TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELVES! The Worrying rise of a conservative youth! (3 Viewers)

[gerhard]

insanerp please just dont join socialist alternative.

 

[ihavenothing]

I'm sorry but but both extremities (the Trots and the right Libs) give me the shits, go the moderates!

 

[lengy]

Centrist views FTW.

 

[Ishamael]

The labor party is a load of crap, and the only person I would vote for in that party is Rudd, but lets face it, Kim Beastly and Howard are going to contest next years election...

I agree, I would never place labor as first pref (in fed elections), since I think either Rudd or Gillard are the only effective leaders. They've done more to lobby support for the party than that toadstool Beazley. Hell, I think (If none of his policies particularly offended) I would even place Costello above Beazley.

 

[insanerp]

insanerp please just dont join socialist alternative.

hrm i dunno i might end up doing so because my cousin is already part of it and he is pretty convincing

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Didn't know where I stood before BOS but I've had the 'leftist' tag slapped on me a few times...but it's hardly my fault I'm never in a discussion where I can espouse my conservative views.
Is it very 'leftist' that I think throwing more money into aboriginal ghetto's, whether in the city or the desert is a waste of time and resources better spent on those who actually want to help themselves?


I think the enviroment and the future are important, I hate short sighted politicians in general and Howard in particular for being a morally corrupt bastard...I think Beazley is a weak sack of shit but I'd still vote from him because I doubt he would last long...if his government got into power his party would tear him down...because why challenge to be leader of the Opposition, that's a crap posting and you are torn to shreads daily...but PM? Yeah I think the best way to get rid of Beazley would be to have him elected PM.

Hopefully Gillard would take over.

I try to keep my ideals alive even as I learn about the world because Idealism is where all the greatest ideas come from...democracy, freedom, ending racism...

 

[yy]

so is this thread just about economic "conservatism" and the environment?
i think people in general are getting more and more conservative, but not on economic issues. for example, attitudes regarding drugs, marriage and family arrangements
even conservative governments are focusing their attention on environment now

 

[banco55]

One good reason why I expect our generation to get more fiscally conservative over the next 15 years is that we are going to be paying out the ass for pensions for the baby boomers. So either one of two things is likely to happen:

1.We keep the existing welfare system PLUS pay the pensions for the hundreds of thousands of baby boomers. Us young ones pay huge amounts of tax.

2.Welfare for people under retirement age is very sharply cut back and with the money saved from that we pay the baby boomer pensions. Tax rate stays about the same.

 

[bshoc]

In proper response to the OP and ..

I agree, I would never place labor as first pref (in fed elections), since I think either Rudd or Gillard are the only effective leaders. They've done more to lobby support for the party than that toadstool Beazley. Hell, I think (If none of his policies particularly offended) I would even place Costello above Beazley.

Whilst a Beazley Labor Government is highly unlikely (any Labour Government is highly unlikely), a Rudd or Gillard government is impossible, there's no way somebody on the left like Gillard could ever get elected as a PM. Welfare, secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits, compulsory unionism (including student) heavy regulation and multicultaralism, that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in upper and middle class Australia in years.

Hasn't the farce that was socialism and communism already proven itself for what it is, hasn't internationalism shown itself to be the only thing worse than nationalism? Don't the results under Liberal v. Labour speak for themselves? Socialism, Communism, Leftism, Feminism, its all a pathetic farce, and mind you I actually spent a good deal of my life in one of the communist paradises which you think are so good, rather than just being some rebellious teen who thinks that associating with a political philosophy responsible for the murder of 100 000 000 million people in the 20th century is "cool." I take neo-fascists more seriously than socialists and communists, at least those guys seem to have a point.

Keep in mind that I'm no Liberal voter or neo-liberal capitalist, I'm probably one of the most big government and statist people on this forum.

Just let the dying dog die already.

 

[gerhard]

woudlnt it be more likely that we just cut the baby boomers pensions than do either of those options?

 

[banco55]

woudlnt it be more likely that we just cut the baby boomers pensions than do either of those options?

I'd say no because they will make up too big a proportion of the electorate and pensions will be their number 1 issue. Scrapping (and/or tightening up eligibilitly) for single-parent pension, dole , disability pension will be much more politically viable as it will effect far fewer people.

Plus a lot of our generation will be very cocerned about our parents growing old in poverty and I think most of us will be happy to make the bargain of screwing over the unemployed, single mothers etc. versus feeling guilty about our parents impoverished retirement.

 

[ihavenothing]

I am worried that we will never recover from our own greed and materialism and the way things will go there will be a day when we will steeply stumble and fall fatally.

 

[dieburndie]

Bshoc, how much of your big government preference is based on economic compared to social issues?
I'm just asking because it seems odd that someone who thinks socialism and leftism are pathetic is considered one of the most big government and statist users.
It's a convincing argument for the initial topic of the thread.

 

[_dhj_]

Bshoc didn't you state at some stage that you supported Labor? I was of the impression that you aligned yourself with both the "old left" and reactionary values of National Socialism... was I right?

 

[withoutaface]

First of all, I'd like to begin my address by warning all leftists, socialists, communists and sensible folk to just stop bashing heads with these guys. We may have the right of it, but they have thicker skulls.
I would never say that I'm too afraid to address the lesser men/shemen in this forum on the topic of socio-economic theory. (Yes fascists, your ideas are also just theories. They haven't solved any problems.) However, the level of opposition I've faced can be summed up in the following:
1) The die hard conservative/"economic liberal". Replies with questions, rarley counters with both evidence or arguement in the vicinity of each other
2) The desperately centrist friendly libertarian. Contributes no consistant arguement, but manages to argue both sides better than most.
3) The "joe". (OK, I made this one up to consist of Captain_Ghey)
Another message, this time to all of you. You are never going to convince the other side yours is the correct solution, there is an intensity of class struggle that cannot be overcome with diatribe.
Which leads me to my final point:
As an independent thinking neo-trotskyist with a soft spot for struggling communists, human and nationstate:
I hope you fascist bastards burn in the fires of the righteous struggle.
"Hate is a factor in the struggle, intransigent hatred for the enemy that takes one beyond the natural limitations of a human being and converts one into an effective, violent, selective, cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be like that"
-Che Guevera

1. As a libertarian my views are entirely consistent, I argue only the side of negative liberty, what the 'two sides' you refer to are I'm unsure.
2. Calling me a facist when YOU'RE the one who wants to control the economy, and YOU'RE the one who wants a bloody revolution is disgustingly hypocritical. I support very, very minimal government intervention and the fact that you believe I'm a facist would be perhaps one of the most alarmingly obvious of phenotypic manifestations of your forty-seventh chromosome.
3. Che wanted to cause a nuclear war between America, Russia and Cuba. Hardly the most admirable role model.
4. The purpose of political debate is never to convince the other side that you're right. Both sides have entrenched views that will very rarely change. The winner of the debate is judged by those third parties who observe it, not the participants.
5. Go back to logic school dude. Ad homs don't constitute a valid argument.

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc didn't you state at some stage that you supported Labor? I was of the impression that you aligned yourself with both the "old left" and reactionary values of National Socialism... was I right?

Bshoc, how much of your big government preference is based on economic compared to social issues?
I'm just asking because it seems odd that someone who thinks socialism and leftism are pathetic is considered one of the most big government and statist users.
It's a convincing argument for the initial topic of the thread.

Firstly national socialism is the worst kind of socialism, I'm against any ideology that preaches revolution, I don't believe in being reactionary either, there is no "idealic past" I can think of that should be returned to, I'm just suggesting that with a few issues there have been excesses that should be reevaluated, such as the current government's obsession with selling off public utilities, they can even privatize Telstra if they want, so long as the infrastructure remains in public hands, the market is efficient, however there are some things one should never trust to the public sector, such as primary communication lines, airports, prisons, roads etc. for reasons other than simple economics. Which is why in some cases I do think strongly along Labor lines, but I hardly outright support the full Labour platform, for example I like the VSU and don't believe in quota legislation and so forth, but I still think we should have a strong welfare system.

I guess in the end what I dislike about any form of marxism, liberal-capitalism, neoconservatism, fascism etc. is ideology itself, such as the one driving the Howard gov. today with what could be argued with things like selling off Telstra or the New IR laws, were they really needed or necessary at all? I believe politics should be pragmatic, not idealist.

dieburndie I don't believe in "big government" as you're thinking of it, as in a government that control most or all things, but rather a government that has the capacity to do so where necessary, I guess "strong government" is better term, broadly speaking I would probably put myself in the centre economically and centre-right socially.

 

[loquasagacious]

Jumping back to the first page and dieburndie's post stating that there are lefties but 'waf-ites' have brow beaten them into silence:

Isn't this just a way of saying that every single time there has been a debate on these issues the so-called 'waf-ites' have been the convincing victors? Now its our fault that the 'left' has been loosing debates?

Did it ever occur that the 'left' has generally speaking put foreward lofty ideals and vague plans which have been comprehensively demolished as contradictory, unrealistic and/or already failed.

Infact even on issues where there might be room for agreeance eg the legalisation of drugs the arguments of the 'waf-ites' are stronger. eg the left: because they should be like free man, waf-ites: because it creates a revenue stream, reduces crime and upholds freedom.

Lets face it the fresh ideas of today aren't coming from the left they're coming from the 'waf-ites'. The lefties out there are promoting the same policies as thirty (or more) years ago and refuse to acknowledge that they failed for those thirty (or more) years. Some examples:
-Welfare for aboriginals
-Free tertiary education
-The welfare state generally
-Communism/Socialism
-Legislative protection of the environment
-Riding bikes, wearing solar panels and eating tofu
-Institutions of International Relations
-Protectionism
-etc, etc

The fresh, bold, new ideas are coming from the waf-ites. Hence this 'movement' is not on of conservatism and the status quo but rather one of change. Comparitively the left is the conservative or even reactionary group. Examples of this reversal of stereotype are:
-VSU
-Protectionism
-Welfare
-Free tertiary education
-etc

As a 'waf-ite' I am tired of the 'you have no heart' argument from the left, has it ever occured that I may genuinely believe that waf-ite policies might help people. I take no pleasure in seeing people living on the street, I think of how to get them off the street and back into society. Giving them money for drugs and a cheap place to live doesn't fix the problem for me.

It's easy to seem like you have a heart when you're on the left but that's not always the case. The left is really a large bandwagon, there are a few regular drivers that do genuinly(sp) (but mistakenly) believe they are doing the right thing, these people have a heart but maybe no brain. And then there are the hordes who jump on the bandwagon when 'issues' roll around, think the war in Iraq, the make poverty history campaign, etc etc. They are jumping on the wagon because it makes them feel good. They can say how much they care about starving kids in africa or the occupation of iraq. And they love quick-fixes, see debt relief or pull-out of Iraq.

What they don't understand, nor want to understand, is that these don't fix the problem, debt-relief doesn't address issues of why they are in debt in the first place, pulling out of Iraq will not magically stop the violence. And so these 'bandwagon lefties' who seem to have a heart do not, what they have is a need for instant gratification of some emotive issue they have clung to, they need this to feel good about themselves. For these people it's not about feeding the starving its about getting the guilt monkey off their back and feeling good about themselves - in the quickest, least disruptive (to their lives) way.

I apologise that this post ended up abit rambly, it was originally intended as only a couple of paragraphs.

 

[gerhard]

Jumping back to the first page and dieburndie's post stating that there are lefties but 'waf-ites' have brow beaten them into silence:

Isn't this just a way of saying that every single time there has been a debate on these issues the so-called 'waf-ites' have been the convincing victors? Now its our fault that the 'left' has been loosing debates?

Its pretty clear he is not blaming anyone, just stating why things are as they are. Obviously, superior arguing skills does not make an opinion correct. If you are left wing and know that your arguing skills arent up to scratch, in an environment where the progressive right generally dominate then yes you will be less likely to post. simple as that.

also your ad hominem attacks on the left are pretty lame

also its not like right wing solutions to aboriginal issues have done anything at all for aboriginal people.

 

[dieburndie]

Jumping back to the first page and dieburndie's post stating that there are lefties but 'waf-ites' have brow beaten them into silence:

Isn't this just a way of saying that every single time there has been a debate on these issues the so-called 'waf-ites' have been the convincing victors? Now its our fault that the 'left' has been loosing debates?

As gerhard said, I'm not blaming you, I'm just stating things the way they are.
In the setting of this forum, it's difficult for someone without a strong knowledge of economics to argue their points on the left, but it's easy for someone on the right because they have those with comprehensive knowledge to back them up.
If you present a leftist idea, you're confronted with a lot of strong opposition and very little support. There is no incentive to put forward these ideas when your audience is everything but receptive, and completely hostile towards the left. That's why there is so much more productive discussion here about social issues like theism, abortion and homosexuality than there is about economics. This is completely obvious to me.

Did it ever occur that the 'left' has generally speaking put foreward lofty ideals and vague plans which have been comprehensively demolished as contradictory, unrealistic and/or already failed.

The idea of absolute economic and social liberty for all is also lofty, vague and unrealistic. It's saying that the whole of society will benefit from a single principle.
The left is often guilty of that, but they are also capable of making constructive and logical arguments. The demolition that has frequently occured has been the result of strong arguments from the right being met with little opposition, and inadequate opposition at that.
A whole bunch of ideals and plans, on both the left and right, are contradictory, unrealistic and have failed in the past. To say this is exclusive to the left is just completely blind.

Infact even on issues where there might be room for agreeance eg the legalisation of drugs the arguments of the 'waf-ites' are stronger. eg the left: because they should be like free man, waf-ites: because it creates a revenue stream, reduces crime and upholds freedom.

You're just using a stereotype here, and the "waf-ite" argument can be used by those on the right or left. The argument that drugs are great can also be used by the right or left. The arguments are usually similar because both the left and the libertarian right are usually pro social liberty.

Lets face it the fresh ideas of today aren't coming from the left they're coming from the 'waf-ites'. The lefties out there are promoting the same policies as thirty (or more) years ago and refuse to acknowledge that they failed for those thirty (or more) years. Some examples:
-Legislative protection of the environment
-Riding bikes, wearing solar panels and eating tofu

What has failed has been the lack of legislative protection of the environment.
Since when did riding bikes, solar panels and tofu become ideas embraced by any large mainstream sector of people, and when and how did these ideas fail to serve their intended purpose?
As for your other points, ideas failing can depend on circumstances surrounding those ideas, and in your post you have repeatedly made reference to what is obviously the Whitlam years, and the government failing at the time can be greatly attributed to incompetence, shifty loans and mismanagement.
The ability to maintain free tertiary education (which I don't necessarily support) and a welfare state cannot be judged entirely by the performance of said government.

The fresh, bold, new ideas are coming from the waf-ites. Hence this 'movement' is not on of conservatism and the status quo but rather one of change. Comparitively the left is the conservative or even reactionary group. Examples of this reversal of stereotype are:
-VSU
-Protectionism
-Welfare
-Free tertiary education
-etc

1. Classical liberalism is clearly not a new idea.
2. The ideas which are fresh and bold are usually shared by both the right libertarians and the left.

As a 'waf-ite' I am tired of the 'you have no heart' argument from the left, has it ever occured that I may genuinely believe that waf-ite policies might help people. I take no pleasure in seeing people living on the street, I think of how to get them off the street and back into society. Giving them money for drugs and a cheap place to live doesn't fix the problem for me.

Please explain how these policies would help poor people.
Also, what would fix the problem for you which wouldn't cost anything? Because economically supporting people on the street in any other form would go against your conservative stance as well wouldn't it?
Oh yeah charity, which isn't effective enough now combined with government assistance let alone on it's own.

It's easy to seem like you have a heart when you're on the left but that's not always the case. The left is really a large bandwagon, there are a few regular drivers that do genuinly(sp) (but mistakenly) believe they are doing the right thing, these people have a heart but maybe no brain. And then there are the hordes who jump on the bandwagon when 'issues' roll around, think the war in Iraq, the make poverty history campaign, etc etc. They are jumping on the wagon because it makes them feel good. They can say how much they care about starving kids in africa or the occupation of iraq. And they love quick-fixes, see debt relief or pull-out of Iraq.

You're on the large right bandwagon, which in this setting is far more prominent than that on the left.
No brain? Most of this shit is just ridiculous.
I agree that a lot of those campaigns etc on the left made no real difference, but those occurrences are far from adequate criticisms of leftist ideas in general.

What they don't understand, nor want to understand, is that these don't fix the problem, debt-relief doesn't address issues of why they are in debt in the first place, pulling out of Iraq will not magically stop the violence. And so these 'bandwagon lefties' who seem to have a heart do not, what they have is a need for instant gratification of some emotive issue they have clung to, they need this to feel good about themselves. For these people it's not about feeding the starving its about getting the guilt monkey off their back and feeling good about themselves - in the quickest, least disruptive (to their lives) way.

Yeah? Well you propose solutions that will work and then we'll talk.
What's your plan? Go an a world tour and kill all the dictators?
This situation is complex, and the alternatives coming from the right are more unrealistic and ineffective in addressing poverty and things of such a nature.

Now can someone attack what I've said logically?

 

[loquasagacious]

Now can someone attack what I've said logically?

Ok.

In the setting of this forum, it's difficult for someone without a strong knowledge of economics to argue their points on the left, but it's easy for someone on the right because they have those with comprehensive knowledge to back them up.
If you present a leftist idea, you're confronted with a lot of strong opposition and very little support. There is no incentive to put forward these ideas when your audience is everything but receptive, and completely hostile towards the left. That's why there is so much more productive discussion here about social issues like theism, abortion and homosexuality than there is about economics.

You miss the point, there generally aren't people with a strong knowledge of economics on the left because economics does not agree with the left, which is to say that there aren't economists on the left because the left economically makes no sense. As an example an earlier poster stated their dissillusionment with the left after a semester of studying economics.

The idea of absolute economic and social liberty for all is also lofty, vague and unrealistic. It's saying that the whole of society will benefit from a single principle.
The left is often guilty of that, but they are also capable of making constructive and logical arguments. The demolition that has frequently occured has been the result of strong arguments from the right being met with little opposition, and inadequate opposition at that.

So what you're saying (again) is that the left does not argue well?

A whole bunch of ideals and plans, on both the left and right, are contradictory, unrealistic and have failed in the past. To say this is exclusive to the left is just completely blind.

Provide examples from the right, preferably fairly recent ones as opposed to: 'well you thought children working in coalmines or colonising Africa was a good idea'.

What has failed has been the lack of legislative protection of the environment.

There's been a lack because, it doesn't work. It doesn't work in both the sense of it simply doesn't get off the ground legislatively and that once it does it isn't abided by. As opposed to 'right' alternatives like pollution taxes, habitat markets etc.

Since when did riding bikes, solar panels and tofu become ideas embraced by any large mainstream sector of people, and when and how did these ideas fail to serve their intended purpose?

In your own words they failed because they have not been taken up by the mainstream. But still the left bangs on and on about how great it would be if we all rode a bike, agreed it would be good for the environment but its not going to happen. Be realistic not idealistic, nuclear power is clean energy lets use it.

As for your other points, ideas failing can depend on circumstances surrounding those ideas, and in your post you have repeatedly made reference to what is obviously the Whitlam years, and the government failing at the time can be greatly attributed to incompetence, shifty loans and mismanagement.
The ability to maintain free tertiary education (which I don't necessarily support) and a welfare state cannot be judged entirely by the performance of said government.

The reference to the whitlam government is conincidental in that it marks a convenient point in Australian history to use. For other examples of the welfare state failing we need only look to Europe, Germany is being forced to reform to maintain its status, Sweden is crippled by enormous taxation, etc etc.

And incidently I'm not some rabid anti-whitlam-ite I admire several things his government did, in general these were social issues though.

1. Classical liberalism is clearly not a new idea.
2. The ideas which are fresh and bold are usually shared by both the right libertarians and the left.

1. We're not talking classical liberalism though, influenced by it certainly but not the same, I'm in the mood to coin terms so I'll go with 'cynical liberalism'. A philosophy with a strong grounding in classical liberalism though its impetous is primarily the failure and failings of socialism and the left generally.
2. Examples???

Please explain how these policies would help poor people.
Also, what would fix the problem for you which wouldn't cost anything? Because economically supporting people on the street in any other form would go against your conservative stance as well wouldn't it?
Oh yeah charity, which isn't effective enough now combined with government assistance let alone on it's own.

So getting poor people off the street, into jobs and back into society would not help poor people? Sorry I'm lost here, are you saying that they have made a choice to live on the street, that we should respect that and even subsidise that?

I never said that helping poor people was free, of course it costs money thats a given. Likewise it is a given that we will help them, it is a question of the effectiveness of the help, of the return on investment if you will. The aim of help is to get them off the streets and into society, yes? All monies should further this goal then. In this way dole with no requirement to seek work or training only serves to keep people down, whilst dole helping with job seeking or undertaking education helps to pick people up.

You're on the large right bandwagon, which in this setting is far more prominent than that on the left.

What is your definition of on the right bandwagon? Arguing against you? Saying I'm on the bandwagon would imply that I hop on and off, a fallacious statement, I maintain an ongoing political interest and furthermore unlike a stereotypical 'bandwagoner' I can elucidate the reasons for my stance on an issue in ways that go beyond 'omg there's like starving kids in Africa'.

I agree that a lot of those campaigns etc on the left made no real difference, but those occurrences are far from adequate criticisms of leftist ideas in general.

So the failure of the left to achieve anything is not a criticism of the left? At best it indicates a poor investment strategy of pouring resources into campaigns that do nothing.

Yeah? Well you propose solutions that will work and then we'll talk.
What's your plan? Go an a world tour and kill all the dictators?
This situation is complex, and the alternatives coming from the right are more unrealistic and ineffective in addressing poverty and things of such a nature.

Well I'm sure we have had numerous other threads dealing with 'right' solutions for the two examples I used, eg debt-relief and Iraq - I don't recall you participating.

To jog your memory:

1. Debt-relief:
Problems with left solutions to 3rd world debt, poverty and hunger. Debt-relief is in itself ineffectual because it does not address the reason countries are in debt and hence it just sets things up to repeat. Going hand in hand with debt-relief is the notion we should give them more aid money. What this ignores is that aid money often serves to prop up cruel regimes because of the struture of aid-giving and rampant corruption which sees the money go into the pockets of the rulers not the mouths of the hungry. At best aid perpetuates the problem, at worst it exacerbates it.

Right solutions: Freer markets in europe especially would allow africa to harness its resources and make some money. The european agricultural sector is heavily protected which has stunted the growth of Africa which has enormous potential as an agricultural exporter. If they could export their products they wouldn't need aid and loans to get money.

Given the population Africa could also thrive in areas that are labour intensive such as textlie manufacturing. And the climate suits cotton better than asia so industries could be vertically integrated. Processing raw materials, especially metals and minerals as opposed to just mining them. In short they need to be open to foriegn investment, and hey you may call it sweatshop labour - but if they're willing to work for $5 a day that means that $5 a day is better than the alternatives. And the more foreign investment there is the higher the wage goes so if anything the left should be encouraging not discouraging multinationals setting up shop.

2. Iraq:
Set up a strong-man dictatorship and then support it. Far from the ideal but considerably better than Iraq fragmenting, the north merging with Iran, the south destabilising Saudi-Arabia and being invaded by the Saudi's. The North-west declaring a kurdish republic and being brutally crushed by Turkey, Jordan and Syria nibbling at their borders. The whole region becomind dangerously unstable. And for the record I don't think we should have invaded in the first place.