Political activists and bad legislation have combined to create the extraordinary situation where eligibility for awards and prizes can’t be questioned.
Not all prizes and awards – we can still mock Wayne Swan’s Euromoney award – but only those that have an ethnic component to them.
In a society increasingly obsessed with ethnicity and race this will quickly become a problem.
Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of violating section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by suggesting that several individuals had claimed Aboriginality in order to further their careers.
Bad law
Despite the fact that some early commentary has focussed on the political orientation of the judge hearing the case, the simple matter is that the legislation itself is bad law.
Positive discrimination abounds and those who want to discriminate are going to find it ever harder to determine eligibility.
People respond creatively to incentives but the legal system has opened an avenue for anyone to claim any ethnicity.
As Sacha Baron Cohen’s Ali G character once asked, “Is it because I’m black?”. I wouldn’t want to cause offense by suggesting he isn’t black.
This case opens all sorts of issues relating to free speech and definitions of ethnicity and so on. A liberal democracy debating, “What is a [insert ethinicty here]"’, is problematic and inconsistent with the individuality we hold dear. A very ugly debate could erupt.
Let the market decide
A far more interesting argument is how to deal with racial discrimination. People seem to be looking more and more to government – yet as this case makes clear that results in very divisive outcomes.
Gary Becker, an economics Nobel laureate, has suggested that discrimination is best managed by the market. Legislation simply suppresses discrimination, whereas market forces punish discrimination.
Those people who have a “taste for discrimination” would manifest their preferences by, say, not employing those they don’t like, or not buying from those they don’t like, and so on.
That means they would restrict the number of trading partners they interact with and so incur higher prices. In short, in a competitive market, racists pay – non-racists don’t.
Problems with legislation
Contrast that with the legal solution – racists can be as racist as they like in private, but they don’t have to pay for that.
Legislation also crowds out personal morality and public ethics. If you really think certain types of behaviour are beyond the pale, social ostracisation rather than litigation may be appropriate.
If an op-ed writer annoys you, send a letter to the editor; tell the whole world how wrong the columnist is.
The great Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises described society as cooperation under the division of labour.
Bad legislation undermines cooperation – people who are incentivised for offense will quickly become offended and clog the legal system with somewhat trivial cases.
For example, an individual on TV with the tee-shirt, “White people make me nervous” should be very nervous right now. The people protesting outside Jewish shops are clearly in violation of the Act.
It is not good enough to argue the legislation had good intentions – bad laws bring the whole legal system into disrepute and ultimately undermine civil society. These issues are best left to the market and personal morality.
Join the conversation
Comments (83)
Politically Aroused
(logged in via Twitter)
What a load of partisan, ideologically-driven rubbish. Becker, von Mises... You just need a passing reference to Ayn Rand and you'll have finished the chant that summons a Young Liberals meeting.
Where were the market forces encouraging the abolishment of slavery? Where was the market in expanding suffrage beyond land-owning males, and then to females? Where was the market in advancing the civil rights movement? Equal pay between genders? The equal treatment of same-sex attracted people? Opportunities…
show full comment
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Completely forgetting that it was in fact government laws and institutions that allowed for slavery. Segregation was achieved through government laws.
Eliminating racism and prejudice is a utopian ideal.
Intelligent men of the past have realized that you cannot legislate morality and that the law should exist to defend people and property from harm and destruction. Not from merely 'offending' someone who happened to disagree, as in the current case.
Pat
(logged in via Twitter)
clearly this was more than just offending someone who disagrees.
Bolt made misleading and false comments that defamed a specific group he mentioned in the articles.
Not only that, he did so by to exploit the wedge politics of racism
Justin Niven
Director (logged in via email @kjriskgroup.com)
Hi Andrew,
"You can't legislate morality" -
Of course you can. And we do. You can't dissociate laws from morality, they are intertwined.
Our laws indicate a "minimum standard of behaviour" that is acceptable. What do you think our criminal code is?
Whether you agree with it or not, whether it should extend to things such as libel, is another matter.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The law should exist to prevent and punish infringements on the liberties of others. You cannot, by legal decree, simply force everyone to agree and get along.
The wording in the act is so general and vague. Ultimately, defendants are at the mercy of the tribunal judges.
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Is lying about someone in order to defame them "infringing on liberties"? I say it is and the judge in this case agrees.
Justin Niven
Director (logged in via email @kjriskgroup.com)
Hi Andrew,
You're contradicting yourself. "The law should existing to punish those who infringe on the liberties of others" - this requires moral (ethical is probably a better word) judgement. For example the law states - "stealing someones property is bad" - this is a value judgement that has an ethical component. So we do legislate morality.
Of course the law cannot force everyone to get along. But it is an integral part of the framework of our society.
Can I ask if you think "lying about someone publicly" is a "bad" thing? Do you think there should be some protection in place to protect the average person who does not have access to the media (i.e. no voice with which to protest or correct the record) from being slandered/defamed/discriminated against?
Kind regards
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
We legislate to protect people and property; people from physical harm. That is where the line should be drawn. In most aspects of criminal law this is the case. For example you cannot claim an assault unless there has been a threat of specific violence.
I have not yet finished reading the 500 paragraph judgment and so I'm not aware of the specific incidents of where Bolt has made erroneous claims. My guess so far would be that they were few and honest mistakes, as what sometimes occurs in journalism…
show full comment
Marcus
(logged in via Twitter)
Seriously? Markets regulating themselves? When one man owns pretty much the entire market? When self-regulation in another market just resulted in a Global Financial Crisis? Are you crazy?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Great article Sinclair.
It is refreshing to have someone with intelligence posting on thecon for once.
Please ignore these watermelons.
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Watermelons? Really? Surely you can do better than denigrate people you disagree with?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Interest rates kept too low to allow for cheap credit - quasi-government policy (Fed)
American homeowners grants - government policy
Government-sponsored Entities sureing up bad loans - government policy
Debt-based monetary system and fractional reserve banking - government policy
Bailouts of over-leveraged banks instead of letting them fail - government policy
Printing money out of thin air and giving it problem banks - quasi-government policy (Fed)
If you do some research and ignore the crackpots…
show full comment
Rod_Hagen
(logged in via Twitter)
Bolt has not been found guilty for "suggesting that several individuals had claimed Aboriginality in order to further their careers." This is not a story about Bolt simply holding an opinion which was offensive.
He has been found guilty because in making such claims he put forward a series of untrue "facts" concerning these individuals which "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" a group of people in a manner "plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour…
show full comment
Dave McRae
(logged in via Facebook)
Thank you Rod
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
FREE SPEECH FOR ALL*
*conditions apply
Pat
(logged in via Twitter)
From the judgement:
"It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people"
The judgement doesn't limit free speech
Mat Holroyd
(logged in via Twitter)
Have to agree with Andrew here. The ruling shows that saying certain things can be punishable by law.
Many people have come up with thoughtful arguments as to *why* they think limiting freedom of speech is desirable, and I think Andrew has just called a spade a spade.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Free speech was not designed simply so we could talk about the weather.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
"The judgement doesn't limit free speech"
I disagree; the fact that these people did not sue Bolt in defamation shows that the act extends the constraints on public comment existing in defamation. It is unlikely that they would be successful in a defamation suit.
More generally such legislation and judicial decisions maintain racial distinctions within the Australian community.
The decision also seems odd when contrasted with another decision brought under the same legislation as described here…
show full comment
Rod_Hagen
(logged in via Twitter)
Those seeking redress ultimately chose to follow the path they did because they saw the matter as going beyond simple defamation, with serious implications for other members of their community, and because they did not want, as they would have been, to be targeted with further claims that they were simply "after the money". It had nothing to do with perceptions of likely success or otherwise.
As far as the comparison with the VCAT matter goes, it is worth noting that the Bolt decision comes from a court of superior standing - a Federal Court judge, rather than a VCAT tribunal member / lawyer. If the Bolt decision had been handed down prior to the VCAT one, then VCAT's Megay may have found herself following a different path!
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
"VCAT's Megay may have found herself following a different path!"
You know that how?
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Er, "May" implies a possibility not a certainty. At least plausible given that a Federal Court judgement might be regarded as superior to a VCAT ruling?
He never said "would" or implied any certainty - but then, Mr Cox, this isn't the first time you have put words in people's mouths before then choosing to run a line of argument based on such incorrect attrribution is it?
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
The use of the word "may" in the context used reasonably conveys certainty; don't argue with me about legal context Dr Harrigan as by your own definition that is something I know more about than you.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Piffle. This is not a court of law or a legal document.
The Everyday Oxford Dictionary defines the word "May" as follows
"auxiliary verb" (also might), expressing possibility (it may be true).... or uncertainty.
I'm surprised you have trouble understanding that, or indeed using plain english
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
So Dr Harrigan, as layman, you think the VCAT decesion was consistent with the Bolt Judgement?
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
You really have trouble following the thread don't you Anthony?
I made no such statement either way. I'm not qualified to make such a definitive statement.
I simply pointed out that Rod hagen's comment (which was also not a definitive assertion) and his use of the word "may" to suggest that the VCAT decision might have been different had it been preceeded by the decision in the Bolt case was not implying any certainty (as you seemed to suggest) and was at least a plausible argument. Rod Hagen himself has made that clear.
If you think differently fair enough. But you hardly have any basis to challenge Rod on the basis that we was making a statement of certainty.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
No Dr Harrigan, you have lost the thread; I originally asked this Rod person why he thought the VCAT decision would have been different if it had come after the Bolt decision; he hasn't answered and neither have you.
Prevarication is the personality characteristic of alarmists.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Is that a psychological assessment Anthony? Are you qualified to make such?
Look - it's there in plain english for anyone to see. You stated "The use of the word "may" in the context used reasonably conveys certainty"
Both Rod and I have pointed out that there is no common english language defintion of the word "may" that implies certainty. In fact just the opposite as I have demonstrated with evidence from a dictionary. You have not offered one scintilla of supportable evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
Bit like your climate change denial approach really.
But again - I'll leave it to others to make their own judgements about the matter. This really is pointless
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
Yes, it is pointless; let us finish with the application of typical AGW standards of certainty to the conundrum of whether "may" reasonably conveyed certainty.
If VCAT came after the BOLT decision would the 'lower' jurisdiction be bound to conform the 'higher' decision? Can we predict this? Are there protocols for predicting the probable result? Law is based on precedent and cohesive sequence so we can we say there would be a 90% chance that further VCAT decisions will follow BOLT; 95%, 99%? What degree of certainty would you put on it Dr Harrigan and then tell me how "may" differs from that degree of certainty.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
My, you are a sore loser aren't you Anthony.
But - to answer your question :)
Both Rod and I are saying it may have been different if the the Bolt decision had become before the VCAT decision. neither he nor I offered any assessment as to certainty - I have made it clear I'm not qualified to assess and I infer from Rod's comments he doesn't feel able to either.
We both felt that it was possible and I simply said it was plausible in my opinion.
You now appear to be saying it is 90% certain it…
show full comment
Rod_Hagen
(logged in via Twitter)
My use of the word "may" in this context was the common English one, Anthony. "May" can mean many things, but just so you are clear, in this situation it meant "might or might not".
Good luck with your legal career. Judging by that response, luck is something I suspect you "may" well need!
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
Oh yes Rod, the old taken out of context argument. I'll stick with my interpretation thank you bearing in mind that the words of the past are subject to judicial review. Is that what you meant by "common English one".
But let's stick with your revision; so you think there's a chance the VCAT ruling would stand? How would you then marry that with the 'justice' of the Bolt case?
Darshi
(logged in via Twitter)
Firstly, Ali G would never say "Is it because I am black". I think the phrase the author is looking for is, "Is it 'cos i is Black".
And just as Davidson totally missed the point with that little corker, so does he miss the point of the Federal Court's judgment when he attempts to assert "discrimination is best managed by the market. Legislation simply suppresses discrimination, whereas market forces punish discrimination." Um...WHAT?
Pat
(logged in via Twitter)
That this article was published on this website, that claims academic journalism, is a travesty.
As other commenters have noted - it misrepresents Bolts actions, misinterprets the decision, has a cursory understanding of the law and a wildly partisan view.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
I think your argument fails on two points.
The first is the notion of price paid and and the second that somehow markets exist without regulation.
For one thing those who dsicriminate based on race, gender or otherwise are actually already paying at least part of the price you mention - but either they don't realise it (there's no tranpsarent mechanism for them) or they don't care (in other words it's a price they are willing to pay or a risk they are willing to take)
Also markets only exist when…
show full comment
Jay Kay
(logged in via Twitter)
You libertarians and your miraculous markets. Is there anything they can't do?
Cure a racist, feed the homeless, solve global warming... oh, wait.
Philip McCrory
(logged in via Facebook)
Is there a basis for this comment? :
In a society increasingly obsessed with ethnicity and race ...."
Isn't this the country that had the White Australia policy? Are you saying that there was less concern about ethnicity & race then than now?
John Smith
writer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
You argument for the market correcting racism is obviously flawed. If a racial group is already marginalised and has little economic power then there is no penalty for individuals or organisations in continuing discriminatory behaviour.
D- resubmit
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
Prior to the advent of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which for the first time subjugated government as a servant of the people for the singular task of protecting individual rights and freedoms, mankind existed under the dominion of feudalism and monarchy in which the interests of the rich came about by the initiation of physical force in the form of expropriation, enslavement and the misery of all others.
Juxtaposed to that, a Free Market demands the existence of personal freedom, unrestrcited…
show full comment
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
That Centrelink has a phone line based on race has nothing to do with perceived inferiority or superiority rather that the particular demographic in question faces considerably higher socioeconomic hurdles than the rest of the population. You assertion is absurd, to say the least.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
It is also the general hatred of Andrew Bolt as well as theaustralian because they do not pander to leftish populism.
One of the complainants in the case made a statement saying that the case was all about "journalistic professionalism".
Andrew Vincent
Non-stupid human (logged in via email @avincent.com)
..well that's because a lot of what Bolt was saying was flat out wrong.
"in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts … have been substantially proven to be untrue."
Racism and political bias aside - you can't just make things up and ignore facts. And when these inaccuracies were pointed out - he just ignored them. If I hate the Australian it's because they do not report facts - they invent them.
Andrew Vincent
Non-stupid human (logged in via email @avincent.com)
Sinclair, I get this image of your bedroom plastered with posters of Andrew Bolt like a teenage girl.
This is just such a lame piece.
Felix MacNeill
Felix MacNeill (logged in via email @grapevine.com.au)
Does the institute of Public Affairs actually expect anything other than the utter contempt of rational people when they advance this kind of naive, self-contradictory kindergarten swill?
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Makes you wonder how it even got published really, doesn't it?
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
The original premise of this article was that the law under which the guilty finding of Bolt was made is "bad" and that the "market" and "personal morality" offers a better solution. Many of the comments (understandably) have morphed from that into broader arguments about free speech, racism and the like.
I do not think the arguments that the law or the decision is bad are sustainable. Nor do I think the decision represents any significant curtailment of free speech (which is not in any event…
show full comment
Ai Pragma
Student (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
Market forces controlling morality, bollocks!... It gets back to the question as whether man can govern himself, and the question of which system has enough strength to enforce laws based on changes in morality. You are left with three choices: market forces, religion, and legislated government. The economic crisis of 2008 and beyond proves that removing laws (legislated through government) that confine market forces from doing whatever they want, is ludicrous. It proved that man or market forces…
show full comment
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
Ai Pragma, The notion of you assuming that one can use force to enforce morality is monstrous, and in an ethical society the proper role of the government would be to ensure that neither criminals nor busiebodies like you ever attempt to initiate the use of force against any individual, no matter whether you are in cohoots with 10 million others who believe you have the right to do so. Dont prattle that it's to protect us from ourselves, or that it's for the common good, or for equalising the playing…
show full comment
Ai Pragma
Student (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
That brief period in American History of laissez-faire capitalism didn't enforce morality, they just did business with little control, and history has proven time and time again, free markets are incapable of governing themselves, without major moral abuses(slavery, child labor, safety issues, robbing pension plans by investing in completely unsafe financial products, etc), case in point, the financial meltdown in 2008, so you haven't validated a market system even close enough to warrant it being…
show full comment
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
Ai Pragma, your mind has definitely been poisoned by standard leftie drivel.
To start with, a Free Market is not a tool for the enforcement of morality, but rather the only economic system that recognises and protects individual rights. It is the foundation for moral economic interaction between us. This means that it allows for men to trade with zero physical coercion. When it comes to protecting ourselves from coercion we can go about it like it was in the Wild West where every man carries a…
show full comment
Ai Pragma
Student (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
You commit the same fallacious arguments("leftie drivel"), and yet seem proud of it, so you warrant my pity, alongside inevitable laughter, because you seem now to be on my side with regards to not supporting a free market system as a vehicle to control morality. And your ranting about free markets and government, signifies exactly what I said at the beginning in my first remark: "The questions of which forms of government are best responsive and with enough checks and balances to protect freedom…
show full comment
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
So tell me Ai, what is this changed morality that you want to have enforced? Are you part of the Econazi movement that hates man and would like to see him dragged back to the stone age by taxing industry to a state of indigence, or are you a hate filled egalitarian that cannot countenance the site of some being more successful in reaching their goals than others, and believe it's a priority that the successfull be hobbled for the sake of fairness?, or are you a envy ridden socialist ( a lie that…
show full comment
Ai Pragma
Student (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
Hmmm...up to your old ways...and I mean OLD ways... Since you have proven that you are a recidivistic perpetrator of fallacious arguments, it stands to reason you are some kind of addict to fallacious arguments, as well as being addicted to being proud of it, which I am sure is nauseating to more people than you would ever have the courage to admit. Now who would be the coward in that case? And what do most societies do with addicts? Well, pick which ever way you want to come clean, we all know you…
show full comment
Dave Kinkead
(logged in via Facebook)
Sinclair - its seems unlikely for an economist to advocate anti-competitive & monopolistic behaviour but that is exactly what your suggestion does.
"Those people who have a “taste for discrimination” would manifest their preferences by, say, not employing those they don’t like, or not buying from those they don’t like, and so on.
That means they would restrict the number of trading partners they interact with and so incur higher prices. In short, in a competitive market, racists pay – non-racists…
show full comment
James Walker
(logged in via Facebook)
Hmm, interesting -
the obvious upsides to the plan is that the market can cross national borders (allowing us some way of dealing with state encouraged racism) and that it is a graded response; a racist is punished (instantly) for each racist action.
So worth exploring.
There are some obvious flaws though, which will need to be dealt with:
1) Stupid people rarely accept responsibility for their own actions. Once racists notice that they are on average poorer than the social average, they're going…
show full comment
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
Were we to live in a colorblind society in which government was banned from expropriating the private property of some races for the benefit of others (under the pretense of egalitarianism or some other politically motivated smokescreen), why would anyone be motivated to pay more for goods, no matter whose race it's from.
In any event, the amount of individual racists in free societies are small and marginal and cannot have any noticable impact on anyones fortunes. However, when government institutionalises…
show full comment
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
jim morris
(logged in via email @yahoo.com)
This lame article and the generally pathetic responses show just how much we need some real intellectuals in this country. The entire issue of racism has become ridiculous. Otherwise serious journalists think that Islam is a 'race', too many people think that belonging to a certain 'race' puts them above the law or excuses them from otherwise unacceptable behaviour, and double standards abound.
All people should be treated according to the same laws and standards and that is certainly not the case in Australia. Equality before the law is the foundation of civilised society yet it applies less now than ever. There should be no limit to verbal and written expression of ideas in a free society.
Andrew Vincent
Non-stupid human (logged in via email @avincent.com)
People should be free to express ideas and opinions but not when they are false, insulting and defamatory. This is essentially what the judge decided.
If the comments here are pathetic its only because the article itself is a piece of partisan fluff written by an Andrew Bolt fanboi. His notion that racism could be controlled by market forces has almost no relevence at all to public expressions by one of Australias most prominent opinion writers.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Everyone has their own bias towards their convictions. If you have a look around you'll notice that there are very few conservative authors on thecon.
Jay Kay
(logged in via Twitter)
I hope I'm not the first person to reveal this to you, but there are not a lot of "conservative" arguments that stack up to objective criticism.
If something does pass intellectually honest scrutiny then it's no longer a "conservative" idea, but becomes an idea belonging to all of us.
The stuff that's wholly and solely branded as "conservative" (e.g., libertarianism, anti-unionism, climate denial, etc..) are things that don't pass muster.
This is true of "left-wing" ideas too (e.g., communism, anti-industrialism). Although these ideas aren't promoted in Australia, if they were, they wouldn't pass muster either.
So, go ahead, find a "conservative" author whose ideas are credible. They'd be welcome on the Conversation. Until such time however...
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Nice to know that you don't think ideas you don't agree with should not be discussed at all.
I agree that the general public in Australia are on one hand rightly suspicious of communism and anti-industrialism. However, the Greens are becoming more of a mainstream party and let's not forget that our current Prime Minister is a member of the Fabian socialists and was once involved with the Socialist Forum who consisted of members of Australia's de facto Communist Party.
And on the other hand there is no libertarian movement and most Australians would balk at many of the concepts such as opposing socialized medicine. There has long been the general mentality that the government exists to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave as well as the mentality of "what's in it for me" manipulation of government in order to benefit from it.
But I guess that is just not worthy of any discussion as you suggest.
Jay Kay
(logged in via Twitter)
You're trying to say I object to ideas being put on the Conversation that I disagree with. That I'm interested in shutting down debate. But this is incorrect, misleading and disingenuous.
There's plenty of scope to disagree with me by holding an honest and coherent argument. After all, who am I to argue with people whose expertise far outstrips mine on academic issues?
But if someone's pushing ideas that are intellectually dishonest, factually incorrect, and designed to mislead, then yes, I object to that being on this website. This is not the place for that.
Also, there is indeed a libertarian movement in Australia. Take a look at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). They have a bunch of people who regularly appear in the media pushing a libertarian ideology. I agree that most people would baulk at what their ideas imply.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Well in that comment you have failed to give any actual reasons as to why it should not be published on thecon other than that you disagree.
I've found that most so-called "libertarian" spokespeople in Australia are actually more centric. For example, very few people in Australia will speak out against socialized medicine. Very few people will really argue for smaller government and the fundamental principles behind it.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
If you're inviting I would be glad to; some examples of my writing from that exemplar of impartiality the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/anthony-cox-39612.html
Or are you saying I'm not credible; be careful, I might find that offensive.
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I'm afraid The Drum is not even close to being on an even footing with The Conversation. I'm not saying you're not credible (I'm not saying you are either) but surely you're not suggesting that everyone you share a platform with at The Drum are as equally credible as you? A donkey could get published on The Drum if they could write well enough, it doesn't mena that's credible though.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
"A donkey could get published on The Drum if they could write well enough, it doesn't mena that's credible though."
Obviously then you haven't been published there.
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I've not. But I have seen the long list of contributors. Are you saying that their opinions are equally as credible as yours merely on the basis they've been published on an online opinion forum at the ABC?
No wonder you deny the science of climate change if that is your standard of evidence.
Contrarian opinions on a complex field of science published by a lawyers is not, and never has been, even close to being credible. Not in the slightest. And i am quite confident that your incredible opinion would never, ever get published on The Conversation, not due to your ideology, rather the fact that a lawyer has zero credibility when opining about climate science.
Jay Kay
(logged in via Twitter)
(I'm very tempted to just write "Q.E.D.")
You're a supporter of the idea that anthropogenic climate change is fictitious. So I assume it's fair to say you disagree with the scientific consensus.
In which case, if you're not bringing some seriously hardcore evidence to the table to support your argument, then yes, you fail the standard that should be upheld on an academic site such as this.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Credible? - that requires arguments based on evidence not made up assertions and refutations of points your opponent doesn't actually state.
Impartial? - certainly not - and fair enough too - but did it ever strike you that your partisan views might just mean you suffer unduly from confirmation bias?
and lastly - in relation to this site (where there is no problem with not being impartial) are you Trabsparent? Not at all. Authors on this site are required to disclose up front their affiliations and involvement. Something you conspicuously did NOT do on your article on the Drum in relation to challenging the climate record
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
And what are lawyer is doing publishing contrarian opinion on a complex field of science is beyond me. That fact alone makes mr Cox's views very, very incredible.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
Wow, a solar salesman offering a critique; true democracy at work; obviously you are not a fan of the offerings of professor Manne:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/newspapers-shouldnt-print-opinion-from-non-experts-manne/story-e6frg996-1226150263405
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I agree wholeheartedly with the good professor, people such as yourself shouldn't be offering opinions on matters you are not qualified to hold an opinion on. or, at least, not on the publicly funded ABC. It's a travesty. especially when those opinions are so demonstrably wrong.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
You are wrong; I have been fully transparent here and at the Drum. You, on the other hand, are a man of mystery.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
It is a verifiable fact that you were not transparent in the Drum article published here
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44734.html
In the article you stated "a formal request has been made to the Australian Auditor General to audit BoM’s official Australian temperature record and the methods used by BoM to adjust the Australian raw temperature data." As if you were reporting on a disinterested fact
You failed to disclose that you were in fact one of the principle architects of this request. Someone practising transparency would have made it clear what their involvement was. You did not.
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
On page 4 of the Application for Audit of the defective Australian temperature record used as a base for the various ill-conceived and damaging solutions [sic] to the non-existent 'problem' of AGW it SAYS this:
Sincerely,
Signed,
Senator Cory Bernardi Joanne Nova
Andrew Barnham Anthony Cox
James Doogue Chris Gillham
Ken Stewart Dr David Stockwell
Gee Dr Harrigan you really read that well; how deceptive of me to not point out that I was a party to something I was writing about and linked to when my name was on the document as a signatory.
Leave the law to those who know it, ok, and stick to what you do best; and what was that again?
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Ad Hominem Anthony? That the best you can do?
Apparently you have trouble with the meaning of the word "disclose".
Everyday Oxford Dictionary defines it as follows - verb "to expose to view, to reveal, to make known". So you did NOT disclose it in the article by your own admission
Anthony Cox
(logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
There's no ad hom in my comment Dr Harrigan which again confirms your lack of understanding of the law; please leave it to the experts and stop embarrassing yourself.
Connor Jolley
Solar sales professional (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"please leave it to the experts and stop embarrassing yourself.
'
Oh. The irony! Could you be any less self- aware? Maybe you need to start following your on advice, Anthony?
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Again we seem to have a difference of opinion on defintions (by the way I note you haven't refuted my point on disclosure)
Ad Hominem "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it"
Well, we can leave that to others to judge. But your comment "stick to what you do best, and what was that again?" hardly seems to actually refute my evidence and looks remarkably like an attempt to point out some supposed negative characteristic?
In any event it is not relevant to the issue of this article - just to your cedibility and the validity of your arguments
Terje Petersen
(logged in via Facebook)
Todd Sampson is often offensive but his t-shirt saying "White People Make Me Nerves" was especially hurtful. Whilst I don't agree with these laws existing it may be that as long as they do exist we should use them to balance the score card. I would be interested in hearing from other offended parties that would consider a class action against the leftist fiend and the ABC which presented his racist slur.
Terje Petersen
(logged in via Facebook)
Here is the offensive t shirt mentioned in the article:-
http://toddsampsonstshirts.com/post/10492600284/white-people-make-me-nervous
Hilton Holder
Businessman (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
@politically aroused: Funny that leftie idealogues of your ilk slam the North for having fought the American Civil War not out of selfless concern for the slaves, but for the "selfish" economic interests of the free market which essentially requires a free labour market.
Capitalism cannot operate with slave labour and it was the feudal agrarian South that fought to maintain slavery.
In this case the judge should properly have sentenced the government for aiding and abetting racism, for it's clear…
show full comment