Libertarian new & views (11/12/08)

Australian libertarians now have a place they can go to get all the latest news & views about the libertarian movement in Australia. The main ALS website now provides links to all the latest commentary from all the main pro-freedom blogs in Australia. This is a summary of the Australian libertarian news & views for this week…

The “shaked & stirred” mob have provided details of the four speeches given on prohibition last weekend — covering prostitution, the internet, drugs & guns.

Following Rudd’s $10 billion give-away, Stephen Kirchner talks about why fiscal stimulus measures don’t work. And on other issues financial, Sukrit Sabhlok links to a brilliant video showing Peter Schiff repeatedly predicting the financial troubles in the US and other commentators mocking him.

Jennifer Marohasy notes that the Europeans are going cold on their emissions trading scheme, and she is leading a fight against an Australian ETS, and asking for your help. JC notes that James Hanson is also opposed to the ETS. Jim Fryar joins the global warming theme, noting that the founder of the weather channel and 30,000 others now want to sue Al Gore.

Jim also looks at the the failures of the opposition and finds a case of a raid by the thought police when a man copied and pasted a youtube clip.

In other news, education expert Andrew Norton turns his attention to the issue of whether international students crowd-out Australian students at university, and Jason Soon points out the artistic double-standards of people who would glamourise Che Guevara, and sends people to this anti-Che facebook group.

16 thoughts on “Libertarian new & views (11/12/08)

  1. Given the current situation the Peter Schiff video is extremely amusing. I actually created a post on this which I just removed after I realised you had already covered the topic. It is worth watching merely for the amusing stock tips offered by some in 2006-2007.

    For those not in the know Peter Schiff is from the Austrian school of economics and was an advisor to Ron Paul.

  2. Lambert says:

    30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore? Oh dear me.
    Are they suing him for covering up the existence of the pyramids on Mars?

    No, they’re suing him for misrepresentation, Shiny. Like most libertarians I think this is wrong, but just people know the real Shiny (the real you), it was only recently when you were strongly supporting the law suit against Durkin’s anti-Gore movie in the UK at your bog (which you dishonestly recast as a win for the warmers).

    So you can’t “oh dear me” someone suing Gore for misrepresenting the science when you’re doing a high five routine for the other law suit, Shiny. Now that would be hypocritical wouldn’t it?


    ADMIN: JC, please don’t feed the troll.

  3. Hi there, just stopping by because I’m exploring the whole libertarian philosophy ATM. I thought I’d respond to the guys suing Al Gore – not exactly sure what it has to do with libertarianism, but climate change falls under my interest, so eh.

    Regarding this dude’s criticism of the IPCC… well, I didn’t find it very persuasive. Statements like ‘it all boils down to a claim that carbon dioxide… in the atmosphere, put there by fossil fuels, is going to turn the climate of Earth into an oven, and we’re all gonna bake and die’ don’t really contribute to debate any positive way. They don’t address the outcomes of the AR4 (or its predecessors). Similarly, the argument that CO2 is ‘no big deal’ because it’s ‘naturally-occurring’ and because ‘plants need it’ is totally fallacious, akin to saying that uranium is no big deal because it’s naturally occurring.

    Unfortunately, I can’t comment definitely on the hockey sticks controversy because I haven’t looked into the methodologies behind that research, but my understanding is that the criticisms behind it were over the validity of certain proxy markers in the temperature record. I believe the models involved have since been updated, but again, I’m not too familiar with the whole thing, so I’d recommend anyone who’s curious actually take a look at the research first-hand.

    The rest of the video seems less concerned with criticism of the science and more with framing everything in terms of a big scam to censor out skeptical arguments. It’s worth pointing out that, eighteen months ago, a lot of scientists on the other side of the fence were arguing that they were being censored too. Despite the rigidity of the scientific method, science will have social aspects as long as its practitioners are human. But I guess that’s the problem for those without scientific training: it can be hard to evaluate the validity of claims and come to your own conclusion if you don’t know how to evaluate the research (or its peer reviews) yourself.

    Just thought I’d chip in, since I noticed a few climate change-related posts here 🙂

  4. The pro warming crowd should just conccede defeat on the hockey sticks and never refer to them again.

    The methodology was really, really bad.

    It detracts from the valid evidence that AGW is a concern and may need to be tackled by Government policy.

  5. Hi Rensa,

    I’m glad you’re looking into Libertarianism. Climate change is of course a hot button topic for Libertarians because of the remedies being suggested. Rather than go to the people and talk to them about why warming is dangerous and what we personally can do about it (something rational Libertarians would be all over like Oprah on a baked ham) they go straight to the governments and start saying words that make Libertarians angry: Ban, Tax, Regulate!

    It also doesn’t help that the guys advocating this type of action are sitting in government jobs which have become better funded as the public fear of global warming has grown IE: Hansen and those other NASA dudes.

    Personally I’d like to see a large chunk of evidence fall from the sky either supporting or refuting the science of warming. Obviously I would prefer the science to be wrong (as I’m sure most people who happen to like this planet would) but if we can no longer argue about it due to irrefutable proof we can get down to rectifying the problems. We would hopefully start to see remedies that are grass roots and voluntary. Wouldn’t that be a much better option than handing more power up to the pollies?

  6. Rensa, I agree that the video wasn’t persuasive. I don’t agree with what they were saying. My position is better summerised by Bjorn Lomborg’s recent talk to Reason…

    If you’re just starting to look into libertarianism, I recommend having a look at and

    (I also note that this post is just a summary of what other people are saying in the libertarian blogosphere. If you want to engage the original author, it’s probably best to comment directly on their blog. Though of course you’re welcome to comment here too.)

  7. What happened to comment nine? I was going to congratulate Ben on being alive, and point out my comment was a joke (You’re allowed to bring jokes to the table).

  8. skeptic – your story on the welfare family is truly gruesome – still, maybe some good will come of this. i see Peter Saunders had a piece in the Australian published on the same topic over the weekend.

  9. John – thanks for the new ALS webpage. I never used to visit it much but now I find it to be quite a useful portal to libertarian news and views by Aussies.

Comments are closed.