Liberal democratic Party and Victorian elections 2015

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mmm....shiney!, Oct 18, 2014.

  1. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    Other explanations like there are more people fed up with major parties so there was a 50 times increase in the vote for the LDP? Seriously? You can not honestly believe that?

    Change the party name back to Liberty Democratic Party and the percentage of the vote will fall back to 1/5 of 1%.

    By the look of it the Victorian LDP still does not even have 500 people to get it registered in Victoria....... So much for an increase in there popularity :)
     
  2. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    :rolleyes:

    Just read through this post from top to bottom. It's not hard. And you'll realise I was responding to your theory about the people who voted for him. I'm sure some percentage did make a mistake. Your contention is that nearly all of them did. I am saying you need to prove that.

    Libertarianism? That is simply about human rights and freedom.
     
  3. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia

    You're approaching this from an anti-libertarian bias.

    This was the question presented to you:


    U refused to engage and instead went on another tangent. When I called u out on it, u got defensive and went on a rant about libertarianism as if it was something I was defending- which I gave no indication I was.

    Hawkeye was trying to build a case for his side of the debate. U deflected and went off point.
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,543
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Have you got a link to that, I've been trying to find some info.
     
  5. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD

    Hawkeye is talking about theft, tax is not theft therefore theft has nothing to do with the discussion. I am not even going to discuss tax as being theft because I believe it is a rediculous viewpoint pushed by Libertarians who are trying to push an agenda.

    Have a read if you like it'll explain it to you.

    http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/
     
  6. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia

    So you won't discuss it because you think it's pushed by a libertarian agenda? Sorry, but I don't see that as anything more than you not willing to take part in intelligent discourse because of bias. You're not actually explaining specifically why you believe tax isn't theft, you're just maintaining that to be true without even presenting an argument.
     
  7. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    The link in the last post of mine explains what tax is and it explains what theft is. It also explains why tax is not theft. Read it and it'll explain it to you. I see no point of me going over it as I have no interest in it as it would be a waste of my time. It would be like someone wanting to talk about their intelligent beliefs in regards to orcs or dragons - I have no interest. If you see it as me having a bias fine I am happy for you :) just because you believe I should discuss it doesn't mean I am going to.
     
  8. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    Yeah read your post, yes I am saying nearly all of them did. If before he got 1 vote then changed the name of the Party to "Liberal" and then got 50 I would say 49 people mistook him as having something to do with the Liberal party which he does not. The LDP previously got0.19% of the vote - less than 1/5 of 1% of the vote. Change the name bad and the number of votes it would go through the floor.
     
  9. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    It was on a page that came up on Google, a Uni related site or some sight that had a forum. I have just been flicking through stuff that comes up on the search engine. It said it was going to close and time was running out and if more people did not get on board they would not be on the card in Victoria.
     
  10. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia

    If it were only that easy, everyone could just be posting links to each other in this thread instead of having an actual discussion.

    The whole point of a philosophical discussion is to ask questions and try to use reason to come to a logical conclusion and then maybe, it can be tested in the real world. Thats how ideas are born and real progress is achieved. If that makes you uncomfortable, thats fine, but don't try to ridicule the whole process like its some fantasy. It has nothing to do with libertarianism.
     
  11. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    Well when Libertarianism is tested in the real world get back to me :) - we could be waiting awhile. You believe I should not ridicule the whole process, I believe Libertarianism is fantasy there you go. You saying "don't try and ridicule the whole process like it is a fantasy" you can't tell me what I can and can't do - this is a democracy..... Also in libertarian land you can't tell people what to do - individual freedom free from oppression and all that, you telling me not to do something's is very up libertarian of you lol :)
     
  12. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,543
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Thanks for the link.

    Logically flawed argument from a philosophical perspective as the premise ie that the State owns the land, is open to dispute.

    However, from a legal perspective there is no denying that I don't even own the land to which I have title, so I am happy for the sake of the discussion to concede that the State is the legally entitled owner of the land in which I have chosen to remain residing. The author compares paying taxes to paying rent arguing that if we choose to live in this country, then we must accept that we have to pay rent to the landlord ie the State. It's really a desperate clutch at straws to claim taxation is akin to "rent' as the latter is a payment that has been agreed to in contract. In other words the parties involved have reached a mutual agreement. Problem is, I've never been asked how much rent I would willingly pay nor have I been asked to sign a contract or enter into any agreement willingly. So it's not rent, it's a fee or a duty - I don't have choice in paying it, if I don't pay it I'll be dining in "Club Fed".

    Secondly, the author makes his argument that tax is not theft because:

    What happens in reality is that "my car" gets stolen by the government and all I get in return are the tyres and stereo. It's still theft even if I do get some of my car back. In fact, even if I get all my car returned, a new ballgown and a golden ticket to the ball - it is still theft. My car was stolen.

    He adds:

    Most people? Let's assume that that is in fact correct, ipso facto he must concede that there is a minority of the population who in fact are materially worse off because of taxes. Furthermore, according to the author's logic, for a majority of people it is in fact true that the government gives more than it takes. It's not such a bizarre statement after all is it?

    And he goes on:

    No thieves I know. Neither the local joyriders high on meth nor my local government parliamentarian.

    The rest of the article is just trash, the usual rubbish that Libertarians want rights without responsibilities, how they don't understand that people are dependent on others, that Libertarians would not object to coercion if it was done by a private landlord blah blah blah blah. He has a poor grasp of Libertarian fundamentals.
     
  13. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia

    Again with the libertarian talk. You continue to assume i'm a libertarian. I am not . Continuing to think that just shows this is just going way over your head.

    One can't even begin to have a rational discussion if you keep filtering the information put in front of you through your ideological filter.

    And to indulge you in your little game of semantics, in a democracy I CAN tell you what to do. I just need the support of the majority, lol.
     
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,543
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Actually you don't even need a majority. A vocal minority is enough, especially if it wields considerable political power and holds either the balance of power or forms a coalition with other minority groups. ;)
     
  15. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    lol, so I can take whatever I want from someone else if I give them something else for it? Because then it's not theft.

    Well, I do have a whole lot of stuff that I don't particularly want, I think i'll go do a whole lot of thieving (oops, I mean giving something in return for taking) of all the money that I want. This is really a whole new paradigm for me. I never realised that if you gave something back you could take whatever you liked and it wasn't theft. No wonder I haven't got ahead. I've been told theft is wrong full stop. These people were obviously lying to me. It is OK. Just make sure you leave a little something there for them.
     
  16. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    Shiney I would not expect any of the Libertarian thinking people to agree with it and that is fine. The thing is at a guess 90 - 95% of people probably more would agree with what is in the link. Very few people would agree that tax is theft, if they did I think the a Libertarian parties would have more than 0.4% of people voting for them in the US and 0.19% of people here in Australia.
     
  17. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia

    True, no argument from me there! :cool:
     
  18. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,543
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Agreed, if 90 - 95% of people believed tax is not theft it is precisely because they share the same ideas as the author of the article you linked by Robert Neilson.

    This sums up what the 90 - 95% believe:

    I don't for one minute think that that is at all true, unfortunately I have to admit it is likely to be the most common mindset, for as you keep pointing out, and as we Libertarians acknowledge, the proof is in the electoral pudding - at least for now anyway. It will be a battle to change mindsets, but such battles have been fought and won in the past. At the moment Libertarianism for most is dystopian, but a zephyr of change is stirring.
     
  19. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I have a rental agreement. It has my signature on it. It specifically indicates my consent to be charged. There is no such thing when it comes to taxes.

    Basically, I am subject to obligations just by being born. In the time of slavery, if you were born to a slave, you automatically had obligations put on you. You were a slave also, and had to fulfil the obligations of being a slave. In time it was seen as the fraud it was. Being born onto a certain area of land and thereby having obligations thrust on you is a fraud also and will be seen that way at some point in the future even though now people accept it as the norm just as the slave's obligations were seen as the norm for centuries until finally people came to their senses.

    There is no such thing as unchosen positive obligations.
     
  20. boyd_05

    boyd_05 Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Australia
    On the subject of slavery. It was such an integral part of civilization and the economy was so dependant on it, that a large part of the population couldn't even conceive a world without it. They were born into that reality and it was truly the norm. You could probably imagine the types of arguments that were thrown around when people started talking about abolishing it.

    "How will the economy survive?"

    "Tell me what this new fantasy world without slavery would look like".

    "You don't have all the answers so this is all just babble".

    Moral of the story is, you aren't always going to have all the answers on how things are going to work specifically, but we should always try to explore the paths that have merit and are morally consistent. It has served us well in the past.

    The ones that benefit from the way things are will always fight to maintain the status quo and there are plenty of people out there that are going to defend it. The true visionaries are the ones brave enough to embark into unchartered waters.
     

Share This Page