All this fibble-fabble about logic LOL!

Ludwig just can't see why he should bother himself with whether his statements are true or not!

Unbelievable. You've just got to wonder, what motivates people to adopt this posture of invincible ignorance? In EVERY SINGLE POST in this entire thread, Ludwig has just assumed what is in issue, and knows it, and just keeps doing it.

Ludwig why don't you conserve the earth's precious resources by stopping using the internet for a start, and stopping consuming any product made from what you call "alien" species - you know, like meat, bread, fruit, vegetables? Or I suppose you live on Poa tussock and gumnuts do you?

Wow Jardine, you are becoming very petulant!

<< You’ve… just shown that you don’t understand the economic calculation argument as it applies to government. >>

Dear o dear, one minute you say that I do understand it and the next you say the opposite!

It is seems that if I disagree with you then it automatically means that I don’t understand! ( :>/

I wrote:

>> Maybe this ‘economic calculation’, where so many important things fall outside of the realm of conventional economics, helps to demonstrate why government is so important and why we can’t just leave things up to market forces, yes? >>

You replied:

<< A couple of years ago, the NSW bus service did the equivalent of 50 trips to the moon and back EMPTY. The UK government has just spent a million dollars per green job. Examples could be multiplied. >>

What do you think our bus service would look like if there was no government?

It would either not exist at all or would exist only for the workers of a particular company, or at best it would exist for all the workers of a particular sector. But it simply wouldn’t exist for the larger community – for all those not associated with the company or sector that was running it.

Examples could be multiplied greatly. All manner of things wouldn’t get funded, because they wouldn’t be directly related to the profit motive or wellbeing of the companies that run the show. Old-age pension, the arts, a large part of education and health, environmental concerns, etc, etc. The gap between the rich and the poor would blow right out. You’d either be in with the right crowd or out on the street! Nothing in between! A fair prediction?

Crikey, life for most people in your near-anarchic libertarian world would be downright horrible!

<< As for your argument about the Constitution, Ludwig, you obviously don’t know the first thing about constitutional law. Its purpose is to limit government; that’s why it sets out a list of things that government is authorised to do. >>

continued

Wow, this constitutional bit is really weird! It has got to be one of the craziest notions I have ever heard that government can’t constitutionally address sustainability! Again, there is NOTHING in the Constitution to suggest this. So I have got just put all your comments on this particular point down as pure ‘yarble’!

<< If this were not so, and if your back-to-front homespun theory was correct… >>

Who’s seeing things back-to-front??

What is so hard for you to grasp here? We inherently need to either consciously head towards a sustainable future or else we will peak and crash. Then in the difficult recovery phase, while licking our wounds, we will be asking ourselves why we and our government didn’t pay much more attention to this sustainability thing… and from then on maybe we will give it the respect it deserves.

If we look at the Constitution, we will see that everything mentioned there aligns with this notion. Nothing goes against it. Even though sustainability or any of its key components weren’t even in the minds of our nation’s forefathers, it was inherent in those seeking to build and maintain a prosperous nation that the supply capability of all essential resources not blow wildly out of balance with the demand and that the environment not become highly degraded, yes?

The notion that the Constitution says that government is not allowed to address sustainability has got to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard!

It is such back-to-front thinking to put the Constitution ahead of the bleedingly obvious right thing for our government to do!

And given that there is nothing in the Constitution to say, suggest or in the slightest bit imply, that our government can’t address sustainability, your comments on this whole aspect constitute some very woolly thinking indeed.

continued

<< Thank you for confirming that you are a totalitarian… >>

You and Pericles make a good pair with your extremist end-of-the-spectrum statements. You know full well that I’m nowhere near being a totalitarian, so why do you say such a thing?

Just getting angry and frustrated?

Can’t you see that this sort of statement seriously degrades the quality of your argument.

More empty bluster, Ludwig?

>>You and Pericles make a good pair with your extremist end-of-the-spectrum statements. You know full well that I’m nowhere near being a totalitarian, so why do you say such a thing?<<

It might have something to do with the fact that you believe the government should take charge of our entire existence, by regulating where we live, how many children we should have, where we should grow trees, every aspect of how businesses should behave etc. etc.

Your notions of individual responsibility could be written in longhand on the back of a postage stamp. Do tell, is there any aspect of our lives where you believe that we should be allowed to exercise free will?

Aaaah haaaahahahaaa! Pericles, that’s a classic!

Can’t you see the glaring contradiction?

You assert that I hold some absurd end-of-the-spectrum position which you know I don’t… which you are wont to do ever more frequently…

<< ...the fact that you believe the government should take charge of our entire existence >>

And then….

You ask…what is my position?…

<< …is there any aspect of our lives where you believe that we should be allowed to exercise free will? >>

Don’t you think that just maybe possibly it could possibly maybe be a reasonable idea to ask the questions first and establish my position based on the answers I give?

And then maybe possibly you might be in a position to assert what my position actually is!!

As I said to Jardine: getting angry and frustrated, are we??

Engaging the fingers on the keyboard before you engage the brain?

I thought you and Jardine / Izzy Is Mise / Peter Hume were mortal enemies, as per your exchanges on this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4406&page=0 (Thanks to WmTrevor for reminding me about it).

Well, be careful, you’re cutting a bit close to supporting him with your last post! Surely you wouldn’t want to be seen dead doing that!

Heeeheheheee! Very entertaining!