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.

Bollocks.

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.

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.

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.

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.