Greens hate liberty
I have previously noted with some sadness that Family First & People Power are nothing more than anti-liberty parties of tax, spending, regulation & prohibition. It will come as no surprise that the Greens also manage to meet the sad standards of liberty-hating statism.
At first glance it appears that the Greens do occasionally stand up for freedom. True — they support civil liberties and drug law reform, they defend choice regarding abortion & lifestyles, and they oppose expensive foreign adventures. But these few moments of sanity are easily drowned out by their commitment to large government and intervention in every area of politics.
The Greens gloat that they are a high-tax party. They want to increase the Medicare levy, introduce a “workers levy” paid for by employers, a Tobin tax, an inheritence tax, higher income taxes, higher tax on investments, higher company tax and a double-tax on high executive incomes, pollution tax, carbon levy, higher tariffs for off-road cars, congestion charges and more. And if that isn’t enough, they also want to increase government debt!
They think the government needs this extra money to pay for massive spending increases. The Greens strongly support expanding public health spending and would “massively increase funding for all levels of education” including free university. They want more money spent on foreign aid, public infrastructure, the environment, R&D, transport, welfare, aboriginals, political parties, women, arts, artists, ABC and anything else you can think of.
In addition to tax’n'spend the party also believes the government should own’n'regulate. The Greens oppose privatisation, want stronger competition regulation and want to re-regulate the financial markets. They oppose free trade and want to cancel 3rd world debt. They want to end uranium mining, live animal exports & intensive farming that is cruel.
In the workplace the Greens want to legislate a shorter working week, 18 weeks paid parenting leave, massive increase in workplace regulation, pro-union legislation and government control over workplace disputes. When you combine this with their tax increases and heavy regulation the party is clearly has the worst economic policies of any serious party in Australia.
On social/environmental issues the party is less objectionable, but even then they have little for a libertarian to support. They want drastic action on global warming (including phasing out coal energy by 2050) but they also oppose nuclear energy. They want to ban visits by nuclear warships, remove wild animals from circuses, oppose genetic engineering, and of course lock up the environenment to prevent evil humans ruining perfect mother Gaia.
And while the Greens support some individual liberties, they oppose others. They oppose freedom of association by supporting compulsory student unionism, and they oppose basic rights for shooters, smokers and gamblers.
46 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
You’ll get little argument here. The greens suck, bunch of watermelons.
Yeah, green on the outside, red on the inside I say.
I find it amazing that people who criticise the ruthfulless competitive aspect of capitalism always want to legislate and regulate for more of the stuff (except when they are legislating and regulating for less of it). As if the essence of business is competition. It isn’t. The essence of business is co-operation (with suppliers, customers, employees, partners, the broader industry, landlords etc, etc).
I say this over and over again: all we need to do is to show that strong private property rights and free enterprise are good for the environment. Then we can attract plenty of supporters who have a major concern about environmental issues.
It may be an uphill battle however; there is some unqualified opposition to the use of technology, especially GMO. Increased use of GMO crops would see agricultural land use diminish rapidly given current agricultural technologies are catching up to the global population. GMO would see reforestation and the preservation and development of wild habitat.
Why they wish to tax the common worker so heavily but then cartelise their labour seems to be for opposing purposes. The obvious effect is falling productivity and lower real wages. People won’t support environmental causes unless they can afford it.
As for global warming, it needs to be shown that the net effect of liberalised markets (less motor vehicle tariffs, stamp duties and luxury car taxes, private property rights, free use if agricultural technology, privatised electricity) is to reduce net emissions/CO2 stocks through increased investment in technology, increase the uptake of cleaner vehicles, create a greater carbon sink as there is an incentive to maintain forests and less demand for agricultural land and finally create incentives to upgrade power networks to more transmission efficient systems, and to set market prices for electricity (and water) – reducing the need for punitive and regressive taxes whilst having other incidental productivity benefits of liberalisation.
Actually, I’m not convinced Greens are even as pro-choice on lifestyle as is often stated (even by their opponents).
Take the anti-vilification laws: the Greens support them.
Socially conservative parties such as the Christian Democrats will argue that gay marriage, etc are offensive. The libertarian response is, “You’re entitled to your opinion, but as consenting adults, what people do is none of your business as long as they are not infringing your liberties. Being ‘offensive’ does not qualify as ifringement”
In short, whilst both Greens and LDP would support rights for gays, the libertarian position is, “People have a right to be offensive,” whereas the Green position is, “You have no right to be offended!”
It turns out that the Greens don’t support issues because they are pro-liberty – but simply because they have a different morality, which like CDP, they would like to impose on everyone.
The greens are essentially a montage of ideas glued together without much concept of guiding principles. It seems to be more about romanticism than rationalism.
I think thats why people tend to put Greens last whenever they vote.
Only the true believers can stomach them.
I hate them. I truly despise everything about them. Fleeced is correct. They don’t support freedom in the same way libertarians do. It all comes from intolerance and the best example is the Bracks Blasphemy laws which they wholeheartedy support.
Abl does make some good points in that the libertarian cause can steal some of the green voters away by demonstarting why less government action is better for the environment. But that’s not what greesn are about.
In fact reading their party manifesto shows that the environment is actually a small part of their objectives.
The Australian green party is a deeply socialist, intolerant grouping that has closer leanings to Nazism than it does to democratic liberalism. As always the ALP doesn’t understand how far apart they actually are to their own aspirations by treating them as allies. In reality the liberals are clsoer to the ALP than the Greens.
The Australian Greens are essentially a party of hatefilled, envy ridden Nazis and their voters should be made aware of what they represent.
No expense should be spared in bringing these Nazi, envy ridden bastards out in the open and politically crushing them. i would happily dig into my pocket to ram a spike into their tiny loveless hearts.
JC,
You see Nazis everywhere you look, so how do we know you’re not just crying wolf yet again? Did you know that the Nazis were not the only group in history to be oppressive buggers. And Nazi notoriety stems mostly from their militant nationalism and genocidal policies rather than their policies on blasphemy or socialism. It is not the most accurate comparison imaginable.
However I will grant you that you do seem to be a very effective hater. Kind of like some of those Greens.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje
The nazis were actually the first leftist green party. Part of the reason the headed east into Russia was they wanted to have the faftories etc. away from the homeland.
I am not saying the current crop would be out to kill Jews etc. and start wars but they show a remarkable intolerance and dislike of other people.
Go read the party manifesto. It’s a turgid swamp of economic intolerance.
I actually disagree with ABL on the issue of attracting greens supporters to the libertarian cause. It’s too hard a slog as most are too far gone into the lefist cause to be able to get them.
The growth of support will come from the conservative base. If the Liberal followed their own manifesto, they would be the closest thing to a libertarian party in Australia.
The liberal base is far more liberty oriented than the party members. This is what you end up with when you have compulsary voting. The representatives don’t give much of a shit.
” … the Greens don’t support issues because they are pro-liberty – but simply because they have a different morality, which like CDP, they would like to impose on everyone.”
A very good summary.
What I find strange is that Greens supporters mostly are either starry-eyed neophytes or ageing baby boomers. I suspect the common theme is that they are no yet or no longer focused on financial concerns.
Fortunately many of the neophytes will grow out of it, but the baby boomers will not change until they die.
Green party policies link:
http://greens.org.au/ploneprint/snapshotsonline.pdf
Can anyone tell me how the fuck we would survive if these hatefilled, envy ridden deadenders ever took over or had influence on government?
Is there one policy in this booklet that would be positive to our economic well being?
David
The Doctors wives (Stepford wives) were a great example of deranged, bored, hostile babyboomers who suppoort that party.
These sheilas had done nothing useful in their lives other than sleep with a doctor and think they had something useful to contribute. so they joined the green party straight from the Libs.
JC,
You make a much bigger contribution when you start explaining your comparisons in intellectual terms rather than in vitriolic terms. When you open with phrases like “I hate them” and then dump on them as being like Nazis without any well reasoned explaination or qualifications it does not advance the discussion much, and is very unlikely to win over any waivering greens. The intent seems to be more about affirming your solidarity with other Green haters than in contributing to any form of useful analysis.
I’ll happily work shoulder to shoulder with you to collate the similarities between the Nazis and the Greens as long as we also collate the differences.
Regards,
Terje.
It’s wrong to hate and a despise a party whose members go orgasmic over reducing our economic well being?
It’s wrong to hate a party that actually deceives people into voting for them on the belief that they are an envirnoment party when that’s not really the case?
“I’ll happily work shoulder to shoulder with you to collate the similarities between the Nazis and the Greens as long as we also collate the differences.”
I did show the differences, Terje. I don’t think they are as aggressively war like or hate Jews. I am unsure if their hate is as strong agaisn the entrepreneurial class. In other they may not gas them, may be juwst place them in re-education centres.
They aren’t as nationionalistic as the Nazis, but that love or nation is simply transferred to supra national groupings like the UN etc.
Which of the policies would kill us? I would agree that the Greens policies would not be good for liberty, and I am hard pressed to find any that I agree with, however it is not like they are talking about nationalising the farm sector and putting us all in communes. And putting the corporate tax rate up to 33% is not the right direction but neither is it going to lead to widespread death.
You can argue that if they had total power they would be far worse than their policy paper suggests. However that is a different issue. Their policies look to be the normal left leaning patter that essentially just digs us a bit deeper into the poo we are already suffering from.
Yes you did, which is why I said:-
In other words I was acknowledging your contribution and regarding it as a positive improvement.
Knock yourself out with hate. However it’s a bit odd to then go on about how they are “essentially a party of hatefilled…”
The point is not that hate is right or wrong. It is that you are capable of a much more meaningful and useful contribution.
Terje
They would turnkey most of the economy. If the wind wasn’t blowing you wouldn’t be able to use your computer as the power woud go out.
Go read the party booklet. It’s an almost perfect reference manual on how to reduce economic welfare by a few 100% in a short time.
Ok. let’s just use the word depsise. Yes. Hate is too emotional.
I despise that party….. is that better.
I don’t actually despise the voters though becasue I think most are ignorant of what they stand for.
It’s interesting, there is some wealthy Chriatian grouping that “despises” them reported about recently. All these dudes did was use the Greens policies and advertise them…..
In other words, things like
“Do you knwo the green party would eliminate private medical cover?”
“Do you know that the green party would massively increase taxes on the wealthy and middle classes”.
The little dipshit, Bobbsie Brown was up in arms about the criticisism his party was getting. What was interesting was that it was his policies that was getting thrown at his face.
I’m refering to the document you offered:-
http://greens.org.au/ploneprint/snapshotsonline.pdf
They say they will phase out coal fired power stations by 2050. I don’t agree with this policy. However I am not in paralysis with fear of it either. I seriously doubt wind power would do the job (no decent baseload, despatch or peaking qualities), however they are on about a price signals that provides an open field for all sorts of rival alternatives. And I have enough faith in the technologies currently in the pipeline to say that we could survive this policy and still prosper.
And whilst in the extreme I am sure we could come up with policies that would reduce economic welfare by 100% I am very hard pressed to think of any set of policies that would reduce economic welfare by a few 100%.
Few 100% wqas a joke, Terje.
That is much more interesting. It is essentially what we should be doing.
People should be aware what this party stands for. They should know what voting for these people actually means. They should appreciate the Green party’s economic intolerance.
In other words they should know what a fraud the greens are.
I agree. Although I’d rather market what the LDP stand for.
I agree. Although most Green voters think that they know what it means.
I agree.
Do you think that they wouldn’t do all the things they say that will do? I don’t think they are a fraud. More like junk food. You might think it tastes good but if you keep eating the stuff you’re not going to feel well.
Damn there seems to be a lot of agreement going on around here today.
The link JC provided was very relevant as that was exactly the document I summerised. Did I not portray the Greens accurately?
I like the contribution to this debate from Mark Hill, though I think he may overstate his case somewhat. There is certainly a strong argument for free market enviornmentalism in a number of areas, but we need to remember that on some issues libertarian policies will not help the environment (eg reducing fuel tax).
And while I have no sympathy with the Greens getting attacked for having bad policies, the christian group that attacked them is also a crack-pot group of weirdos.
I agree with JC when he said that the ALP is closer to the Libs than to the Greens. Note that the ALP doesn’t have a coalition with the Greens. But the Greens are pragmatically useful for the ALP because: (1) Green preferences always go to the ALP; (2) Green parliamnetarians would always prefer an ALP government; (3) If the Greens wanted to stop ALP legislation, then the Liberals would probably support it, so Green opposition is impotent in a hypothetical ALP government; and (4) the existence of the Greens shows the ALP not to be the silly-left party.
But I disagree with JC when he says that Liberal supporters are necessarily where the LDP will get supporters. We will pick up independent minded people, people looking to protest vote (ex-Dems ex-ON), free thinkers on the Labor right and the small minority of libertarian Liberals.
John
“But I disagree with JC when he says that Liberal supporters are necessarily where the LDP will get supporters.”
I think you would be surprised like I was. A friend attended a speech Robert Doyle gave to the party faithful a little while back when he was opposition leader in victoria.
Doyle started the speech off by making rousing comments about liberal principles ( Read libertarian)… people to be left alone, support of free enterprise, less taxes and personal refeedoms. The base was up on their feet in support of these polices. They went dead quiet when he began to speak about the crap the Libs favour such as more government action in various respects.
I am not saying all, but you will find that there are lots of people forming the liberal party base that are more libertarian than what people think.
There would be very few issues that a real LIBERAL could disagree with in the LDP’s manifesto.
And while I have no sympathy with the Greens getting attacked for having bad policies, the christian group that attacked them is also a crack-pot group of weirdos.
Yes, of course they were a bunch of weirdos and crackpots. However I tried to be very objective in more presentation of their actions. It seemed to me they took the green parties policies and through them right back in their face. In other words they simply used their policies to crucify them.
Brown didn’t like that one bit, which is interesting isn’t it.
The green party survives by being fraudulent about their policies.
Sorry about the edit.
threw… not through etc.
Not according to Peter Garrett.
Peter Garrett lied. The Greens gave the ALP preferences in the upper house and in the vaste majority of lower house seats. In a few lower house seats they offer split tickets, but the Green preferences still largely went to the ALP. Nowhere did they offer preferences to the coalition before the ALP.
And JC, I removed your long post that summerised the Greens policy. This post has already summerised the exact same document. If you think there was something missing from my summary, just mention that bit.
Naughty Peter.
Other exciting articles coming to Thoughts on Freedom!
Labor hate liberty.
Liberals hate liberty.
Democrats hate liberty.
One Nation hate liberty.
Is Bob offended by our sentiments or just bored with apparent predictability?
I think Bob is saying that this article is just stating the obvious.
I doubt that a single article titled “Everybody Hates Liberty” would be as appealing or as much fun as log rolling our opponents one at a time.
no problem removing it, John. i posted it to demonstrate the total bankruptcy of this poor excuse for a party.
Brown would have to be the biggest oxygen thief in politics in the present day. It’s monstrously unfair the creep actaully gets a salary and in future a pension from the Australian people.
Yea, yea I know, he was voted in. But I can also say the guy is a total loser.
Does anyone have an estimate on how much revenue they wish to raise and the sum of the deadweight loss and crowding out effects?
Which of the policies would kill us?
US studies support evidence that a government intake of $15 mill causes one extra death. Combine a deep depression with huge Green Party tax hikes and you have the beginnings of mass deaths. Longevity falls when economic well being decreases.
“I would agree that the Greens policies would not be good for liberty, and I am hard pressed to find any that I agree with, however it is not like they are talking about nationalizing the farm sector and putting us all in communes”
They wouldn’t have to nationalize the farm sector. They would simply impose restrictive mandates.
.” And putting the corporate tax rate up to 33% is not the right direction but neither is it going to lead to widespread death.”
And the other taxes they talk about? How about the increase levy they would impose for funding Medicare and another levy they discuss. How about the workers levy they would also impose. Tax increases are spread out all over the policy statement.
It doesn’t cost out the additional mandates they would impose.
Go read the manifesto. It’s slugfest for tax eaters of the worst kind.
“ You can argue that if they had total power they would be far worse than their policy paper suggests.”
I don’t think I ever mentioned that, but I would have no problem believing that they would be much worse if they had power.
“ Their policies look to be the normal left leaning patter that essentially just digs us a bit deeper into the poo we are already suffering from.”
No. Their policies are not normal leftist policies. The ALP would never go that far. These are hard left policies of rabid lunatics that should never be allowed within 1,000 k of a Parliament or peoples house.
Where is it?
It’s summerised in this post. You can read their policy detail at their webpage (www.greens.org.au) or just check out the highlights here.
I read that already and I didn’t see the claims JS made. I’ll have to print it out for the train ride home tonight and read it again.
Let me save you all some time:
The Greens are the party that chose Thom Lyons to be their candidate
Res ipsa loquitur