tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1216396432323970461..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: The start of something bad?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22936440046543500892011-12-07T22:52:58.028+11:002011-12-07T22:52:58.028+11:00Surely people and the nation matter more than the ...Surely people and the nation matter more than the unimpeded right of goods to travel? Personally my biggest concern with protectionism is that it can lead to inefficient outcomes, as there is value in being pushed continually by competition. The lack of competition can lead to moral and practical “flabbiness”, just look at the public sector.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50987805713645487602011-12-07T22:31:01.221+11:002011-12-07T22:31:01.221+11:00Illion,
I disagree with you on this. You are defi...Illion,<br /><br />I disagree with you on this. You are defining freedom around an absolute right to unimpeded consumer choice.<br /><br />I think it's fine for a community to decide, pragmatically, what is best when it comes to such matters. If a community of people opt to enact a tariff which might raise prices but protect a local industry then they have that right.<br /><br />It's then on their heads whether that has the intended economic consequences or not.<br /><br />But the greater liberty is having the option to decide rather than being locked into the "no impediments on free trade" position.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34063873549214271362011-12-07T15:04:20.456+11:002011-12-07T15:04:20.456+11:00The *only* alternative to free trade is some form ...The *only* alternative to free trade is some form of socialism, and a very clumsy socialism at that.<br /><br />When you people bitch that free trade is “stealing” “our” jobs, and that it must thus be curtailed, what you are saying, among other things, is this:<br /><br />“<i>I demand that the government use deadly force to prevent my fellow so-called citizens from buying certain imported goods (or services), which they wish to buy, generally due to lower price, so as to limit their choices of those certain goods to those offered by a list of ‘approved’ domestic suppliers, whose offerings the so-called citizens had already rejected in favor of the foreign suppliers.</i>”<br /><br />You people *claim* to be for liberty and citizenship; but you are not actually so: you are as thoroughgoing enemies of liberty, as solid proponents of subject-hood, as any open socialist is, merely more incoherent about getting there.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-60879456398501921962011-11-23T16:25:03.392+11:002011-11-23T16:25:03.392+11:00Project much, Anonymouse? Of course you do.Project much, Anonymouse? Of course you do.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70918304843816107992011-11-23T14:35:27.987+11:002011-11-23T14:35:27.987+11:00"Such behavior is symptomatic of the “my one ..."Such behavior is symptomatic of the “my one simple, all-encompassing idea explains everything”<br /><br />Thats funny, sounds like your libertarian views on free trade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43831635328607614682011-11-23T09:32:46.789+11:002011-11-23T09:32:46.789+11:00"No, I don't think he does. His insistenc..."<i>No, I don't think he does. His insistence that any conservative who is critical of "game" is not a conservative at all but a feminist is simply idiotic.</i>"<br /><br />Such behavior is symptomatic of the “my one simple, all-encompassing idea explains everything” mindset; you see it from open Marxists, from socialists and feminists and all other Marxist-inspired -ists, from Freudians, from Darwinists, and from many, if not most, internet atheists.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88607009580583130162011-11-23T07:21:18.867+11:002011-11-23T07:21:18.867+11:00No, I don't think he does. His insistence that...<i>No, I don't think he does. His insistence that any conservative who is critical of "game" is not a conservative at all but a feminist is simply idiotic.</i><br /><br />Agreed. I like Dalrock and he's a great writer but he has truly gone off the MRA end and it's a sad thing to behold. Sure I wasn't fond of a couple of his commenters but I have found his posts quite interesting and enlightening. In fact I was initially inspired to write a book on the misbehaviour of modern women by Dalrock in the future (a book about modern love) but I've decided that it would probably be best inspired by the authors of Elusive Wapiti, Hooking Up Smart, Bonald, Thinking Housewife, Grerp or others.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2450871629907475992011-11-21T22:26:36.007+11:002011-11-21T22:26:36.007+11:00Have you considered taking a new label and making ...<i>Have you considered taking a new label and making it your own, such as historical conservative or some such.</i><br /><br />I've certainly thought about a better label, as have others, but haven't come up with one. <br /><br />The good thing about the term "conservative" is that it has a sense of attempting to conserve important aspects of a tradition that liberalism is attempting to destroy. <br /><br />But there are two problems with the term. First, it is often applied in a haphazard way to anyone on the right, no matter if they are clearly right-liberals or just plain political opportunists.<br /><br />Second, the more that liberalism itself takes over society the more our real task is to restore rather than to conserve.<br /><br />So "restorationist" is becoming a more accurate label, but it doesn't sound catchy or appealing.<br /><br />So for the moment I'll stick with "tradcon".Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-16315766610034864982011-11-21T20:59:11.412+11:002011-11-21T20:59:11.412+11:00James: "Paul Harvey is that you?"
LOL.
...James: "Paul Harvey is that you?"<br /><br />LOL.<br /><br />And now we know ...... why he posts as anonymous.Cameronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75147100463171443582011-11-21T15:41:53.834+11:002011-11-21T15:41:53.834+11:00""And now you know ...... the rest of th...""And now you know ...... the rest of the story.""<br /><br />Paul Harvey is that you?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-37793273874735492512011-11-21T13:21:11.601+11:002011-11-21T13:21:11.601+11:00He does make a reasonable point of non-conservativ...<i>He does make a reasonable point of non-conservatives identifying themselves as trad conservatives </i> <br /><br /><br />Actually, Dalrock has repeatedly claimed that <i>all</i> "trad conservatives" are liberals/feminists/manginas/"Gilligans". Apparently the only people who do <i>not</i> fit that description are he and his commenters.<br /><br />He seems to have a rather Jim Jones mentality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52859995581316742672011-11-21T12:40:02.294+11:002011-11-21T12:40:02.294+11:00The US had a much smaller welfare state when it wa...<i>The US had a much smaller welfare state when it was LESS democratic -- when women couldn't vote, when blacks either couldn't vote or were actively discouraged from doing so, and when the voting age was 21 not 18. Being historically illiterate you are unaware of this.</i> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />You make these mistakes because .... you're historically illiterate.<br /><br />Women got the v0te in 1920. The welfare exploded in size in the 1960's and 70's. Much of what drove (and still drives) the growth of the welfare state has been courts making up the law while pretending to "interpret" the constitution. This has happened at both the state and local level. <br /><br />For instance, many state supreme courts have ordered their state legislatures to spend more money on schools in order to bring spending in poor districts up the the level in wealthier ones.<br /><br />And when the American people have tried to use the democratic process to curb welfare spending - especially welfare spending on illegal illegal - the courts have overruled them.<br /><br />In <i>Plyler v Doe</i>, 1982, the US Supreme Court overturned a Texas law which denied school services to the children of illegals.<br /><br />In 1994 the people of California passed a law, Prop 187, which prohibited welfare to illegal aliens. The law was promptly overturned by a federal judge.<br /><br />It's not <i>democracy</i> causing the welfare state to grow and grow. It's unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. <br /><br />And now you know ...... the <i>rest</i> of the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50513487072450963782011-11-21T11:03:25.671+11:002011-11-21T11:03:25.671+11:00This is OT, but I've been noticing your conver...<i>This is OT, but I've been noticing your conversation with Dalrock in the comments sections of his blog.</i> <br /><br /><i>He does make a reasonable point of non-conservatives identifying themselves as trad conservatives</i> <br /><br /><br />No, I don't think he does. His insistence that any conservative who is critical of "game" is not a conservative at all but a <i>feminist</i> is simply idiotic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43845006131982817432011-11-21T10:42:57.392+11:002011-11-21T10:42:57.392+11:00On the topic of Fascism not being on. I'm assu...On the topic of Fascism not being on. I'm assuming people are aware that many of the south east Asian nations we would join with in an Asian union are run or dominated by fascist parties (even adopting fascist european symbols). Their leaders are also on record, in parliment (!) saying that "white Australians" need to be ethnically cleansed from Australia.<br />With friends like these who needs enemies.<br />I think its interesting because the EU would not of agreed to take on a country that had a major fascist party. Yet our Australian leaders are willing to create an EU type system with fascists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-85768997828814148462011-11-21T10:22:29.254+11:002011-11-21T10:22:29.254+11:00Hi Mark,
This is OT, but I've been noticing y...Hi Mark,<br /><br />This is OT, but I've been noticing your conversation with Dalrock in the comments sections of his blog.<br /><br />He does make a reasonable point of non-conservatives identifying themselves as trad conservatives. And while you call them out, unfortunately, you appear to be the only one doing so.<br /><br />Have you considered taking a new label and making it your own, such as historical conservative or some such. That way if you own and create the label you retain the power to call people out who are not acting in the correct way.<br /><br />Just my two cents worth.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75437032132101524562011-11-21T10:19:43.584+11:002011-11-21T10:19:43.584+11:00Hi Mark,
As people have noted, free trade only wo...Hi Mark,<br /><br />As people have noted, free trade only works if all players are working on the same set of rules. This would mean same tax rate, same safety rules, same etc. (Not necessarily pay rates as areas with a higher population would find it easier to supply labour intensive industries).<br /><br />The problem is, Australia does not have the same rules as any of the other countries in this free trade block. We also largely have free trade which has resulted in our economy being pretty much mining base with pretty much all other industries setup to support the mining.<br /><br />As I've learnt the whole theory behind free trade being a benefit has some serious flaws. This article explains it well:<br /><br />http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/06/mailvox-hazlitt-international-trade.htmlTomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70910674080251029552011-11-21T10:18:38.070+11:002011-11-21T10:18:38.070+11:00I don't think that's too far off. I'm ...I don't think that's too far off. I'm not an economist but the immigrants do certainly want to live in the cities and wages in the mining regions are booming because there's lots of economic activity there and labor is required.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10852127087370667962011-11-21T10:03:22.513+11:002011-11-21T10:03:22.513+11:00"Is this the right way to look at it ?"
..."Is this the right way to look at it ?"<br />No.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52759930952140770382011-11-21T08:37:46.885+11:002011-11-21T08:37:46.885+11:00I live in the USA, and thus am something of an out...I live in the USA, and thus am something of an outsider to the debate that you are having. <br /><br />But I am under the impression that the unemployment rate in Australia is much lower than it is in the USA. <br /><br />Further, I am under the impression that able bodied and reliable young men who are willing to move to live in mining towns and do physical labor can earn a very nice ammt of money <br /><br />Also, Australia has a minimum wage much higher than the USA<br /><br />As an outsider, my theory is that immigrants to Australia generally prefer to live in cities and not in the more rural areas. As such, high immigration to Australia pushes down the wages of native born Australians who want to live in cities, but does not impact so much the wages of native born australians living in the more remote areas. <br /><br />Is this the right way to look at it ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70190320916099613162011-11-20T23:55:44.982+11:002011-11-20T23:55:44.982+11:00Being historically illiterate, they don't have...<i>Being historically illiterate, they don't have to worry about the fact that the Nazis and the communists had welfare states. They also don't have to deal with the fact that the US had a much smaller welfare state when it was more democratic. </i><br /><br />Bzzzt, wrong. The US had a much smaller welfare state when it was LESS democratic -- when women couldn't vote, when blacks either couldn't vote or were actively discouraged from doing so, and when the voting age was 21 not 18. Being historically illiterate you are unaware of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14061220671233796502011-11-20T23:20:29.010+11:002011-11-20T23:20:29.010+11:00'Over the years, what I've noticed about f...'Over the years, what I've noticed about fools who think that "You're arrogant" and "You're stupid" are irrefutable arguments is that they almost always mean, “How dare you ‘arrogantly’ argue against the stupid things I willfully choose to believe, or at least to assert!”<br /><br />Troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-58975416058892220692011-11-20T19:41:09.776+11:002011-11-20T19:41:09.776+11:00"But in general, the protective system of our..."But in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade" Karl Marx, 1848. This shows forth the real reason that those who run things are enamoured of free trade, it assists in attaining their goal of imposing a world communist dictatorship. Communism and capitalism serve the same end; to concentrate power in the hands of a cabal, which is then free to tyrannize over the population at large. In Communist countries it is the state, meaning the rulers and the nomenclatura, who have their special shops, the gastronoms that the proletarians are not allowed to enter. In Capitalist countries it is the bankers, (really they are the secret rulers of Communist countries as well, but that is another matter) and their various lackeys in the political class (which consists for the most part of worthless scum who would sell their own mothers for their 30 pieces of silver, and then everyone wonders why nothing changes ha ha) and in the major corporations (these have the same character as their political brethren). In much vaunted America the prole is as powerless as he ever was in the Soviet Union. The difference is that a more scientific approach is taken in U.S., sophistry and mind games are used to make the dumbed down population believe that they have some degree of control over what is going to be inflicted on them, whereas in Russia it was more straightforward. Do what you're told or you get a bullet in the head. For any Americans reading this, that think they are free, let them try not paying their "property" taxes. They will quickly discover who really owns their land. Let them try to compete with mighty walmart with their own little business, let them even try set up in business. Strange how the libertarians can't understand that if there is no control whatsoever over how business is conducted, that then the vilest filthiest subhuman scum will invariably rise to the top for the simple reason that they are willing to do anything and everything to do so, no matter how iniquitous it may be. As for philo-semitism bringing blessings on a country.....well you could ask the Russian people how benevolent their Bolshevik overlords were, or maybe some Weimar Germans, I'm sure they enjoyed losing their life savings whilst certain others lived in luxury and bought everything up for pfennigs on the mark, but Mr. Richardson has asked that this particular question not be discussed so I'll not write any more about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62132873412160218832011-11-20T17:56:34.054+11:002011-11-20T17:56:34.054+11:00I think most people with politics to the right of ...I think most people with politics to the right of centre would agree that a small state is better than a large, intrusive one.<br /><br />But many of those people have doubts about free trade as a principle. <br /><br />The U.S underwent some of its greatest periods of growth in the pre-welfare state era, but they still had protectionist policies in play to guard their growing industries.<br /><br />Like all wonderful principles that seem to offer the answer to everything Free-trade is best taken with a grain of salt.<br /><br />Sometimes it might be a good idea, other times perhaps not. <br /><br />The individual situation dictates more than abstract principles do.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51527017908631556682011-11-20T17:04:03.517+11:002011-11-20T17:04:03.517+11:00democracy must always lead to the welfare state, a...<i>democracy must always lead to the welfare state, as the many realize that they can vote themselves largess at the expense of the few;</i> <br /><br /><br />Libertarians just <i>love</i> this nonsense. Being historically illiterate, they don't have to worry about the fact that the Nazis and the communists had welfare states. They also don't have to deal with the fact that the US had a much smaller welfare state when it was more democratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42140322554564767522011-11-20T16:59:16.587+11:002011-11-20T16:59:16.587+11:00It commits Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New...<i>It commits Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam to drop all trade barriers.</i> <br /><br /><br />Because the EU has been such a rousing success? You can say (weakly) that the Europeans didn't know any better, but nobody following them has any such excuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com