Victorian state election Nov 29 2014

property_girl said:
Freedom to do what? What do you want to do that you are now not allowed to?
Click to expand...
Why does it matter which of the above I want to do? If I want to be a married homosexual who protects his cannabis farm with (currently) illegal weapons, then why should it be anyone else's business?

It's a matter of the freedom for individuals to have the choice on how they want to live.

If you can't grasp these simple sentiments then you are never going to understand where I'm coming from.

Your position seems to be that the health implications may be an issue, do I need to drag up the statistics on alcohol related deaths/disabilities, smoking, driving? Heart disease is one of (if not THE) world's biggest killers & causes of health issues, maybe we should ban fatty foods and enforce a strict exercise regime on the country's citizens with jail time for any who refuse... that might sound silly, but I would be interested to see how you can justify the legality of alcohol & fatty foods vs the illegality of cannabis or other banned substances? How do think we should draw the lines on what people can or can't do?
 
bob246810 said:
To be honest I've yet to see any significant impact on my life due to change in government.

Also as a young, unmarried and childless person,
Click to expand...

If you're young then you wouldn't have seen many changes of govt. It's rare for a change of govt to bring much change. Especially to unmarried and childless.
 
hobo-jo said:
If you can't grasp these simple sentiments then you are never going to understand where I'm coming from.

?[/B]
Click to expand...

You will soon be able to get married to your boyfriend (if you're gay) and you'll be able to grow cannabis for medicinal purposes. Let's hope you won't ever own a gun. Sounds like redneck philosophy to me.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and you can vote for whomever you choose. I'm just glad that most people wouldn't vote for this party.
 
So you're not prepared to answer the very simple (& I thought perfectly reasonable) question posed above on how you draw the line on what should be legal vs illegal?

Why should cannabis be illegal for recreational use (compared with alcohol which is arguably more harmful)?

I've never smoked it myself, so you can throw around whatever labels you like (redneck, hippie, stoner), I'm just interested in how you rationalise your position, because to me it seems highly irrational.
 
Alcohol, in moderation, is good for you. I don't want to get into a discussion about cannabis, but there is enough evidence out there that--especially the newer cannabis--it can lead to schizophrenia and psychosis.

I am really lucky that my children don't do drugs. You know what turned them off drugs? The fact that they have seen too many people they know end up 'psycho'. I really don't care what adults do in the privacy of their own home. I do care about kids. On, that note, there are calls to increase the drinking age to 21. Considering binge drinking is a huge problem, it might be a good idea.

My personal belief is that adults are free to do what they wish, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. But the argument used by many people is that what they're doing doesn't harm anyone, when in fact it does.
 
property_girl said:
Australia needs to follow the Nordic model, as France has done and as Britain will do, when it comes to prostitution. The Nordic model makes it illegal to purchase sexual services. Prostitution levels have dropped in those countries where this model has been adopted.
Click to expand...

Why do we 'need' to make it illegal to purchase 'sexual services' in Australia? Australia has some of the most permissive prostitution laws in the world and I don't really see it being a problem.

You can want to criminalise the purchase of scarlet ladies' services 'til the cows come home, but don't throw the word 'need' around like it's a universal imperative.

It's this sort of interfering, morally righteous attitude that makes parties like the LDP seem appealing.

You seem to have a very 'my way or the highway attitude' about pretty much every topic.
 
Depends whether you think something may, or has the likelihood to, 'harm' someone--therein lies the rub. Life's not so simple. It's not black and white.
 
Fifth said:
Why do we 'need' to make it illegal to purchase 'sexual services' in Australia? Australia has some of the most permissive prostitution laws in the world and I don't really see it being a problem.

You can want to criminalise the purchase of scarlet ladies' services 'til the cows come home, but don't throw the word 'need' around like it's a universal imperative.

It's this sort of interfering, morally righteous attitude that makes parties like the LDP seem appealing.

You seem to have a very 'my way or the highway attitude' about pretty much every topic.
Click to expand...

Look at the statistics in the northern European countries where the Nordic model has been adopted.
 
property_girl said:
Look at the statistics in the northern European countries where the Nordic model has been adopted.
Click to expand...

You are making the rather egocentric assumption that everyone wants prostitution rates to go down because prostitution is inherently bad. I have no problem with sexual transactions involving money and have no desire to criminalise such transactions.

I am not going to argue the pros and cons of prostitution, but please don't say we 'need' to do something when what you really mean is 'I want this done'.

You are not the omniscient narrator of life.
 
You are right, Fifth: I'm not the narrator of life. But I have a bit of fun stirring the pot here, because I know the demographic I'm dealing with.

No, prostitution isn't bad for those who demand the service.
 
I've been talking about politics. Are you talking about politics Fence? pot. kettle. black

Hobo Jo--as much as I disagree with what he says and he disagrees with me--was on topic. All the nasty little one liners have had nothing to do with politics; they've been posted just to be mean-spirited.
 
What a strange fascinating creature this Liberal-Democrat is!
Having no idea what even PUP stands for with Jacquie Lambie defecting, Ricky Muir yet to declare and Glenn Lazarus in hospital (news today - so no more PUP bloc in voting), I had even less idea what Liberal Democrats stand for.

I thought, hmm....
"Liberals is an Australian concept"
"Democrats is one of the US major parties"
So I thought, okay, a Liberal-Democrat must be a Liberal who wants more US Democrat stuff - gay marriage, pro-choice, equal rights for all races. Fair enough.

Then after reading some of the stuff in this thread, I was dying to find out who this LDP creature was so I asked someone much more knowledgeable than me.

He explained it to me this way, 'A Liberal Democrat is a person who wants minimum regulation to do what the hell he wants, no tax, no transference, small govt, no regulation, 'let me do what I want, stay out of my face'.

"They share the same economic values as the Conservatives but not the same social values."
"Same economic values as the Conservatives - low taxes, no transference, no safety nets and no regulation of corporations. Corporations should be free to do whatever they want, the free market should be unfettered so by implication Corporations should be able to do whatever they want, no interference from govt on how we run our businesses"

My friend continues, "In terms of social values - very unlike the Conservatives who believe in traditional religion and societal norms/mores, the Liberal Democrat subscribes that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, they must have personal freedom".

"It really only favours the really rich, because in reality, only the really rich can do what the hell they want, no one can stop them".

So my eyes widened at his take of Liberal Democrats and I exclaimed, 'So they can choose to have necrophilia (sex with corpses) and stubbornly assert that they should be free to do whatever the hell they want and no one should be able to stop them?' ( I was using an extreme example to further my understanding)

He shrugged and said, 'If they want to keep a can of sarin gas, if they want to detonate a nuclear bomb, if they want to have sex with animals, they feel they have the right to do whatever they want and no one should stop them'

'They feel that their wealth entitles them to do whatever they want, no holds barred, if they want to ride rough shod over everyone else, they feel entitled to do that.'

Me: 'So you're saying they say 'I'm so rich, I can do what the hell I want'
Him: Pretty much...
Me: Oh.....
 
The Liberal Democrat party talks about liberal policies, but it also advocates some of the most 'liberal' - almost conservative' - policies such as right to hunt animals for fun. Stuff like that sounds more like the 19th century Conservative Family party to me. That seems more fitting.
 
such a breath of fresh air to see another person stand up for the liberal democratic party.

The LDP basically stands for increased personal freedom and accountability and less government interference (hence smaller government).

This is not a party for the rich to just get richer and the poor get poorer.
What so many people fail to understand is that big government HELPS the rich get richer, and yet makes it harder for the MIDDLE class to get richer.

Why?

because increased regulation actually acts as a barrier to entry for the small guy. They cant employ the resources that a rich person can to deal with the bureaucracy.

because the rich employ very good tax agents that can perform strategic tax planning to legally minimise tax. The average person cant do this.

because as a middle class person, if you want to work more, do a second job, you get whacked for PAYG tax.

On this last point Australia really had this problem back in the early 1990's.

I remember as a young whipper snapper I was working in one of the big 5 accounting firms as an accountant.
But I had several other jobs on the side as well.

I will never forget my last year interview with my mentor. He said if I concentrate like him I will be making the same money as him. He was 4 years my senior (a manager, where as I was staff level).

I thought to myself buddy, on an after tax basis, I am making more than you already. My average tax rate was 6% and my marginal tax rate on extra income in my pocket was low. His average tax rate was around 30% and his marginal tax rate on extra income was nearly 50%

(I will leave it to the intelligent to figure this out).

Actually my best years where when most of Australians figured that big government, high taxes where the solution.

Why because it provided me with a competitive advantage.
 
property_girl said:
Deltaberry has a good point. Let's face it: what can the Sex Party achieve? What are it's policies on anything other than the sex industry? They would have absolutely no idea when it came to governing. Not to be taken seriously and only got in with either the donkey vote or people doing it for lols.
Click to expand...

and here we get it again.

Another laudy laudy post, another 'I am intellectually and morally superior to you.' type post

I don't agree with all there policies, but they do have some good ones.
 
Beanie Girl said:
He shrugged and said, 'If they want to keep a can of sarin gas, if they want to detonate a nuclear bomb, if they want to have sex with animals, they feel they have the right to do whatever they want and no one should stop them'

'They feel that their wealth entitles them to do whatever they want, no holds barred, if they want to ride rough shod over everyone else, they feel entitled to do that.'

Me: 'So you're saying they say 'I'm so rich, I can do what the hell I want'
Him: Pretty much...
Me: Oh.....
Click to expand...
This is just nonsense, typical straw man argument.

Their principles are here:

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/principles

Greater freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility, doesn't mean do whatever you want with no holds barred.

Perhaps there are some libertarians out there who'd agree with some of the ideas and sentiments you've described (though I'd be surprised if you found any who support the detonation of a nuclear bomb), but it definitely isn't what the LDP stands for. And as IV points out, just because a political party is closest to your belief of the role government should play, it doesn't mean you agree with all of their policies.

For those who believe the Liberal Party stands for similar principles to the Liberal Democrats... have a read of this resignation letter:

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/?p=5937
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top