2007 State Election - Labor or the Coalition/Iemma or Debnam? (1 Viewer)

[gerhard]

god i hate the nats

 

[Generator]

*bump*

Anyone else?

 

[Mc_Meaney]

I definately wont be voting for labour unless they pull their finger out of their ass and fix up hospitals, education (even though it wont affect me until I finish my uni degree) and roads etc...

In saying that thought, the liberals have been fairly quiet of late, and I havnt heard a thing about what their stance is on things (apart from the opposite of labour of course!)

 

[transcendent]

I find it strange that Malfoy votes Liberal considering she's a vegetarian tragic who chooses that stance because of ethical reasons yet the Liberals have no ethical stances, only economic perspectives, and she should be voting Greens.

 

[wheredanton]

State politics is looking pretty sad at the moment. We have the rather inept ALP with Mumbling Morris and the Liberals which seems to be run by the far right wing faction and not by the leader.

The lesser of two evils is the ALP, but only ever so just.

 

[Mc_Meaney]

I find it strange that Malfoy votes Liberal considering she's a vegetarian tragic who chooses that stance because of ethical reasons yet the Liberals have no ethical stances, only economic perspectives, and she should be voting Greens.

Close minded.

 

[transcendent]

We need to be protected from ourselves to a certain degree.

 

[Generator]

Kind of late, I know - Goward makes move into Liberal politics

Here's to hoping that Pru Goward is successful.

 

[wheredanton]

Fascism at its purest.

He qualified it with 'a certain degree'. I think you would agree that the modern Libreal party even has policies which aim to protect people, to an extent, from themselves.

 

[wheredanton]

The modern Liberal party is Conservative and Collectivist in nature. Your argument does not stand.

And I would contend, as would any Libertarian of sound mind, that once you accept that there are circumstances under which a government may dictate to you how you conduct your personal affairs in order to adhere to a set of abstract values (eg equality), that you are promoting fascism.

You seem to like cutting things into black and white in order to dismiss other person arguments. Then there are the definitional issues.

Trancendent qualified his statement that there may be situations in which persons need to be protected from themselves. Only the most die hard libertarian would argue that people never ever have to be protected from themselves.

I'm sure there are situations where you believe that people need to be protected from themselves. Age restrictions on the consumption of alcohol? Driving restrictions? Basic welfare for the incapacitated and the unwell? Speed limits? Compulsory super? Gun laws to prevent people living in Castle Hill from owning a gatling machine guns? Roadmarkings? Public interest advertising promoting smoke detectors?

 

[wheredanton]

Well, perhaps we should define what is mean by 'people having to be protected from themselves'.

Depends whether you think 'protecting people from themselves' should be defined narrowly or widely. To suit your argument you took it widely and assumed that trancendent wants the reintroduction of the gulag. A simple statement that persons sometimes need to be protected from themselves doesnt suddenly give another a right to call the other a fascist.

Let's use your examples for a moment, before we ask lengy for his opinion on what he actually meant. I took it to mean 'areas other than those that conflict with another's liberty'.

Each one of my examples infringe on a person's liberty in order to protect the individual from themselves.

1. Age restrictions on the consumption of alcohol. The reason this is valid under a libertarian view is because children are not adequately equipped to make a rational decision on issues related to imbibing alcohol. They are the responsibility of a parent at this stage. Since they cannot yet know their best interests, it is the responsibility of the parent to act in their best interest.

You just justified why we should infringe on the liberty of younger persons to consume alcohol. They need to be protected, to an extent, from their own stupidity.

Driving restrictions. There are millions of cars on the road. It is not a matter of personal liberty insomuch as it is protection from OTHERS. I do support less road restrictions than what we currently have. Similarly, speed limits. They are to protect others, mostly.

Speed limits and other road restrictions are for the protection of others as well as you as an individual. Another restriction to protect yourself from your own stupidity.

Roadmarking: How is that protecting me from myself? It's for the general use of all drivers. I don't get this one.

Infringing on your liberty to drive where ever you want on the road in order to protect yourself and others.

edit: as for the Black and White comment, yes you are entirely right. The reason for this is thus: once you have a consensus that one man may direct the life of another, you allow for all manner of philosophies and conceptions of what is 'right' to gain ground. eg socialism, theocracy, dictatorships such as Hitler and Stalin. As Hayek said, 'the Road to Serfdom'.

If that is your personal view what right to do have to influence or even think that anyone is wrong for being a white supremacist who, on weekends, murders people of colour because god told him to do it.

What exactly are you doing here holding up the most extreme libertarian argument? Are you not pushing what is 'right'? Are you not pushing for a consensus by trying to convice us of your view?

Do you support the Crimes Act? It infringes on your Liberty to do a whole range of things. Many of which can be construed so as to protect yourself from yourself as well as protect society (which you happen to be a apart of) from you. Taking a hardline Maggie thatcher approach to everything and doing the whole 'There is no society!' makes you, if you hold that view, just as extreme as those socialists who refuse to recongise the role of the individual. Those who refuse to recongise the role of society are pretty much consigned to make the same inverse mistakes as the socialists. Extremism, in whatever political view, never works and belongs to the realm of the nutcase and fring lunatic dogmatist who is obsessed with theoretical purity over anything else.

 

[transcendent]

Isn't extreme libertarianism anarchism anyway? Cause everyone would follow their own rules as that would constitute an infringement of liberties.

 

[transcendent]

I have yet to read any books on political concepts. My views are purely derived from a personal interpretation and shaped largely through satire. I agree with those who supported my views on certain degrees of regulation as I wasn't able to word it in a manner that I felt would best express my standing on the matter. As with you, I mainly provide a question and a minor argument and see how the debate flows from their on. I prefer to read other people's opinions then express my own as I don't have a well informed view on the topic.

 

[Rafy]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2006/07/28/gr_publicconcernspoll.jpg


A look at the now one year of Iemma:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...g/2006/07/28/1153816381562.html?page=fullpage

 

[Generator]

Stateline NSW: Fighting Factions

PAUL LOCKYER: In the run up to a state election, it is the last thing any party needs but both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are dealing with outbreaks of internal dissent. The cause of it all: stoushes over party preselection with questions being made about whether democracy is being sacrificed in the process. Simon Santo takes a look at some of the shenanigans in state politics this.

 

[CSI: CRIMES ™]

liberals, really our growth is the slowest out of every state in this country, we're behind like miles away aha! im gonna turn off my tv during pre-election weeks, them ads that tries to get voters to decide etc bothers me lol

 

[dandel26]

I can't imagine a Government ran by extreme right wing liberals. That would scare me enough to live in Victoria

 

[bshoc]

Hoping for the DLP to run in NSW, otherwise its CDP, NATS ... perhaps LIBs after that .. sigh

 

[dieburndie]

Debnam is a fruit head. I don't think the Labor party are doing particularly well, in fact I think they are terrible, but then the alternative shows his conservative face and I want to make myself not be alive anymore.
Greens or Labor, depending on how im feeling at the time.

Also I would like to see more debate on this whole Libertarian issue. Is there another thread? If not there should be.

 

[Generator]

Kind of late, but you can thank Stateline NSW for that -

Debnam Walking?


---

Also I would like to see more debate on this whole Libertarian issue. Is there another thread? If not there should be.

You're more than welcome to create your own thread if you'd like, but for the moment you could always look at this thread.