<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sarah Palin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/</link>
	<description>Australian Libertarian Society Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:17:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obama's Foreign Policy Stance</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-53447</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Obama's Foreign Policy Stance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-53447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]First, in all three conflicts, Democrats postponed the initiation of direct combat as long as possible. In only one, World War I, did Wilson decide to join the war without prior direct attack. Roosevelt maneuvered near war but did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor. Truman also maneuvered near war but did not get into direct combat until after the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Indeed, even Wilson chose to go to war to protect free passage on the Atlantic. More important, he sought to prevent Germany from defeating the Russians and the Anglo-French alliance and to stop the subsequent German domination of Europe, which appeared possible. In other words, the Democratic approach to war was reactive. All three presidents reacted to events on the surface, while trying to shape them underneath the surface.[...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]First, in all three conflicts, Democrats postponed the initiation of direct combat as long as possible. In only one, World War I, did Wilson decide to join the war without prior direct attack. Roosevelt maneuvered near war but did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor. Truman also maneuvered near war but did not get into direct combat until after the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Indeed, even Wilson chose to go to war to protect free passage on the Atlantic. More important, he sought to prevent Germany from defeating the Russians and the Anglo-French alliance and to stop the subsequent German domination of Europe, which appeared possible. In other words, the Democratic approach to war was reactive. All three presidents reacted to events on the surface, while trying to shape them underneath the surface.[...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicholas gray</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52215</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nicholas gray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks, &#039;Fryar&#039; Jim!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, &#8216;Fryar&#8217; Jim!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Fryar</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52214</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Fryar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are quite right there Nicholas, the passage &quot;This is what your king shall do unto you, .......&quot; is one of the best warnings against the power of the state that I have ever seen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are quite right there Nicholas, the passage &#8220;This is what your king shall do unto you, &#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; is one of the best warnings against the power of the state that I have ever seen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicholas gray</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52213</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nicholas gray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[regardless of formal religion, Jesus gave us a good guide to living- Treat other people as you would wish to be treated. John, in his letters, told a Christian that &#039;helping the old and infirm&#039; was true religion.
What harm is there in these calls for voluntary action? Established churches say otherwise, but they should just be support structures. And individual action is not socialism even if it is social and sociable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>regardless of formal religion, Jesus gave us a good guide to living- Treat other people as you would wish to be treated. John, in his letters, told a Christian that &#8216;helping the old and infirm&#8217; was true religion.<br />
What harm is there in these calls for voluntary action? Established churches say otherwise, but they should just be support structures. And individual action is not socialism even if it is social and sociable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicholas gray</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52212</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nicholas gray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim, you are so wrong on some issues! Religion is PRO-self-interest! I am only in it because it promises rich rewards in the long term!
And there need be no conflict between being libertarian, and wanting a clean environment! If McCain was going to sign on to Kyoto, then you&#039;d have cause to worry!
And I&#039;m not wildly optimistic about the Republicans, but they still seem better than the Democrats.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, you are so wrong on some issues! Religion is PRO-self-interest! I am only in it because it promises rich rewards in the long term!<br />
And there need be no conflict between being libertarian, and wanting a clean environment! If McCain was going to sign on to Kyoto, then you&#8217;d have cause to worry!<br />
And I&#8217;m not wildly optimistic about the Republicans, but they still seem better than the Democrats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim R</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52210</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim R]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Faith based politics are quite likely to lead to totalitarian/authoritarian conditions if history is anything to go by.  
If you take away the faculty of reasoning from political decision making, then it is much more difficult to settle disagreements, and it is more likely that force will be used.  

I think the religious-hijacked Republican party is currently very dangerous and in addition, there&#039;s no reason to think they&#039;ll be particularly economically conservative.  Bush and McCain in particular.  

Fundamentals of ideology matter in a big way, and socialism is easier to defeat than thousands of years of supernaturalism which is the more important battle.  To defeat socialism simply takes utilitarian arguments and doesn&#039;t require a major shift in ideology.  To defeat supernaturalism means getting people to accept that existence preceeds consciousness and this is very difficult when people are clinging to the promise of an afterlife.

IMO politics doesn&#039;t have a huge impact on cultural ideology norms in that culture preceedes politics (culture = cause, politics = effect), but I still think it would be bad news for the more religious party (Republicans) to be in power.

In addition, the religous right don&#039;t have a sound intellectual basis to justify capitalism or individual rights.  Religion is anti-self interest and all about servitude and sacrifice.  It&#039;s actually more intellectually in line with socialism and environmentalism IMO.  eg/ McCain is religious, an environmentalist and happy with increasing economic regulations.  
I think the lack of ethical basis to support capitalism partly explains why the economic reforms of the late 70s and 80s are now been eroded away so easily after such a short time span.  

So while I think it&#039;s a difficult choice between two incredibly poor candidates, McCain and Obama, I&#039;m not nearly as optimistic about the Republicans as many others seem to be.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Faith based politics are quite likely to lead to totalitarian/authoritarian conditions if history is anything to go by.<br />
If you take away the faculty of reasoning from political decision making, then it is much more difficult to settle disagreements, and it is more likely that force will be used.  </p>
<p>I think the religious-hijacked Republican party is currently very dangerous and in addition, there&#8217;s no reason to think they&#8217;ll be particularly economically conservative.  Bush and McCain in particular.  </p>
<p>Fundamentals of ideology matter in a big way, and socialism is easier to defeat than thousands of years of supernaturalism which is the more important battle.  To defeat socialism simply takes utilitarian arguments and doesn&#8217;t require a major shift in ideology.  To defeat supernaturalism means getting people to accept that existence preceeds consciousness and this is very difficult when people are clinging to the promise of an afterlife.</p>
<p>IMO politics doesn&#8217;t have a huge impact on cultural ideology norms in that culture preceedes politics (culture = cause, politics = effect), but I still think it would be bad news for the more religious party (Republicans) to be in power.</p>
<p>In addition, the religous right don&#8217;t have a sound intellectual basis to justify capitalism or individual rights.  Religion is anti-self interest and all about servitude and sacrifice.  It&#8217;s actually more intellectually in line with socialism and environmentalism IMO.  eg/ McCain is religious, an environmentalist and happy with increasing economic regulations.<br />
I think the lack of ethical basis to support capitalism partly explains why the economic reforms of the late 70s and 80s are now been eroded away so easily after such a short time span.  </p>
<p>So while I think it&#8217;s a difficult choice between two incredibly poor candidates, McCain and Obama, I&#8217;m not nearly as optimistic about the Republicans as many others seem to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicholas gray</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52207</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nicholas gray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would still be inclined to vote Republicanter, simply because the Democrazies seem more committed to centralism, and I&#039;m sure that corruption occurred under them, as well. The war gave more opportunity for corruption, but wouldn&#039;t they have handled things in a similar manner?
It&#039;s a shame that the Libertarian Party isn&#039;t fielding a candidate, or are they? Haven&#039;t heard a thing from them for ages.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would still be inclined to vote Republicanter, simply because the Democrazies seem more committed to centralism, and I&#8217;m sure that corruption occurred under them, as well. The war gave more opportunity for corruption, but wouldn&#8217;t they have handled things in a similar manner?<br />
It&#8217;s a shame that the Libertarian Party isn&#8217;t fielding a candidate, or are they? Haven&#8217;t heard a thing from them for ages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TerjeP (say tay-a)</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52198</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TerjeP (say tay-a)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think she is libertarian but I do think she is logically of interest to libertarians because she challenges the political concensus in areas that need challenging. 

In terms of the religion thing. I&#039;d rather vote for people that want Jesus to save me from my sins than people that want Government to save me from my sins.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think she is libertarian but I do think she is logically of interest to libertarians because she challenges the political concensus in areas that need challenging. </p>
<p>In terms of the religion thing. I&#8217;d rather vote for people that want Jesus to save me from my sins than people that want Government to save me from my sins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrien</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52169</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adrien]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t believe that libertarian values are incompatible entirely with religious views. But they are definitely incompatible with &lt;i&gt;theocratic&lt;/i&gt; views. 

If Ms Palin attempts, for example, to have schools teaching creationism as science she crosses the line. She does however seem to understand where her personal religious views end and public policy begins (at least more so than others of the Religious Right).

The American system allows for McCain to claim a disavowal of the Bush years. However voting Republican would endorse Bush somewhat. That&#039;s how people would spin it. 

Personally however I&#039;m trepiditious that there will be any significant change in the US except for the worse. We&#039;ve had two class A crooks in a row. But their supporters persist in lauding them. 

Democracies fall when the citizenry decline from strong people who stand up for themselves and take their politicians to harsh task into self-indulgent, bleary-eyed fat-arsed, cattle....

Ahem]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t believe that libertarian values are incompatible entirely with religious views. But they are definitely incompatible with <i>theocratic</i> views. </p>
<p>If Ms Palin attempts, for example, to have schools teaching creationism as science she crosses the line. She does however seem to understand where her personal religious views end and public policy begins (at least more so than others of the Religious Right).</p>
<p>The American system allows for McCain to claim a disavowal of the Bush years. However voting Republican would endorse Bush somewhat. That&#8217;s how people would spin it. </p>
<p>Personally however I&#8217;m trepiditious that there will be any significant change in the US except for the worse. We&#8217;ve had two class A crooks in a row. But their supporters persist in lauding them. </p>
<p>Democracies fall when the citizenry decline from strong people who stand up for themselves and take their politicians to harsh task into self-indulgent, bleary-eyed fat-arsed, cattle&#8230;.</p>
<p>Ahem</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fleeced</title>
		<link>http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/08/31/sarah-palin/#comment-52165</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fleeced]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=1085#comment-52165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As for Republicans &lt;i&gt;deserving&lt;/i&gt; to win office, I&#039;m not sure any of the candidates do.  I can&#039;t debunk the article you linked (comment 50), and worse - find it believable.  But Bush/Cheney aren&#039;t running - and McCain, much to my surprise, has made a better case for change than Obama/Biden.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As for Republicans <i>deserving</i> to win office, I&#8217;m not sure any of the candidates do.  I can&#8217;t debunk the article you linked (comment 50), and worse &#8211; find it believable.  But Bush/Cheney aren&#8217;t running &#8211; and McCain, much to my surprise, has made a better case for change than Obama/Biden.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

