David Leyonhjelm watch...

Remove this Banner Ad

slicedndiced said:
So, the good senator is introducing a bill to clear the way for gay marriage, and called for a conscience vote on the matter, yet no vitriol towards him here as of yet.

Or is that anger only reserved for Greens senators who do the same and, apparently, waste the Senates time with with bills that reflect the general public's sentiment?
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will be a bill to get .GOV out of the marriage debate entirely.

Good article by him in "the land" on levies .

IN MANY rural sectors, producers pay levies which are collected by the government and transferred to an industry organisation which is responsible for spending the money for the benefit of the industry.

Levies are used to support research and development, promotion and marketing, residue testing, and plant and animal health programs. In some cases the government contributes additional funds, a form of corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

I thought of that article when I wondered about a couple of potential breakthroughs in by a couple of small miners I have shares in, if there would have been as much progress or any progress at all if they were funded by a levy on miners.

http://www.reedresources.com/ have developed a new method for extracting lithium



And http://ammg.com.au/ are developing a process to get alumina from kaolin.

 
slicedndiced said:
So, the good senator is introducing a bill to clear the way for gay marriage, and called for a conscience vote on the matter, yet no vitriol towards him here as of yet.
Click to expand...

Thought he was meant to be libertarian? Gay marriage doesn't exactly sit well with that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

samFFC said:
Gay marriage doesn't sit with liberatarianism?
Click to expand...

Not when the state is involved. Noone claiming to be libertarian would want an extension of the state. Wanting to have the state consent to your relationship sounds extraordinarily Orwellian to me.
 
medusala said:
Not when the state is involved. Noone claiming to be libertarian would want an extension of the state. Wanting to have the state consent to your relationship sounds extraordinarily Orwellian to me.
Click to expand...

Fair point. But as a pragmatic libertarian politician, it is surely preferable to vote for same-sex marriage, would you not agree?
 
samFFC said:
That doesn't answer the question.

There will almost certainly be another vote on the issue - should Sen Leyonhjelm vote yay or nay?
Click to expand...

Nay obviously for reasons I stated above. Libertarians are all about freedom FROM the state not an expansion of the state.

It irks me no end that the usual suspects attempt to argue that gay marriage is a civil liberties issue.
 
medusala said:
Nay obviously for reasons I stated above. Libertarians are all about freedom FROM the state not an expansion of the state.

It irks me no end that the usual suspects attempt to argue that gay marriage is a civil liberties issue.
Click to expand...

It is a civil liberties issue, however. Currently, if people WANT to get married, some can and some can't.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of the extension of the state, but at the end of the day, if people want to get married then the provision for this should be there, IMO.
 
medusala said:
Nay obviously for reasons I stated above. Libertarians are all about freedom FROM the state not an expansion of the state.

It irks me no end that the usual suspects attempt to argue that gay marriage is a civil liberties issue.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is alot more than a civil liberties issue, it is also about government imposed financial discrimination that prevents same sex couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples in regards to the allocation of their financial assets after their death.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

samFFC said:
I understand where you are coming from in terms of the extension of the state, but at the end of the day, if people want to get married then the provision for this should be there, IMO.
Click to expand...

I have zero problem with that. If the Uniting Church etc wants to hold gay marriages I couldn't care less. Its not an area that the state should be involved in.
 
Gough said:
It's issues like this that the conservative-claiming-to-be libertarian always come unstuck.
Click to expand...

It is all very, very simple. I remember the gay lobby demanding the state leave them alone re homosexuality laws in Tas. Now they want the state to interfere. I recall Bob Brown demanding the federal govt intervene in Tas, then demanding the feds stay out of Canberra gay law issue. I can recall the gay lobby wanting equal rights re marriage then producing legislation in the ACT with rather different divorce provisions.

Pathological hypocrisy from some.
 
Last edited:
Tripwire said:
Evil if you are a leftist.
Lower taxes = Greed. Evil CEO and corporations.
Government knows how to police our lives better, individuals cannot be responsible for their decisions obviously. More nanny state laws!
Click to expand...
What the * are you talking about?
Lower taxes to the poor to lower middle class, is greed/evil to a "leftist"?
Tripwire said:
This.

If a church believes in marrying same sex couples, fine.
If a church does not believe in marrying same sex couples, fine....Oh I mean Homophobes! Bigots! etc
Click to expand...
Such a poor argument.
Use government to have concessions for married m&f, but oppose gov to give the same concessions to m&m or f&f.

s**t house argument. If you are truly against government involvement, chuck out everything that the law pertains to marriage in general, or give it to any two people who wish to marry.
 
Floor Pie said:
What the **** are you talking about?
Lower taxes to the poor to lower middle class, is greed/evil to a "leftist"?

Such a poor argument.
Use government to have concessions for married m&f, but oppose gov to give the same concessions to m&m or f&f.

s**t house argument. If you are truly against government involvement, chuck out everything that the law pertains to marriage in general, or give it to any two people who wish to marry.
Click to expand...
Lower taxes for everyone you ******* idiot or better, eliminate the income tax.
Oh, you support increasing taxes on the wealthy because they make more?
School yard jealousy at it's best. Taking more from one group of people is THEFT.
 
Tripwire said:
Oh, you support increasing taxes on the wealthy because they make more?
School yard jealousy at it's best. Taking more from one group of people is THEFT.
Click to expand...
I see you did a ninja edit. Ok, I'll respond to this.

Where did I say I would support increasing taxes?
Are you saying taxing is theft? Or only if it is from "the wealthy"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ferball
David Mcbride's trial started today.
Replies
24
Views
1K
Gralin
Gralin
campbell
David Littleproud
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Gough
Gough

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top