Comments on: Libertarians for oppression?

By: gbpntl bzjdywofk

gbpntl bzjdywofk — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:43:11 +0000

gpat dcypfjv pucetwd mlzjcqsx wgexi ltvbcwxe vwqarzsgo

By: feral sparrowhawk

feral sparrowhawk — Sun, 20 May 2007 09:53:40 +0000

This quote might make sense if Wallace had place libertarianism in inverted commas. There are some free market radicals who like to claim the name libertarian even though they are nothing of the sort on non-economic issues, and her argument may have some validity if applied to that grouping. However, to suggest that this is genuine libertarianism is pretty woeful.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 17 May 2007 05:12:28 +0000

Wallace is an imbecile or needs to clean up her rather sloppy act.

By: Club Troppo » Slouching towards somewhere or other

Club Troppo » Slouching towards somewhere or other — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:31:24 +0000

[...] "dozen or so pages of ignorance and silliness". That’s how Andrew Norton describes Christine Wallace’s recent article for the Griffith Review — ‘Libertarian nation [...]

By: John Barrdear » Blog Archive » Libertarians, inequality and cultural homogeneity

Mon, 14 May 2007 20:33:19 +0000

[...] Andrew Norton doesn’t think much of this article by Christine Wallace in the Griffith Review, in which she argues that the Coalition under Howard has instigated libertarian policies by stealth. He calls it “a dozen or so pages of ignorance and silliness,” citing this paragraph from page 8 in particular: The libertarian logic is that, since personal freedom and the existence of free markets are inextricably entwined, and since – as Bork puts it – “vigorous” economies are vulnerable to being “enfeebled” by particular cultural practices, then the champions of personal freedom have a licence to police cultural practices – in the interests of freedom and economic vigour. Thus libertarians can reason that difference (for example, multiculturalism, homosexuality) must be eliminated so that the economy can function better – reasoning that is absurd, to say the least. [...]

By: Leopold

Leopold — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:01:57 +0000

The gap widened an awful lot more under Hawke and Keating, actually. And has actually started to decline in the last few years of Howard’s government, for the first time in decades.

But we mustn’t let facts get in the way of a rant.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:25:14 +0000

I found that bit you quote confusing since she blends Bork with the libertarians, whereas they don’t really go together.
I also wondered about this on the previous page:

“The central difference between the Howard Government and the Hawke/Keating Governments is that the Labor governments saw a crucial role for the public sector … especially in relation to issues of economic inequality; about which libertarians are unconcerned. (Witness the widening wealth gap which occurred during the Thatcher and Reagan years in Britain and the United States, and in Australia during the life of the Howard Government)”.

If I remember the gap was widening in those Hawke/Keating years as well, so it’s a bit misleading to present it as a feature of just the Howard Government.

But yes, the Griffith Review is usually a really good magazine - a rival for Eureka Street in my affections.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Mon, 14 May 2007 09:05:08 +0000

Well, isn’t this the mentality behind the so-called debate on ir?
That “efficiency” must somehow precede fairness and that labor has somehow “gaffed” for reversing the neolib equation back to something remotely humanistic?
80 points?
Way too generous- lets subtract the zero and see if we are not then approaching a more realistic tally.

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Mon, 14 May 2007 05:52:14 +0000

Paul Monk is in the same issue as this airhead. That makes for an IQ range of contributors spanning what? 80 points?

By: David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm — Mon, 14 May 2007 03:25:58 +0000

Good grief. Wallace obviously thinks one “particular cultural practice” is as good as another. Isn’t that the same as moral equivalence?