Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mmm....shiney!, Oct 18, 2014.
I'm passing this message on.
You just need to send the email to Nimbin and have that in bold and you will get the 100 members.....
Good idea, cept Nimbin is in NSW.
They look to be the best group out there at the moment if you want more freedom and less restrictions on how you live your life.
I was waiting for that the people in Nimbin will forward it to the "associates" in Victoria. I think you will find even stoners have the Internet.....and phones. Just don't tell them you want to abolish welfare, free medical etc
The 'hundred thousand people' was the turnout for an anti-war demonstration.
You should write to them and suggest it.
FYI The LDP aren't proposing to abolish welfare, publically paid health care etc
Who here would claim to support genuine, utilitarian free market libertarianism when it takes as it's context, not just current members of society, but also future generations?
I don't understand what you mean.
But just to clarify things, future generations have no claim on current generations.
Right, that's the question. On the surface, it's easy to reject it out of hand, but that does a disservice to some of the deeper philosophical and ideological questions that have been raised (and not yet resolved satisfactorily).
For example, very briefly:
Don't hurt other people.
Don't take their stuff.
Succinctly put. The devil, however, is in the details, and philosophers keep troubling us with uneasy questions directly related to the above statement.
Libertarianism and utilitarianism do not go together without some friction. You'll see treatises with titles such as "The Uneasy Marriage of Utilitarian and Libertarian Thought" and even claims that "Libertarian and utilitarian theories of justice are, in many respects, diametrically opposed." Then they get into debates about intergenerational distributive justice.
Many of these questions cannot be easily dismissed if you wish to advocate a cohesive political ideology based on "don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff."
That's simply because Libertarianism isn't utilitarianism.
Edit: and anyone who is a utilitarian is suffering from a pretence of knowledge.
Firstly, I'm assuming that we are discussing the Liberal Democratic Party and their core guiding philosophy. If anyone hasn't skimmed the information on their site, it is well worth checking out: http://ldp.org.au/
Since this thread is about the LDP who's core philosophy is broadly based on classical liberalism, both libertarianism and utilitarianism must be considered.
From their site:
Classical liberalism generally is:
Give me break guys, I just woke up. Which utensil do I use to sprinkle a liberal amount of sugar on my porridge?
In this case, the ideologically correct utensil is the Spork.
I'll be forked!
Gibberish is generally pretty difficult to make any sense of, unless there is something in it for the audience.
Every statist, big-government, global interventionist, deficit spending, war-mongering politician and their supporters will use gibberish to argue their case based on some urgency. Ignoring immorality on the basis that their illogical rationalisations benefit some underprivileged group or address some beaten up threat, one see's such people seducing others with promises of something for nothing that often come down to claims against future generations.
So, do current generations have a moral claim on future generations?
Separate names with a comma.