Society/Culture Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith - Allegations of war crimes

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,078
33,224
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Your actual understanding of libertarian philosophy has been summed up in one very simple sentence.
If you're a Libertarian you obviously oppose things like mandatory indefinite detention (offshore etc), denial of the right of appeal for Refugees, capital punishment and so forth and support Abortion, Religious freedom (including those of Muslims), Same sex Marriage, the right of people to choose their Gender and similar.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
22,762
43,320
AFL Club
North Melbourne
And if people were left alone to do whatever they wanted, this would change how exactly?
He thinks it is a bad thing that people did this during BLM riots in the states last year.

He is a David Koch style Libertarian. As soon as someone challenges the power of the state he starts quoting Rupert Murdoch's media about them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,078
33,224
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
He thinks it is a bad thing that people did this during BLM riots in the states last year.

He is a David Koch style Libertarian. As soon as someone challenges the power of the state he starts quoting Rupert Murdoch's media about them.
He wants a 'Government' so small as to not affect him (VRO's, taxation, guns, political correctness etc) but big enough so that the Muslims, refugees, LGBTI, Leftists and others get it in the neck.

Meds was also calling himself a 'free market libertarian' for a while there. Turns out he supports tariffs, nationalising industry, mandatory detention or forcible deportation (sans judicial review) of even children, freedom of movement etc and opposes FTA, access to the EAA etc etc.

To be fair, he's backed away from that position.

It's always the way with libertarians - the Government should be small... unless we're talking about its powers against brown folk or homosexuals. Then it can be Machiavellian in scope.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
22,762
43,320
AFL Club
North Melbourne
He wants a 'Government' so small as to not affect him (VRO's, taxation, guns, political correctness etc) but big enough so that the Muslims, refugees, LGBTI, Leftists and others get it in the neck.

Meds was also calling himself a 'free market libertarian' for a while there. Turns out he supports tariffs, nationalising industry, mandatory detention or forcible deportation (sans judicial review) of even children, freedom of movement etc and opposes FTA, access to the EAA etc etc.

To be fair, he's backed away from that position.

It's always the way with libertarians - the Government should be small... unless we're talking about its powers against brown folk or homosexuals. Then it can be Machiavellian in scope.
Tef is a definite Koch style Libertarian tho. So small government means a police force to stop people stealing his stuff and an army so they can protect him when he steals other peoples. Very similar to what you are saying I spose.
 

Schneebly11

Senior List
Apr 7, 2020
250
425
AFL Club
Richmond
Well looks like the Australian media are tuned into how Australians really want to see in this saga, the celebrity gossip:

On Saturday, the 42-year-old cut a dapper figure as he sweetly held hands with the TV executive, 28, at the Magic Millions Race Day on the Gold Coast.

At the event, a smitten Ms Matulin looked sophisticated and stunning in a one-shoulder floral mini-dress, which showed off her svelte frame and toned arms.

She teamed her ensemble with a statement pearl headband, and wore a dash of makeup to accentuate her striking features.

Meanwhile, Mr Roberts-Smith looked suave in a grey suit, teamed with a crisp white shirt and a black tie.




Just buttering up the public for the inevitable tabloid Murdoch defence via the press he's going to get. You can see it by Alan Jones's ass kissing comments in the article:

'They will never, ever find anything against him, Ben Roberts-Smith.
 

Over The Post

Bless you, my children
Nov 17, 2007
10,110
9,017
Bikini Atoll
AFL Club
Richmond
Mr Roberts-Smith looked suave in a grey suit, teamed with a crisp white shirt and a black tie.

I was amazed at the tats when I first saw a pic of him in Afghanistan with his shirt off. No wonder he wears long sleeves and ties in public.
 

kranky al

Premium Platinum
Jun 30, 2009
22,420
29,392
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
He wants a 'Government' so small as to not affect him (VRO's, taxation, guns, political correctness etc) but big enough so that the Muslims, refugees, LGBTI, Leftists and others get it in the neck.

Meds was also calling himself a 'free market libertarian' for a while there. Turns out he supports tariffs, nationalising industry, mandatory detention or forcible deportation (sans judicial review) of even children, freedom of movement etc and opposes FTA, access to the EAA etc etc.

To be fair, he's backed away from that position.

It's always the way with libertarians - the Government should be small... unless we're talking about its powers against brown folk or homosexuals. Then it can be Machiavellian in scope.
Koch doesnt mind the government meddling in the oil market so he keeps a nice monopoly on refining - in an extremely damaging to the environment method.
 

The Passenger

Freak Power
Mar 25, 2003
32,641
22,020
127.0.0.1
AFL Club
West Coast
He wants a 'Government' so small as to not affect him (VRO's, taxation, guns, political correctness etc) but big enough so that the Muslims, refugees, LGBTI, Leftists and others get it in the neck.

Meds was also calling himself a 'free market libertarian' for a while there. Turns out he supports tariffs, nationalising industry, mandatory detention or forcible deportation (sans judicial review) of even children, freedom of movement etc and opposes FTA, access to the EAA etc etc.

To be fair, he's backed away from that position.

It's always the way with libertarians - the Government should be small... unless we're talking about its powers against brown folk or homosexuals. Then it can be Machiavellian in scope.
Can be succinctly summed up as Libertarianism for me and my ilk, authoritarianism for the rest
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,078
33,224
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm not sure I've ever known a Libertarian who wasn't all in on this dual approach
Interestingly, libertarianism used to be a left wing ideology (when the State opposed same sex marriage, women couldnt vote, slavery was a thing etc). As the State has become more focused on consumer protection, human rights, welfare etc, the libertarians are all now of the Right.

They just want the State to leave them alone so they can rip people off, be racists and so forth without fear of punishment.

Its a bogus ideology. Liberalism was never about limiting the size of the State, it was about limiting its power (to protect individual liberty from State tyranny). Libertarians never quite grasp this important distinction.
 

kranky al

Premium Platinum
Jun 30, 2009
22,420
29,392
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
Interestingly, libertarianism used to be a left wing ideology (when the State opposed same sex marriage, women couldnt vote, slavery was a thing etc). As the State has become more focused on consumer protection, human rights, welfare etc, the libertarians are all now of the Right.

They just want the State to leave them alone so they can rip people off, be racists and so forth without fear of punishment.

Its a bogus ideology. Liberalism was never about limiting the size of the State, it was about limiting its power (to protect individual liberty from State tyranny). Libertarians never quite grasp this important distinction.
The koch brothers sure do/did
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,910
30,965
AFL Club
Carlton
Interestingly, libertarianism used to be a left wing ideology (when the State opposed same sex marriage, women couldnt vote, slavery was a thing etc). As the State has become more focused on consumer protection, human rights, welfare etc, the libertarians are all now of the Right.

They just want the State to leave them alone so they can rip people off, be racists and so forth without fear of punishment.

Its a bogus ideology. Liberalism was never about limiting the size of the State, it was about limiting its power (to protect individual liberty from State tyranny). Libertarians never quite grasp this important distinction.
You've just defined my particular brand of anarchism.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,910
30,965
AFL Club
Carlton
Anarchism is like Communism in that it both doesnt work, and isnt possible.

People being people, we will always form hierarchies, and strive for dominance over others.
Like libertarianism, you mean?

I acknowledge the inherent difficulties of my world view. We inherently form hierarchies, until we don't; our leaders are in service to the rest of the population, until they're not. There's always a push and pull between those with and those without power. For me, anarchy exists within co-operation and shared ideas, not within violent overthrow of the state.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,078
33,224
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Like libertarianism, you mean?
I'm not a libertarian (and libertarianism was discarded as a valid political ideology years ago). Echoes of it exist but no party advocates directly from a libertarian perspective anymore.

You tend to see libertarian sentiments in expressions of negative liberty found among conservative liberal parties like the GOP, Tories and the Liberal branch of the LNP.

They're not part of an overarching doctrine of libertarianism though, they're actually the very similar doctrine of negative liberty (which is one expression of liberalism).

Democratic liberal parties (Labor/ Labour and the Dems) favor positive liberty doctrines.

For me, anarchy exists within co-operation and shared ideas, not within violent overthrow of the state.
You can have co-operation and shared ideas in a liberal democratic capitalist State such as the USA, UK, most of Europe and Australia.

The USA and Europe in particular have been responsible for a great many great ideas, innovations and advances in the Arts, scienes, politics, philosophy and more.

In a sense, a Corporation is an expression of co-operation remember, as is a Liberal Democracy.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,910
30,965
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm not a libertarian (and libertarianism was discarded as a valid political ideology years ago). Echoes of it exist but no party advocates directly from a libertarian perspective anymore.

You tend to see libertarian sentiments in expressions of negative liberty found among conservative liberal parties like the GOP, Tories and the Liberal branch of the LNP.

They're not part of an overarching doctrine of libertarianism though, they're actually the very similar doctrine of negative liberty (which is one expression of liberalism).

Democratic liberal parties (Labor/ Labour and the Dems) favor positive liberty doctrines.
I know.
You can have co-operation and shared ideas in a liberal democratic capitalist State such as the USA, UK, most of Europe and Australia.

The USA and Europe in particular have been responsible for a great many great ideas, innovations and advances in the Arts, scienes, politics, philosophy and more.

In a sense, a Corporation is an expression of co-operation remember, as is a Liberal Democracy.
You can, but within those precepts your freedom is absolutely limited by the necessitates of the state. While I struggle with the implications of my views, I see even the potential excesses being better than a government excessively dictating behaviour or prejudicing conduct.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,078
33,224
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
You can, but within those precepts your freedom is absolutely limited by the necessitates of the state.
Laws are not made by the Liberal State to protect the State from its citizens. Those laws only exist to protect its citizens from other citizens impinging on the liberty of others.

A prohibition on murder or rape, or unfair trading, or misrepresentation, or defamation, or assault, or environmental pollution, or building a house on your neighbors property, or stealing, or driving while drunk or on the wrong side of the road or stopping at red lights etc.

None of those things harm the State. Those laws all exist to stop other people from infringing on your freedoms and your liberty.

That's the limit on the powers of a liberal State, and also the only reason it exists. It can ONLY make such laws as are reasonably needed to protect the liberty of its citizens from harm from others. Those laws are to be proportionate to the harm.

When the French offed their King and the Americans revolted from theirs, they didn't implement anarchy as a replacement because they knew people are fundamentally selfish bastards and chaos and mayhem would ensue. Instead they acknowledged they needed a State, so they then implemented a State bound to liberal ideals as a limit to the power of that State (among other limits including separation of the powers, adherence to the Rule of Law, accountability to the people etc).
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
15,910
30,965
AFL Club
Carlton
Laws are not made by the Liberal State to protect the State from its citizens. Those laws only exist to protect its citizens from other citizens impinging on the liberty of others.
Are you saying that there are no laws made in the interests purely of conserving the state? Because that's manifestly untrue, and provably so.

A prohibition on murder or rape, or unfair trading, or misrepresentation, or defamation, or assault, or environmental pollution, or building a house on your neighbors property, or stealing, or driving while drunk or on the wrong side of the road or stopping at red lights etc.

None of those things harm the State. Those laws all exist to stop other people from infringing on your freedoms and your liberty.
Agreed. What I object to is less tangible than these obvious examples.

That's the limit on the powers of a liberal State, and also the only reason it exists. It can ONLY make such laws as are reasonably needed to protect the liberty of its citizens from harm from others. Those laws are to be proportionate to the harm.
Refer to point 1.
When the French offed their King and the Americans revolted from theirs, they didn't implement anarchy as a replacement because they knew people are fundamentally selfish bastards and chaos and mayhem would ensue. Instead they acknowledged they needed a State, so they then implemented a State bound to liberal ideals as a limit to the power of that State (among other limits including separation of the powers, adherence to the Rule of Law, accountability to the people etc).
Here's the thing; chaos and mayhem certainly did ensue in both of those revolutions, but as is chaos wont it is transient. Chaos is not our natural state; we are co-operative by nature, not competitive.

While thinking people did instigate both revolutions and - eventually - thinking people took over once the dust settled, it took fundamental work by unnamed people within their everyday lives who brought society back to balance and away from chaos, from the 'state of nature' and from the dog eat dog, because that's not people's natural state.

I do not mind a society locked into utter immobility by its checks and balances, even as I am wary of it.
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
10,908
14,271
AFL Club
Hawthorn
didn't we used to have someone from the Aus Libertarian party on here? Did he get banned (Contra Mundum maybe was his name?) I always enjoyed reading his posts although I somewhat suspect he may have participated in hunting a human being on a tropical island at some point.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad