic side of the debate, we just have social libertarianism, and we need to decide which direction we want to trend - do we embrace the Danish model which is the third most competitive nation in the world but has maternity leave and generous welfare, or do we adopt the American model, which does deliver powerful results for capitalism albeit with a significant wage disparity in the populace.

I say this, to highlight the stupidity of this 'evil socialism' argument - and I say that, to highlight why this article is spot on. Liberty - and Leigh - are doing precisely the simplistic 'us against them' vitriol that gets us absolutely nowhere, except for lingering feelings of hostility, whereas the enlightened discuss the true complexities.

And that's not even beginning on the social issues of liberal v conservative thought...
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 6 December 2007 4:36:28 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
I must say that this piece by Jay Thompson was all promise and no delivery. If you are going to have a go at what we conservatives cite as "political correctness" I think he could have don a far better job had he looked at actual examples invoked by Janet and then tried to explain why her opinion was in error. In stead we got a wafflathon full of the usual weak generalities so common on the left.
I really hope that the PhD is better than this effort or scholarship is in big trouble in this country.
Posted by Iain, Thursday, 6 December 2007 6:11:12 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
Three recent examples to highlight the wonderful dawning of the new age of Labor moral and ethical superiority-

1) the leaking, by Labor of the story that Kelly Hoare has a libido, (snigger, snigger): to invalidate her and her complaints after she was dumped by her party.

2)the current internal machinations of the NSW branch where it is widely reported that ALP member Gibson is behind the attempts to rehash 20 yo accusations of domestic abuse against fellow member Koperburg

3)the use by Iemma staff of 7 yo rumour about the same Paul Gibson and accusations of domestic abuse against Sandra Nori, whilst she was OS, and presumably without her knowledge; all to get at Gibson.

You Labor droogies are living in fairyland.
Posted by palimpsest, Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:06:15 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
FrankGol

'Let's start to listen to Indigenous people before we tell them yet again what's best for them.

Now which one of the tribes are we going to listen to? Some plots of land have up to nine tribes claiming the same block. Or should we listen to Noel Pearson who tells us that the socialist welfare policies have led to more despair than any other thing for the aborigines. Or do we just listen to the brigade who are so racist that they blame the whites for every evil on the planet. We need leadership not feel good symbols.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:58:26 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
HO HUM said: (in typical leftoid fashion.. doing the very thing he accuses Bolt of)

"He also tells blatant lies"

and you then proceeded to not proceed with any shred of evidence or example.

tut tut... naughty boy(girl).
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 December 2007 9:13:24 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
Boaz David. I hope you have a heart, as by your postings it indicates otherwise.

You believe in your invisible person, but does he/she believe in you!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 December 2007 11:16:28 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 FrankGol. Steel yourself Leigh there is going to be a lot more of this, particularly when Hicks is released and the results of the investigation into the Dept. of Immigration are made public.
Perhaps you might like to offer your talents to John and Janet as they struggle to settle into the US, out of the reach of Australian law (with a little help from their friends).
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 7 December 2007 8:32:40 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
runner

You don’t give up on trying tired old debating tricks, do you?

Trick number 4: Propose that you can’t consult with people because they have divided opinions among themselves. “Now which one of the tribes are we going to listen to?”

I suppose you wouldn’t want the Australian Government to consult with the Australian people on, say the republic issue or a change to education funding rules, because there are so many factions and so many different opinions. We wouldn’t know who to listen to, would we? Too hard, so the Government should just decide what’s best for us, eh?

Trick number 5: Attack people’s reputations so as to deflect attention from the issue: “the brigade who are so racist that they blame the whites for every evil on the planet”.

Then return to debating trick number 2, the false dichotomy: “We need leadership not feel good symbols”. Why, even Hitler saw the value of having both at the same time (though the quality of both left a lot to be desired).

Now, runner, what were you saying about ‘decades of Labor Governments’ giving rise to child abuse? Have you any evidence to provide in the face of the facts of history as to who was in government in the past decades?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 7 December 2007 10:49:49 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
Yep, Leigh must be deliriously unhappy if he wants to have “deep and meaningfuls” with those he describes as morons, simpletons and idiots that come up with crap – you can understand my reluctance.

Leigh only wants to engage with people of his ilk and vilifies anyone that has a different point of view – the author of this article for example.

Leigh comes across as a person who “thinks” he is always right and has a complete disregard for reasoned and logical argument by anyone that doesn’t agree with him.

To get his “warm and fuzzies,” Leigh would be better off booking a motel room with Liberty and the rest of his mutual admiration society.

TRTL makes a valid point, it really should not be about you/me, them/us, left/right, etc – this is a very simplistic last-century method of argument. Yet this method of attack still seems to be adhered to by extreme fundamentalists and neo-cons alike – exemplified by the fear and negative Liberal campaign of the recent election … caught on camera delivering those damn flyers in Lyndsay!

We should be prepared to engage with people with different points of view, but why would we when we are treated with disrespect and vilification. Leigh just wants to attack the person; he does not play the ball.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 7 December 2007 11:38:34 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
Jay Daniel Thompson “However, he is also one who misunderstood the “ordinary Australians” he supposedly championed.”

I guess the issue here is the “ordinary Australian”

Lets face it, John Howard, on the strength of more than a decade as PM, can justly claim he represented not only the “ordinary Australians” but also the “Extraordinary Australians” who will now be pressured by the levelling hand of banal socialism to knuckle under and stop making the “ordinary” feel inferior.

I see the write is “ a PhD candidate in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne. He researches in the broad area of contemporary Australian literature, politics and culture.”, hardly a role indicative of any “experience and reason”.

Well until he has finished “formal learning” and has some “practical life experience” under his belt, he has nothing to offer in terms of assessing the relative merits of John Howard in particular or liberalism / libertarianism over socialism in general.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 7 December 2007 12:25:06 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
Q&A: "Leigh only wants to engage with people of his ilk and vilifies anyone that has a different point of view."

Oh, please.
That's the standard tactic of you and all your friends: FrankGol, TurnRightThenLeft, lola, dnicholson and you have done just this in the posts above.

And I don't see how Liberty's comments are inappropriate either.
The article itself spoke of "Left" vs "conservatives".

It's true that some claim to be libertarian socialists or authoritarian capitalists.
But these people are deluded, so cannot be expected to engage in mature debate.

They attempt to apply one principle to economics, and the *opposite* principle to social issues.

Collectivist economically but socially liberal.
Collectivist socially but liberal economically.
i.e. Schizophrenic.
Must take medication.

lola: "You are extremely simplistic and too focused on materialism which is a key problem that the 'right' have."

Hilarious!
Wasn't it the *socialists* who declared that the economic system (materialism) determines one's freedom, equality, justice, etc.
Hence, only an economy controlled by "the people" would be just and fair.
The 'right' only say that a liberal economy may *facilitate* social freedom, not that it's a causative relationship.

I'm what you'd call 'right'.
That doesn't mean I think everybody should be a greedy selfish pig!

FrankGol: "tired old debating tricks"?
Well, you wrote the book on that!

How about your personal favourite:
Don't answer questions that will paint you into a corner, no matter how precisely they're worded.

Of course, you can never actually see Frankie Wankie do this.
He just disappears.

He's like a black hole.
You only know he exists by the absence of any response.

"Sometimes the only appropriate response to some posts is Bollocks!"

Q&A, bollocks.
FrankGol, bollocks.
TurnRightThenLeft, bollocks.
lola, bollocks.
dnicholson, bollocks.

Now just wait for the black hole. Keep watching.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 7 December 2007 6:32:20 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
Bollocks
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 7 December 2007 6:50:27 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
Great article Jay. It seems like it's also pretty brave to write on here, given that some respondents seem to resort to attacking on irrelevant factors like age. We're all adults here...I hope.

Howard identified and for a time exploited, the gap between the inner suburban intellectuals and blue-collar, more traditional minds. If I can generalise a bit. But what happened over ten years?

It seems to me like the 'mainstream' people developed stronger knowledge of Howard's cunning ways, and started to see through the rhetoric of the right. At the same time, left wingers, uni types and especially unionists, moved closer to the 'ordinary people'. This required a grounded and open-minded approach, never better demonstrated than by the ACTU's honest and measured workplace rights campaign.

Contrast that with the Liberal's election ads..."The Unions are Coming.." Some in the Liberal party disagreed with having these ads, they were so blatantly patronising.

So when it comes to the crunch, what side is really patronising towards the ordinary person? At election time it was the coalition and never was it more clear that they have done their dash.

Kind regards everyone.
Posted by linda_hadley, Saturday, 8 December 2007 2:02:37 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
TurnRightThenLeft

[[[[As far as Liberty's comments go, he's talking about pure socialism and pretending this is what 'left wing' politics in the current era is all about, which is pretty far from the truth.]]]]
All socialism is pure socialism. What is added to pure socialism, does not make the pure socialism any less pure. Just obscured.
Obscuring it, however, makes it no less an enemy of individual liberty.

[[[[Economic and social issues are two very different ideals]]]]
False dichotomy: "Social issues will not be rectified by money".

[[[[plus he doesn't appear to have any real understanding of the social-libertarian economic model which is used by pretty much all western nations today]]]]
The west is now socialist, with wealth added to it from a by-gone era of non-socialism, which wealth is therefore necessarily decreasing.
Your "libertarian economic model" is a fabrication. Libertarianism, unlike socialism, is polluted by the appending to it of any other system. For libertarianism, by definition, comprises no system at all.
Socialism remains socialism regardless of what system is added to it, for all systems are necessarily socialist. (This will probably go over your head.)

[[[[Truly, the old 'socialist' whipping horse has been well and truly flogged, and is utterly irrelevant.]]]]
The old ploy of making yourself a more effective enemy by making yourself invisible.
As long as governments put people in jail for not paying taxes, evict them from their property for not paying rates, make them join the army, and fine them for not voting, socialism is alive and well.

[[[[TurnRightThenLeft]]]]
Your id suggests your confusion. I suggest you read some good libertarian authors before you spread your pseudo knowledge around the forum and confuse others. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by Liberty, Sunday, 9 December 2007 7:37:14 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
Iola,

[[[[You are extremely simplistic and too focused on materialism which is a key problem that the 'right' have]]]]
Rather, it is you who are simplistic, manifested by the fact that you do not understand individual liberty, nor its value, as distinct from economic liberty (having money), nor have you understood that that is what I was relating.

Added to this is your lack of self-examination: you seem to think that your level of personal materialism is sacrosanct.

So here is some homework for you:
Define "Individual liberty". I look forward to your efforts.
Posted by Liberty, Sunday, 9 December 2007 8:05:03 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
Liberty, here's my idea of individual liberty:

The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me

The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society, where looking out for one another is a valued quality

The liberty to elect the government that I believe will do the best job of ensuring that our country remains prosperous, and that all have a chance to contribute to and enjoy that prosperity

All these liberties are reasonably well satisified by the social democratic system that we currently enjoy (though no doubt there is much room for improvement).

You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you?
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 10 December 2007 7:08:08 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
Wizofaus “You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you”

Although not addressed to me, let me respond,

I Personally, do prefer something “like anarcho-capitalism” to the “levelling cesspool and failure” which socialism and its ilk repeatedly deliver.

Regarding ““The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me”

I recall waiting in line for 3 years with a perforated eardrum, to see a specialist (who did nothing) under the UK national health system. It was repaired by a surgeon within 3 weeks of going to a GP in Australia, privately.

The point, I was forcibly made to pay for a national health service which did not deliver and over which I could not withdraw or challenge for their incompetence and tardiness in any way at all.

That is what you get when you elect for the state to protect you from “ill-health” – higher taxes and no service.

As for “The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society…”

Lets put it this way

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state”
(Margaret Thatcher)

Nothing is guaranteed by socialism which, Margaret does not allude to as individual “compassion”.

What is guaranteed of socialism is the following

“The goal of socialism is communism.”
(Lenin)

Who went on to say

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

Socialism and socialistic “guarantees” mean the LOSS of individual freedom of choice, compulsory taxation to fund the bureaucracy of the state.

There is nothing which any “socialist model” will ever add to anyone’s “quality of life” even the kibbutz system failed once the true believers started to have children and identified particularly with their own family unit versus the collective..

"Stable society" elected Margaret Thatcher, Lenin used murderous revolution.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 December 2007 11:20:58 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
Yeah, saw the same program. What is conveniently overlooked by the hard "right" is that they too recognise their ideology is losing it (US for example).

Communism is a bain, so is neo-con capitalism.

Col, what's your take on "social conservatism"? You know, the small 'l' or moderates of the Liberal party - in fact not much different to Rudd's Labor (cf: Rudd & Turnbull).

Brendon Nelson scraped in due to the 'old guard' view of Howard's right wing. Turnbull and Co (like Rudd) realise a more centrist ideology is needed - it's called convergence.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 10 December 2007 11:54:29 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
Col - I see your point about the health system, but I'd ask whether you think privatisation is a good idea in cases where it isn't a profitable service.
Take the Telstra privatisation as an example, and provision of services to rural areas. From where I'm sitting, it seems to me that most Australian privatisation efforts have been so horrifically mismanaged there aren't many examples of where the services have genuinely improved.

Liberty, Shockadelic - I made the point that Liberty's posts were indicative of a mindset of Socialism-v-Capitalism when in effect, all economies are a blend of them anyway.

Aside from making a few snide insults, you haven't actually made any indication this is false.

A pure capitalist model wouldn't actually have really any need for government at all - there is a model for privatising pretty much every role of government, though the question then becomes what kind of democracy is left. I can't see pure capitalism being any better than pure socialism, so it's quite fortunate we have neither.

Liberty, as far as your "Socialism remains socialism regardless of what system is added to it, for all systems are necessarily socialist"

No, it doesn't just go over my head, you're just an economic extremist playing games of semantics.

Effectively, you're calling every economy on the planet socialist.

I'm calling you an extremist, because reasonable people operate within a realistic frame - that is, all things are relative.

So, we have a multitude of economies, some with more market freedom than others.

You however, can't engage in this discussion - because government regulation exists, everything's socialist, end of the debate.

Of course, an inability to enter a reasonable discussion due to preconceived extremist views, and an unwillingness to accept compromise as a satisfactory outcome, I'd say, is a pretty fair description of an extremist.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:00:37 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
Col, and what on earth makes you believe that under anarcho-capitalism the chance of being able to find someone to quickly operate on a perforated eardrum would be any better, especially if, due to circumstances out of your control, you didn't have the financial ability to pay for private care?

I don't have any problem with Thatcher's "society where people are free to make mistakes" quote - and I believe we very much do have that society. But under anarcho-capitalism, many "mistakes" would most likely mean irrecoverable financial ruin or even death - i.e. there's no meaningful freedom to make such mistakes.

Under social democracy, the state is most certainly not responsible for "everything" - there's the simple recognition that in many cases it makes far more sense to pool our resources and ensure that everyone has access to basic services that keep our economy ticking along.

Under anarcho-capitalism who do you think would bother providing streetlights, or sewers, or a police force? Who do you think would be responsible for ensuring that pollution was kept under control?

The claim "while the State exists, there can be no freedom" flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. We have far more freedoms now than our ancestors did when there was no "State" (i.e. before the first civilisations ever came into existence).
Further, I see no evidence that people are less free, less prosperous or less enterprising in say, Norway or Denmark, than in the U.S. or Singapore, despite the fact that the former nations have governments that take responsibility for far more than the latter's. In fact, Singapore quite explicitly demonstrates that "small government" is no guarantee of personal liberty. Hell, they don't even have democracy, let alone the freedom to chew gum.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 10 December 2007 1:52:03 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
Wizofaus,

[[[[Liberty, here's my idea of individual liberty: The liberty not to suffer unduly from hunger, cold and ill-health should circumstances turn against me]]]]
This is tangential to individual liberty, and therefore does not define it.

[[[[The liberty to enjoy a safe, peaceful, stable society, where looking out for one another is a valued quality]]]]
You cannot define individual liberty in terms of the whole of society. So this definition won't do either.

[[[[The liberty to elect the government that I believe will do the best job of ensuring that our country remains prosperous, and that all have a chance to contribute to and enjoy that prosperity]]]]
This is effectively the opposite of individual liberty.

[[[[You seem to prefer something like anarcho-capitalism - pray tell, what liberties does such a system grant you?]]]]
First things first. And the first thing is for you to properly define individual liberty.
Posted by Liberty, Monday, 10 December 2007 9:20:15 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
Turnrightthenleft (and end up left),

[[[[you're just an economic extremist playing games of semantics]]]]
Calling me an "economic extremist", is simply declaring yourself a socialist who doesn't like non-socialism. From a logic viewpoint, it is called "presuming the premise you purport to prove" aka "question begging", and is thus redundant.

[[[[Effectively, you're calling every economy on the planet socialist.]]]]
That you have derived this (correct) implication, tells us you understand that "pure" does not mean "extreme". That is, you have understood that socialism, once present, cannot be anything other than socialism, no matter how much supposed non-socialism is added to it.

[[[[I'm calling you an extremist, because reasonable people operate within a realistic frame - that is, all things are relative.]]]]
Your "realistic frame" is another instance of question begging.

[[[[So, we have a multitude of economies, some with more market freedom than others.]]]]
Yes we do. And to the extent that they are not free, they are socialist.

[[[[You however, can't engage in this discussion - because government regulation exists, everything's socialist, end of the debate.]]]]
The debate is not over whether all government is socialist by definition, which is a given, but whether such is good.
Socialism is dark and evil. It is abhorent to those who love life, for it presumes autocratic right and sovereignty over other human beings. I have no time at all for socialists of any form. I find them utterly repulsive - they are people who should be ashamed of themselves. Little messiahs running around saving everybody else from their supposed sub-standard selves, and putting them in jail if they refuse to be saved.
Posted by Liberty, Monday, 10 December 2007 9:39:34 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
Liberty, it's not up to you to define what my individual liberty is, or what liberties I value. Indeed it's not up to you to define it for the 13 million voters in the country. If you're arguing that the liberty to elect a government that will be best placed to ensure our prosperity is maintained and widely enjoyed is the opposite of individual liberty, then you're effectively arguing against democracy. But you go argue with Churchill..."democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

And BTW, why are you even using the internet? It was developed by the government, you know. They might be watching you...
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 7:18:46 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
Liberty

I am curious. What do you think should be the role of government? How far can its policy interventions go before they become abhorrent and repulsive?

I am fascinated by the fact that you seem to think that if government got out of the way, people would be able to enjoy liberty and individual freedom. I think what is more fundamental is whether people have substantive freedom (as argued by Amartya Sen). People need to have the capabilities to lead the kind of lives they value and government has a key role in facilitating that sort of freedom for individuals.

Furthermore, even if government got out of the way, do you think that it would mean we would have real autonomy? Do you think that government is the only institution that influences the choices we make. We are manipulated by many other entities and their motives are much less noble.
Posted by lola, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 9:18:04 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
I spoke to a first time voter, a Sudanese/Australian friend. When Ajak arrived in Australia as a refugee he and his friends were so grateful to Howard for accepting African refugees.

Ajak and his friends have since graduated from tertiary institutions. Their political views swung against the government when Immigration Minister Andrews slashed the intake of Africans based on the view of failure to integrate based on cabinet advice that the Minister refused to share with the public under Freedom of Information legislation.

Voting against the Howard government was a special moment for people like Ajak who have never before experienced the joy of empowerment that voting can give people who have never been consulted in the past.

People not happy with John Howard's callous government took a particular delight in seeing him empatically defeated through the ballot box. In war torn Sudan, the only option to change the genocidal military regime was through armed stuggle.

History will record that Howard's government was dispatched by Australian citizens tired of political 'leaders' playing dangerous games of divisiveness, mean spirited policies, dishonesty, tax-payer funded propaganda, pork-barrel inducements, corrupt dealings and so many wasted opportunities to showcase to the world what Austraia is cabable of providing - that is, innovative and bold decisions to tackle global and domestic challenges.

To help expose the systemic damage done to the process of government in Australia over the past 11 years, Rudd should establish a permanent anti-corruption commission with immunity from prosecution given to public servants prepared to tell all in public hearings.

It is essential that accountability and transparency is restored to the way the Australian Government and State Governments do business.
Posted by Quick response, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 9:57:23 AM
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
Liberty, I stand by my assertion that you're playing games of semantics, and still view the world through a simplistic struggle against socialism.

I've already said that all economies exist with government intervention - you're defining this intervention as socialist, whereas I was making the point that in order to consider an economy as socialist, it needs to have characteristically higher levels of government control over the economy. You however, reject any level of government intervention as unacceptable, saying it's too socialist.

Semantics.

You say government intervention is evil and must be fought. You say that it's anathema to this concept of Liberty you don't seem to want to articulate, instead preferring to press others into doing it.

I'd suggest that government regulation can't be seen as good or evil, it just has consequences that vary.
Your perception that it is inevitably a form of control over other people essentially hinges on a concept of autonomy that is so encompassing it's unrealistic. I'd argue it's totally impossible, as almost any interaction between human beings is going to inevitably lead to unacceptable control in your ideology.

Your free for all capitalist model can only reject assisting others - everyone and everything is alone.
Truly, this ideal is just as evil as the socialist ideal - nobody can really look after others, and though I know you're already warming up to argue the point that it's unjust to force people to, the fact of the matter is, some government regulation is necessary to prevent predatory capitalism.

You speak of 'evil' in conclusive terms, yet I look around the western world and I see a variety of economies delivering happy, prosperous lives for their citizens, be it the tax-heavy environment in Denmark, or the high quality of life and reassurance of a level of government support we enjoy in Australia.
I can't help but take your 'government is evil' tirades with a little more than a grain of salt, before going on to do something a little more constructive, like consider which aspects I do and don't like of each economic model.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 3:50:20 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
BTW, it also has to be said, after watching Cutting Edge on SBS last night (Frontline's "Cheney's Law"), how anyone can look around the world and conclude that it is the left-leaning/more socialist governments of the world that are a threat to individual liberties is beyond me. Even in Australia under Howard, civil liberties have been eroded somewhat. If socialism is dark and evil, then modern-day conservatism is black and satanic in the extreme.

I do wonder, Liberty, what do you think of a country like the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, marijuana is decriminalised, same-sex couples enjoy all the freedoms and privileges of heterosexual couples, and the Heritage foundation describes them as enjoying "high levels of investment freedom, trade freedom, financial freedom, property rights, business freedom, freedom from corruption, and monetary freedom.".

And yet, by Australian standards they are quite "socialist", with a far more generous welfare state, fully subsidised tertiary education, considerably higher taxes (top rate 52%), and government spending over 47% of GDP.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 8:40:35 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
On that point wizofaus, there's a brilliant article in TIME magazine here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1684528,00.html

Which essentially focuses on the high welfare, albeit competitive nature of Denmark's economy.

It throws a spanner in the works for free market zealots who are convinced the only manner in which we can lift standards is by reducing government regulation (or in Liberty's lexicon, socialism).

I suppose what bothers me are their assumptions that predatory capitalism won't effectually wreak havoc with the trickle down effect, which is supposed to be the mitigating factor in a pure free market ideology.
The fact of the matter is, this does occur and it's causing a great deal of angst in the united states - a great deal of angst which isn't necessary when there are other, more competitive but also more compassionate models out there.
When this is pointed out however, the free marketeers just scream 'socialist!' from the top of their lungs.
It really is quite frustrating, which is why I'd like to see posters such as Liberty actually make comparisons between places such as Denmark and a pure free market model.

They don't seem to do that, preferring the old socialist v capitalist debate, refusing to budge in the slightest, saying that anything less than pure capitalism is trampling their rights, not recognising that other people don't want that model and in refusing to compromise, they're trampling other people's rights in the same manner.

Which is precisely the kind of empty rhetoric I'm criticising in this thread.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 14 December 2007 4:13:26 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
TRTL, an even better example is Finland, who have regularly been rated as one of the most innovative and competitive economies in the world, despite maintaining significant "socialist" aspects and a basic "big government" philosophy (though admittedly less so than 20 years ago).
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 14 December 2007 8:09:53 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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