"I haven't met a libertarian yet who actually thinks government is good for anything,"

In that case I suggest that you haven't met many libertarians, either that, or you don't listen to them.

Chris Harper said: "The public, **of which publishers are members**, are not accountable to politicians ..."

My emphasis ... that's the critical point. It's telling that an engineer 'gets' it - but not the media department of Deakin University.

Lucy,

Thank you. But then, don't forget, I am not a progressive, just an old fashioned believer in individual freedom as opposed to state tyranny. Regardless of how benevolent the state paints itself on the surface.

As Perry de Havilland at Samizdata is wont to say: "The State is not your friend."

What about the vast numbers of free copies of The Australian that are distributed to public places (airports, hotels, cafes, etc) particularly in Far North Queensland and other rural and remote areas where there are no other sources of news, except the ABC.

"There can not be a democratically elected tyranny.
If the majority says to you that what you are doing is not in the public (ie majority) interest then they are within their rights (our rights) to tell you to stop it."

Are you seriously proposing that a body elected by popular vote may decide to do anything? Anything at all?

Nothing endorsed by a democracy, regardless of what it may be, can be a tyranny? Seriously?

Now you are terrifying me, and you claim not to be a control freak.

Can you please show me where I said "You might be right, but you can't stop me from being wrong."? I cannot find it anywhere.

I might point out that Timothy McVeigh committed an act of violence, harming innocent others. This is, of course, contrary to the non aggression principle which underlies much (but not all) of libertarian thought. I certainly don't see him as a role model, and that you do use him as an example tells me that you know little of what libertarians espouse.

"You are basically terrorists"

So those who advocate the moral stance of the non aggression principle are terrorists? Really? Fascinating definition of a terrorist you have there. I look forward to further explanations as to how people who reject the idea of initiating force or violence can be categorized as terrorists. Or is this a unique definition you have arrived at after discussion with your progressive mates, but without once having examined what libertarianism is?

Do you often express opinions based on complete ignorance of a subject? Or is this a one off?

You are a lecturer? At a tertiary institution? Really?

Now, shall we cut the insults and go into a courteous discussion instead?

I wasn't going down the "how can you poison their minds" route, Is that what you are used to? Do you get it often?

Maybe I was a bit too subtle, but I was expressing surprise that a tertiary lecturer can be so adamant about a subject where his knowledge is so clearly lacking. I was pretty unimpressed that you, as an open minded academic, and a journalist to boot, would fling abuse like accusations of terrorism at someone whose opinions are so unknown to you.

Please stop with the ignorant stereotyping. I expect it from year tens, but not educated professionals.

Might I suggest you do a little research on libertarianism before you again make like a chimp flinging their poo? I would recommend you start with learning a little of the non aggression principle - wikipedia actually has a reasonable intro to the subject. Read a bit of Hayek, vom Meises, Rothbard, Sowell, Friedman. Maybe then it will be possible to have an informed discussion with you without your flinging smears based on ignorant stereotypes.

But then again, so many progressives already know everything, don't they? Other schools of thought have nothing to teach them. For some of them, abuse is pretty much all they need when dealing with dissent? Isn't it? Reasoned and informed argument? Pah, who needs it?

Bet you're hoping to get a seat on the Flnklestein Censors Circle, aren't you? Plurality of opinion? Who needs it huh? Concede that and pretty soon we will have people saying all sorts of things you disagree with, and we can't have that, can we? Damn terrorists they are too, right? Diversity is all well and good, but we have to have everyone singing from the same progressive hymn sheet. That right too? Nothing wrong with freedom is there, so long as people are only free to do what you are willing to let them do.

There can not be a democratically elected tyranny.

Not sure Mr Putin would agree.

Martin,

Glad to see you have read up a little on a philosophy behind libertarianism, even if you did select a quote which misrepresents the non-aggression concept. Still, at least you learnt something, and what value is a day where you learn nothing?

As to your quotes, well, no one ever said living in a free society is easy, although libertarian thought is at least a tad more sophisticated than you paint it here. Your proposition that freedom encompasses the right of parents to starve their children simply demonstrates, again, what? The depth of your ignorance? Or is it the shallowness of your understanding? You choose which one, I am indifferent.

Ok, now you have come across the concept of non-aggression you must now appreciate just how false, misguided, misdirected, inappropriate and ignorant your Timothy McVeigh and ‘terrorist’ abuse was. I await your apology for that whole offensive screed.

As to Hayek, he was a liberal rather than a libertarian. I am not aware that he had much to say about the non-aggression principle one way or the other, although it has been a while. Maybe you would care to point out the relevant passages?

As to being off topic, yes, I was thinking the same thing, although we are nonetheless right where you dragged us.

As to the central issue, you must be aware that under any reasonable definition of offensive or uninformed speech your misrepresentation of libertarianism and libertarians would certainly qualify. Or do you think your opinions would be exempt? While I defend your right to be both wrong and ignorant, although I would much prefer to debate with an informed opponent, under your preferred system of regulation you would be the one hauled before a tribunal and forced to justify yourself under threat of legal sanction.

Is this truly what you want? Although, rest assured, in this case, being a supporter of that essential precondition of meaningful democracy, free, open and independent expression of opinion, I am not a person who would go running to nanny saying “Waaah, the nasty man was horrible to me, make him take it back. Force him to lie and say he didn’t really mean it”. That approach to debate seems limited to some progressives and their fellow travellers.

I still wait your explanation as to how a classical liberal organisation like the IPA can be classified as ‘hard right’ when that description is generally reserved for the NAZI and Fascist variants of socialism, and organisations like the Democrat Party aligned Ku Klux Klan. Or is this just a further smear directed at opinions you don’t like or understand?

As to your claim that a democratically elected regime cannot be tyrannical, while I don’t want to Godwinise this discussion, you will be aware that Adolf Hitler became Chancellor through constitutional democratic process. Are you seriously claiming that this regime was no tyranny?

Martin,

Rothbard is my hero? Really? Damn, and I didn’t even know it. There I was thinking of him as just a philosopher who has some influence on my thinking. Like, well, Marx and Freud, and Jefferson. Well, as I said, you learn something new every day.

Ok, I got to admit, I hadn’t come across that particular quote from him before. Although I did notice that he drew a distinction between legal obligations and moral ones. They are not the same you know.

Then I got to thinking; you know, if a parent today can’t cope they are able to hand their children over to social security. In other words, they are able to pass any obligation to feed, clothe or educate their children to someone else and abandon that obligation themselves. Today. In this society. Pretty much as Rothbard proposes. Well, given that I am not well up on child protection laws in Queensland I am assuming that they are similar to those in the UK where this is the case.

So, Rothbard, reasoning from first principles, comes to the conclusion that laws in this matter in a free society would be pretty much similar to the laws laid down by the existing welfare state, in the country in which we live, and to you that makes him an extremist? While your principles, if taken to their logical conclusion, posit that NAZIsm in Germany was not a tyranny and that their actions had democratic legitimacy.

And you regard libertarians as extremists?

Sigh.

I notice that your photograph here was taken in Highgate. Were you there as an informed tourist taking in the historical sites? Or were you an acolyte making a trek to the shrine of The Master? From your comments here about the superiority of the collective over the individual I strongly suspect the latter. Well, let’s face it, followers of your boy there in the background murdered what? One hundred million? One hundred and twenty million people in the course of the 20th Century? What the hell, let’s give them another go shall we? What’s the worst they can do? Enslave another billion of us and murder another hundred million? What does that matter? As you said, “the human race is greater than the sum of its parts.”. That nice Uncle Joe agreed completely.

And you regard libertarians as extremists?

Anyway, we now know that you have never read Hayek, despite your pretence otherwise. You first learnt of the non-aggression principle last night, while you have probably heard of Milton Friedman I doubt you had heard of Rothbard, Mises or Sowell, but you, as a journalist, were willing to pretend otherwise. Invention, pure invention. How about Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson? Far greater mind than your boy in Highgate. His writings, while not as well known, are far more influential and all-pervading as well, shaping just about all thinking on human rights and democracy, as well as shaping democratic government worldwide, for the last 230 years. Read Jack Kennedys famous comment about him eating dinner. Anyway, you want to advocate and teach democracy? Start with Jefferson. Highgate boy, as we know from experience, is worth listening to only as a model of what not to do.

While I don’t know you my expectation is coloured by the reality that your very first comment to me included abuse, sneering, superior mannerisms, smear, misrepresentation and straight invention. Now, I am no expert in any of the issue we discussed here, but I have been able to rip you to shreds regardless. From reading your approach I am fairly sure you are not accustomed to dealing with people who are intelligent, informed, able to argue their position, disagree with you, and aren’t intimidated by your tactics.

Tell me, what is your approach to dealing with students who don’t share your politics? The same bullying tactics you tried to use on me? Do they dare disagree with you or are your tutorial groups properly cowed? And your colleagues? Are there any who are in a position to ignore your intimidation and who also profoundly disagree with your position? I am left with the feeling that you are not used to exercising your reasoning skills by venturing outside your groupthink. You are unaccustomed to being challenged by people you can’t intimidate.

Maybe I will come enroll in Journalism at Deakin, it would be a learning experience for both of us.

There are not enough blue points available to me for you, Chris.
I have watched this thread with interest as it has evolved and I have been too busy to join in, apart from one remark.
Thank you for putting into words my views and for using language, our language, in a way that is beyond me.
Thanks.
R

Roger,

What's a blue point?

Regardless, it is fascinating isn't it? Here we are, nearly three generations from the end of WW II and it as if the last 75 years never happened. The lessons have been forgotten and liberalism is now facing the same assault from these so called 'progressives' that it faced from the combined forces of Fascism and Marxism prior to the war.

Well, to be blunt, modern progressives are still the combined forces of Fascism and Marxism, just examine their policies in detail, and compare with Mussolini. I know people on the left who appreciate the similarities, but so many of them lack so much historical perspective that they just don't see it.

Hell, Fascism is just an abuse term today, so few people appreciate that there were real and well defined social and economic policies attached to the philosophy, let alone know any of the details associated with them.

Fascism, real honest to God and dyed in the wool Fascism, has reentered western thought, resurrected by people who are ever so proud of the fact that they are green and progressive lefties.

Our solution? We'll raise the Gadsden Flag and repeat ad nauseam, or at least until they are sick of it, even if we aren't - "No, you can't have my rights, I'm still using them"

This was my letter to my MP following Finkelstein:
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=11760

It remains my position.

Ah, blue points! They are what I call the marking system so beloved by academics and and intellectuals. (though there is evidence the two are mutually exclusive on these pages)
Top right hand side of what you write is a + and a - sign. It is there that one can award red or blue points or votes. In other words you are publicly judged.
Its a bit of a farce really, I added a bit of information to a post the other day to further clarify that post and got a heap of red votes. Bit silly really.
So that's it! Well done again. Another blue vote!

Ah, now I see.

Yeah, I got a lot of red points, don't I. Martin's got blue ones as well. Wonder how long it took to organise his mum to get on and show support?

Well! Sir, you have confirmed all I feared.
That your standard of writing on these pages may have some influence on young minds is of great concern to me and should be to your University.
You are also rude. In my view that is unbecoming to the position you hold.

It is my view that the comment about your mother voting for you was just a 'throw away' line. It's often used and, I think, always intended to be satirically humorous.
You must know, or you should know, as a journalist, a thick skin is needed, a prerequisite of the 'trade'.
This forum provided you with an opportunity to immediately reply to everyone, individually, who responded to the proposition of your original article. You did not afford your proposition time to develop before you became involved. It was a demonstration of the media in which we participate.
Again, it is my view, you became involved too soon. It may have been that others, like me, saw it as a somewhat premature defense of your thesis.
Regarding the influence your teaching may have on young and malleable minds.
Don't underestimate the influence you have. One only has to read the writing of the late and the great Christopher Hitchens over time, forty years, to appreciate the influence of teachers over students. If you haven't read it I recommend 'Hitch 22'. A good read and an excellent account of a 'journey' in political life.
For as long as I can remember, which is pre Hitchens university days, there has always been a debate as to who owns the media, what influence they have on the 'people' and so on.
A look back at history both here in Australia and in the rest of the 'free world' we have seen governments of different persuasions come and go, I believe 'in spite' of the media in all of its form, from the extreme Right to the extreme Left. The people decide.
Does the media influence the people? Of course.
Is the media balanced? If you disagree with it, no. If you agree with it, yes.
The use of the media and the influence of the media is not confined to the opinions of the owners or the CEO's, there is always advertising and advertorial.
For instance. I believe the government is spending some half a billion dollars on promoting to their 'people' the benefits of carbon price (aka tax). Others may spend a similar amount with a counter argument.
All forms of media, these days, as I am sure you know rely far too heavily on press releases from the offices of politicians for their copy. Op Ed fascinates me because in many cases years of experience in a particular 'field' is not a prerequisite.
But, in spite of all the outrage and waffle, we shall survive as a free country.
If the Left feels disenfranchised, the media available to them today is greater than ever before in the history of man, to put that wrong to right.
We can't have it both ways. If the days of the newspapers are finished, as some claim. There is always the digital world.
In the end, as they always have, the 'people' will pay for what they want.
Perhaps you should include in your curriculum an honest examination of the political leanings of all the press in the free world over time and compare their views to those of the elected governments of the same period?

Roger, if you can call Russia a democracy, you may be right, but I think that there are plenty of those in Russia who might question that fact. Many of them may say Russia's democracy is a Putin Theocracy/Dictatorship and the vote is controlled by Putin and his supporters.

Now you might not accept my use of the term Theocracy, but Russia has a habit of setting their leaders up as virtually a God in power. Even now that Russia has let religion back in, it is very much a State religion as it was previously under the Tsar. While the Religion acknowledges the State and its Leader, the religion has the power of its position as the State religion over all other religions.

Martin,
You say: "the right of multibillionaires and their front-group PACs (Political Action Committees) can interfere in the democratic process by buying influence" but, having been a state MP for 8 years until 2005, I don't accept that 'buying influence' is a significant factor in Australian politics. It's a concern and one about which all people who support open and fair democracies need to be eternally vigilant but there is enough evidence of it being a real problem in this country to warrant the types of media controls that the federal government seems to be supporting.
For example, polls show that most Australians accept the reality of climate change and support taking action to reverse it, yet the Australian newspaper seems to get pilloried mostly for its climate change skeptic stance. So, in spite of a year or more of anti-anthropogenic climate change skepticism, most Australians don't accept the Australian's line, so where is the need to potentially stifle diversity of opinion in our print media?

By your criticism of the letter written by several newspaper CEOs, your article is supporting calls by a small section of the public and Finkelstein to place stronger restrictions on media ownership and media owners' influence on their businesses. So, yes, you and Finkelstein are arguing in support of restricting media opinion.
And why is there this fixation on News Limited? There are countless other print and electronic media sources in Australia, with the internet providing a diversity of ownership and opinion undreamed of just 10 years ago.
I repeat my earlier comment: you have not convinced me of the need to place greater restrictions on media ownership or diversity of opinion. If I buy The Australian and disagree with its content, I'll stop buying it. If I like a particular blog site, I'll check it out every day. And, as for sites such as The Conversation or One Line Opinion, I disagree with many of the articles posted but I enjoy having my beliefs challenged so I continue to visit these sites. In other words, it's my decision as to what I view or read and it should not be up to a set of government regulators to tell me if I should or shouldn't read or listen to what Gina or Rupert want to say.

While I share very broadly your sentiments, I think it’s important to note that Mr Finkelstein wasn’t targeting editorial opinion (and made no recommendation on media ownership). His recommendations apply equally to reportage – including the issue that you might wish to raise publicly via a journalist one day, or the power abuse I might wish to reveal via a journalist sometime.

Martin frequently draws on health as an analogy for his media arguments – unsurprisingly, as health proved a successful battleground for the Left of politics during the last great burst of “socialisation” during the 1970s/80s. We have lived with a soft socialist health system for decades.

But, there’s another analogy between health and media. The profession of medicine was, for centuries in our culture, the outward face of Christianity (one of several). The word, profession, derives from the archetypal doctor, the priest, who “professed” his faith through the practice of Christian virtues.

In the ‘70s/80s health debate, the Left never had the guts to confront Christianity front-on. Always, its arguments were re-framed in terms of “a new paradigm of professionalism”.

Likewise, now, the Left lacks the bottle to confront the Australian people front-on. It cannot say, yes, we believe individuals should be subordinate to the overall public interest, and it’s the state’s role to determine where the public interest lies.

Always, its arguments are couched in terms of greed or self-interest in a handful of individuals. Yet, as someone pointed out elsewhere, Gina Rinehart et al are members of the public. They simply happen to be especially public, rich and/or rowdy members of the public – easy to separate out, “re-frame” and demonise.

I’m still waiting for the column that discusses how heightened media regulation is likely to affect me, the profoundly ordinary, on that once-in-a-lifetime occasion when I really need to be heard. I’m waiting, too, for a discussion on the deterrent effect of a free media – the reality that power abuse declines in proportion to the likelihood of being exposed (there was a time when the Press Council published research in this area. No longer, of course!)

 

.