Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I said he spoke like one. Stated the party line clearly. Who in their right mind votes for big government and higher taxes except people who expect the government to support them?
Click to expand...

so you expect the party of small government will stop trying to intervene in power prices? stop giving money to farmers?
a big part of the Libs problem (and Labor are much better) is that they wont stand to their convictions.
 
Does anyone else find Morrison to be very... underwhelming? Besides being in the 'Shouty McShoutface' group of Libs, he has come across with about as much personality, and charisma, as Shorten. It will be interesting to see how happy he is at being the top of the Libs when the right come for him after they lose out at the next election.

Tigers of Old said:
Worse. He's a cancer.
Click to expand...

100% with you there ToO. Well said. Abbott has probably done more to damage the Libs than any pollie I can think of.
 
K3 said:
100% with you there ToO. Well said. Abbott has probably done more to damage the Libs Australia than any pollie I can think of.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you
 
Baloo said:
Fixed that for you
Click to expand...

Ha ha... Cheers Baloo.

Was going to head down that path but thought I would start smaller.

Wonder how much grief he is going to cause the new "Team Liberal"?
 
YinnarTiger said:
Cronulla. Don't think he has any interest in the AFL so Collingwood will try and snap him up like they did with Keating..
Click to expand...

But that was back in the times the pies could probably say we are the biggest. We kniw who that is now don't we!
 
Intuitively you'd think a bible basher wouldn't place a high priority on science. Seems to be the case, New PM appoints a mining company lawyer as Minister for the Environment and an anti-wind peabrain and coal supporter as Energy Minister. For anyone who cares about the environment, and the future, we can only hope the Sco Mo government will be turfed out ASAP. I have faith that they will be. No guarantees of course, Murdoch will get behind them.

If you understand and accept the importance of science, and care about the medium and long term future, environmental degradation is the biggest issue we face.
 
tigersnake said:
Intuitively you'd think a bible basher wouldn't place a high priority on science. Seems to be the case, New PM appoints a mining company lawyer as Minister for the Environment and an anti-wind peabrain and coal supporter as Energy Minister. For anyone who cares about the environment, and the future, we can only hope the Sco Mo government will be turfed out ASAP. I have faith that they will be. No guarantees of course, Murdoch will get behind them.

If you understand and accept the importance of science, and care about the medium and long term future, environmental degradation is the biggest issue we face.
Click to expand...

but the Liberals are giving us $1.20 a week towards running the beer fridge
 
tigersnake said:
Intuitively you'd think a bible basher wouldn't place a high priority on science. Seems to be the case, New PM appoints a mining company lawyer as Minister for the Environment and an anti-wind peabrain and coal supporter as Energy Minister. For anyone who cares about the environment, and the future, we can only hope the Sco Mo government will be turfed out ASAP. I have faith that they will be. No guarantees of course, Murdoch will get behind them.

If you understand and accept the importance of science, and care about the medium and long term future, environmental degradation is the biggest issue we face.
Click to expand...

Spot on TS, well said! I feel 100% sure I will be putting the Liberals down the bottom of any vote card I get my hands on next time around.

easy said:
but the Liberals are giving us $1.20 a week towards running the beer fridge
Click to expand...

And then there was the game changer........
 
Ian4 said:
that much I agree with. but just watch him cause utter carnage within the Liberal party on his way out. get the popcorn ready.
Click to expand...

Be very surprised if Turnbull does this. What's in it for him? Doesn't need the profile, doesn't need top selling book...doubt he will try and make it worse for the LNP.
 
MD Jazz said:
Be very surprised if Turnbull does this. What's in it for him? Doesn't need the profile, doesn't need top selling book...doubt he will try and make it worse for the LNP.
Click to expand...


I doubt it as well, I think he'll leave it to Abbott to complete the demolition.
 
inspired work by Sco-Mo.

Indigenous Affairs? Hmmmm. Who is the biggest racist sociopath we have?

"Hey Tony, got a job for ya maaaaaate"
 
DavidSSS said:
Gia, you are full of it.

The oceans are international waters, they are precisely the place on this planet that are not covered by any state jurisdiction. You are just making it up. As for ownership of the ocean, where does the right to claim ownership of the commons come from? Who gives anyone permission to claim ownership over the oceans? You can go ahead and mix your labour with part of the ocean but who said you could do this and how do you enforce these flimsy claims of ownership without coercion? Claiming property, which denies others' rights to that property, is a coercive act as it restricts the freedom of others.

You talk a lot about coercion, but you want to impose markets on everyone whether we like it or not. What do you do if a community decide they don't want to run their whole lives using market relations, they don't want to transact, they want to cooperate. They value mutual aid and act for the community. Do you allow this community to decide their own relations, or what?

As for the claim that markets lead to a "superior" outcome, on what measure? Research (yeah, sorry to introduce empirical evidence again, just can't help referring to reality) has found that we might be wealthier today than back 30 or 40 years ago, but we're not happier. If the economy thrives but most people are more pressured, finding life harder etc what is the point? Is it really a superior outcome when only a small proportion of the population benefit from increases in wealth?

DS
Click to expand...
And what are international waters but governments having different claims and agreeing not to exercise those claims to prevent open conflict? They have just pushed the jurisdiction up the chain to the UN. It's not like anyone can establish ownership rights of the ocean, the UN and the governments under its charter won't allow it.

Homesteading can be used to establish ownership rights. Ah now you are arguing that private property rights are coercive. By your reasoning, you are being coercive by denying others the use of your body. It is coercive to stop someone from punching you in the face because you are restricting their freedom to do so. The fundamental problem of economics is scarcity so you have to find a way for people to cooperate with each other (the rule of law) or you let the strongest and meanest decide (the rule of might). Private property rights are the best solution of all available options. I argue it from a moral perspective, but it also is the best solution from a utilitarian perspective. Your act of argument presupposes the existence of private property rights, as why bother arguing if you aren’t recognising my private property rights over my body and mind that is responding to your points.

I don’t want to impose anything on anyone. You can’t force libertarianism on people it flies in the face of everything libertarianism stands for. If groups of people want to live under a communist dictatorship, then that is their choice. One of the biggest gaps in western democracies is clear guidelines for how people secede from them.

Granted it is not an objective measure, but assuming your claim that people are less happy than 30-40 years ago when they were poorer is correct, why does that automatically mean it is because they are wealthier? Perhaps it is because of a larger intrusion of government in their lives. Perhaps it is because they are living in communities that don’t share their values. It could be for a range of reasons.
 
bullus_hit said:
Another typical bait & switch combined with a scatter gun approach. For those seeking further information on Rothbard & von Mises here's a succinct summary from the Business Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/exposing-the-racist-history-of-libertarianism-and-murray-rothbard-2011-10
Click to expand...
Typical avoidance of responding to points made. That's because you are incapable of this and can only resort to copying and pasting content from rationalwiki or facebook and pretending you are well versed on the subject. The business insider article took you 2 seconds on google to find, here's a rebuke that took me 1 second (it's not for your benefit):
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/11/response-to-exposing-racist-history-of.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
State Government >
Top Bottom