Slim pickings for libertarians

Gerard says:

06:06pm | 20/08/10

Voting for the Coalition isn’t even an option for stopping internet censorship. I’m absolutely certain that they’re lying about opposing it.

How do I know?
This is without doubt the worst and most unpopular policy a party has taken to an election in my lifetime. Stephen Conroy is one of the two biggest liabilities on Labor’s front bench (the other being Peter Garrett).
The Coalition would have had the election won by now if they’d hammered the Labor Party over it and highlighted how dangerous a plan like this is- but they haven’t. They’ve attacked Gillard, Garrett, Rudd, Swan- but they don’t seem interested in attacking the technologically illiterate Conroy, even in response to criticism of Abbott’s own lack of computer expertise. In fact, they seem to be conspicuously avoiding subjecting Conroy and his policies to media scrutiny.

What they have done is state that they will oppose the legislation and then changed the subject as soon as possible. They want to make their official position clear, but not make such a big fuss about it that when they backflip (possibly after demanding some minor, insignificant change to the proposed legislation), they will be seen to be breaking a major campaign promise.

PaulB says:

08:45am | 21/08/10

Puppets like Obama call for a free and open Internet, while at the same time beetling away behind the scenes to redefine for us what that actually means.  That’s the way politicians work.  Its all about deception.  The Liberals will do the same because its what global Governments really want, no matter what they say.

Tim says:

03:40pm | 20/08/10

You’d vote for them in the Senate.

Anyone voting above the line should check belowtheline.org.au to see how their preferences flow and whether they agree enough to vote above the line.

iansand says:

04:29pm | 20/08/10

Senate

Tim says:

03:36pm | 20/08/10

Correct.

Oh how I wish for a true libertarian party.

James1 says:

03:58pm | 20/08/10

I would have thought - this election at least - that neither major party really offers much in the way of economic freedom.  The Libs want to increase business taxes to subsidise the lifestyle of parents, and the ALP wants to slug the mining companies for I can’t really understand their reasoning.

I’m seriously thinking of voting Secular this year.

Zaf says:

04:25pm | 20/08/10

[I believe the real freedom that matters is acchieved by spending my money how I desire. No social policy could ever make up for lack of economic freedom, whereas economic freedom can make up for bad social policies.]

iow, if you have enough money you can buy as many drugs, abortions and legal protections for your gay relationship as you want, whether these things are illegal or not?  I am not sure that this is entirely true. 

Bad social policies subvert constrain economic freedom, because they constrain your free choice about what and how to spend your money. (They also, btw, distort the market.)

iansand says:

04:33pm | 20/08/10

How dare those ill-educated people think for themselves.  Just because they want socialism doesn’t mean that socialism is good for them.  Don’t they know they should obey the instructions of their betters?

Thanks for the laugh.

Rich says:

06:12pm | 20/08/10

Go live in Europe where the tax burden is high and the social programmes are endless. These countries are all broke and the populace still demands the endless services that they are so dependant on.
Now listen to the average voter asking “what is in it for me” and the parties giving hand outs as “incentives” to vote for them. Both parties know this and keep outbidding on the incentives.

In regards to Zaf, I would rather have money to do some illegal activities such as drugs than no money to do anything. The reality is that both parties never propose any drastic social policies that impact me as much as how much of my income I can keep. I agree with you however n social policies affecting economic freedom, but really I was looking at it in context of what these parties have to offer.

I don’t really see Labor letting gays get married anyway.

Im just voting the for the least damage possible.

neil says:

05:49pm | 21/08/10

Spot on Rich, I am generally left leaning but I’m very libertarian and have always voted liberal. Labor with their union affiliation are quite authoritarian and as we’ve seen with Rudd/Gillard they prefer big government so they can control all aspects of our lives.

The Greens are Totalitarian, they not only want to control us but they believe they know what is best for us even if we don’t agree. They even believe it is justifiable too, in their words, “suspend democracy” in order to impliment important social reforms. That sounds like Starlinism to me.

Robert says:

05:00pm | 20/08/10

Tsk tsk you seem like a really bigoted person making such divisive comments.  It’s a shame people like you hate freedom of speech and want to silence tax-paying members of the community who contribute a great deal to Australian society just like people from all different groups do.  The Sex Party will probably do alright.  There will be a large number of first time voters who vote for them because they have the word sex in their name.

Reg says:

07:36pm | 20/08/10

Well of course Robert there is a vast gulf between freedom of speech and freedom to preach religious fundamentalism or any other error, as “gospel” We do try and look the other way though, except when it gets too extreme. As a libertarian I presume you will grant us that right?

Nor is error made correct by payment of tax, although I see your motivation. Having paid our subscription, it merely ensures the support we have come to expect from our Government, just as a Unionist expects from his Union or a Small Business from his Association.

Careful with the “H” word please, it is emotive and does not sit well with one who claims to be libertarian, as you first sentence discloses.

RBSyd says:

08:44pm | 20/08/10

I think Robert had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he said that.
Either that or a extremely short memory.
The A.C.L headed up by trained killer Jim Wallace (former S.A.S), were the main advocates for oppressing all of us with Conroy’s internet filter.

Reg says:

03:46pm | 21/08/10

I wish it was as clear to me as it is to you RBSyd, but the depiction of bestiality on the internet causes me to pause. Perhaps we need a Bestiality Party?

As to tongue in cheek, I call that sarcasm and sarcasm is poor communications at best and deception at worst.

LC says:

03:59pm | 21/08/10

Turns out the secular party actually did have a candidate in my electorate. Guess who got my vote…:)

I voted below the line in the senate, numbering the Australian Sex Party, Australian Secular Party and The Greens candidates 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively. I put Labor cantidates last (even after the socailist parts and Family First) and I said a satisfying “f*** you” under my breath as I numbered Conroy’s box very last. Fingers crossed that the next time I see him will be queue for centrelink that I pass everyday to get to work.

Kordez says:

09:43pm | 20/08/10

@N, They crack me up! In fact so much that I’m likely to stumble into the Salvation Army tomorrow half cut and realise that I enjoy feeding my unhealthy entertainment without being frowned upon by wankers from the ACT..
I mean, who even visits the shithole anyway? It’s smaller than TAS with more expensive buildings! Do they have any idea what the rest of the country is doing, or are we just given attention every 3-4 years to ensure tax dollars are avaliable to inflate their mates businesses?
I’ll leave it to my hangover to decide.. Thanks for the advice Penbo, I’ll leave it to my goat face to decide tomorrow =P

D says:

06:59pm | 20/08/10

Agreed. They have my vote, and I’ll allocate my own preferences so my vote isn’t wasted.

Tom says:

03:39am | 21/08/10

Yeah I agree, certainly the sex party name will get attention and garner a few votes, but they will never be a political force with such a name. It is defeatist to think a small party cannot rise up; after all, the Democrats held the balance of power from humble beginnings, the Greens (perhaps unfortunately) may well hold the balance of power after being formed by a few environmentalists in Tasmania.

Perhaps they should merge with the Liberal Democratic Party; which is a perfectly reasonable name with a similar policy platform.

Ripa says:

05:40pm | 20/08/10

You can thank Natasha for destroying the Dems, she did so when she turned them into another branch of the Labor party. Since then they have been lost in total obscurity, its a shame. As for the sex party, give be a break, bunch of children trying to play politics.

Rich says:

06:22pm | 20/08/10

There isn’t any difference between them because they are playing to win and trying to outdo each other on the incentives they’ll give if voted for. It’s a popularity contest.

These parties have no clear philosophical grounding and change election to election. Where is the integrity ?

You think Gillard cares about men’s issues? It’s only a ploy to get more male voters to vote for her, probably proposed by one of her campaign managers.

Ripa says:

08:19pm | 20/08/10

Sorry Chris, it was Natasha and her rants on TV against Howard and for labor, i still remember watching her on TV during election night and how deflated she looked, when asked what happened to the Dem vote, she struggled for an answer, and that was pretty much the last we heard of the Dems, and Natasha. Libs and Lab have a tonne more to believe in than the Dems.

Chris Johnson says:

10:53am | 23/08/10

“Libs and Lab have a tonne more to believe in” 
Would they be tonnes of carbon?

I disagree with you.  The Democrats as a party to keep the bastards honest had their soul stripped from them by Kernot and Lees.  By the time Natasha got there they were a spent force.

Sam says:

01:07pm | 21/08/10

I totally agree, mate.
Unfortunately, Cardinal Pell is about to gain a lot of sway in how the country is run.

Chris Johnson says:

10:56am | 23/08/10

If only more than a few did at least 5 minutes of research and independent thinking, rather than believing the sound bites and sub-headings of mainstream media.
This has been just another Murdoch election.

Gerard says:

02:21pm | 21/08/10

Unfortunately, people won’t wake up until the government decided that they’re not actually allowed to vote for independents or minor parties.

Chris Johnson says:

11:04am | 23/08/10

I have long pondered the lack of sacrifice in parenting these days.  Parents are now expected to work all day, put their children in child care, and be looked after by the government financially.  I have pondered whether this has lead to greater social problems.  I do not have the answers, but I do have further questions.
The hypocrisy of the Liberal in doling out these middle class welfare vote getters has never been questioned, yet their attack on the benefits given to the unemployed, homeless and mentally ill through the Howard reign was rarely questioned.