It has indeed come to our attention that the artifical life form code-named ‘D’ has infested this comments thread.

We are well aware of the implications of this infestation and we shall act quickly to contain the outbreak.

We shall report back forthwith.

Yours,
Kate
Door Bitch
Larvatus Prodeo

PS — in other words, I’m going to shut comments to this thread.

I regret to have to inform you that word has reached the Foundation that an earlier invention code-named “D” and attributed in certain respects to Dr Nabokov and Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter has, not to put to fine a point on it, gone berko. You will of course appreciate that this has created certain sensitivities concerning the current nomination(s) of Dr Nabakov, Dr Hogan and Mr Soon for the exciting ‘jackerstrocchi particle’.

Needless to say, please ensure you keep the Foundation abreast of all developments.

Your sincerely

Dr Marcus Storch, Med. h.c.,
Chairman, Nobel Foundation

In an essay,Popper he attempted to substantinate why induction is false, as a buttress to deuction only. So ignoramous dickhead `Professor Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter of the Faculty of Physics and Cosmology Massachusetts Bay University [and if his as his sobriquet declares he gives his game away he is into superstition and magic], please set out:

The title of the paper
The argument against induction
Why it is False.

For, Dickhead Cornelius Poindexter, if you are a professor, all one cvan say is, the undergraduates under you have wasted their money on a university which funds a charlatan.

Next: Why did Popper assert deduction as the via media to the truth of what is?

Lastly, Dickhead of a Fucking Usless Professor of crap, why should real tax apyers fork out, for example, the sum sufficient to send a boy to Eton or a girl to a school of equivalent establishment? Why should so many children be damned to the barren, ugly heel holes called govt. schools not overlooking, stripped of the bcriminmal fraud of socialiust policies and taxation the price to send a child at a free school would be no better than $2,000 as opposed to - how much tax day you pay on your fucking pay packet of $37,000 plus state govts taxes plus local council taxes plus this tax and that fucking tax.

Now, I tell you Millhouse: I have a fine library but in the last two years I’ve added 5 books because: between protection of book manufactuerers and all the other damned things to boot, I don’t have much left over to spend on forst rate scholarhsip, novels, poetry. We have very fine paintings in poour house, the last 8 years we have spent not a cent on an artist.Now, I tell you you you puking half witted bastard, what’s left has to go on some priorities and those priorites entails others earning an income which they will not have in future if the govts keep on pursuing theirn national socialist aims. Tradesmen for example, their serices are co9nsumptin items, -maintianing the house is bllody crucial, but that has to be rationed out rather a lot thanks to fuckiing spiv socvialsits. So, instead of tradies and theitr families enjoying so many thosands from us alone, next to so many others who also now hoave to factor it in very slowly, they get crumbs per annum. Fporget writers, bugger all to them and so too artists.Do you appreciate, Fuckhead of a Professor it would be really nice to continue building the library thus seeing not only book makers but authors receive anothermarginal contribution to the revenues , and it would be really nice ot buy of an artist as opposed to the talentless dropkicks who dole bludge courtesy of fucking govts.

It would alsdo be really nice to send children to an Eton instead of being screwed for $100,000/annum and be comelled to send them to a dipstick commie zoo called a school and, best of all, just send them to a learned tutor for a thousand or so a uear and no fucking school to support.

So Millhouse, when ypou hit the headliines as a first rate, seminal scientist, -philosopher,economist, or as an entrepenuer, that day one will take you seriously but, right now, you are a fucking usless slob.

Bear in mind the three-paragraph rule can be enforced against unruly bloggers on the ‘demand-side’, through self-regulatory reading practices.

For example, above, I duly read as far as “… got its grubby mits out of the supply of medical services …” and then invoked the rule.

It was a strange conclusion to a strange argument, but then again, there’s very little thematically adduced after the third prong of any rant-ette, LW or RW.

Yours sincerely
Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter
Faculty of Physics and Cosmology
Massachusetts Bay University

PS stay away from my twins or I’ll put a bullet into each of your gonads.

On behalf of the US Department of Defence and Massachusetts Bay University, I would like to apologise for any disruption caused to your threads by D. Since the Cold War is now over the files relating to D have been declassified so it is within my capacity to share the following with you - D is an AI program that was developed by myself and my late colleague Dr Reinhold von Blitzkrieg-Dornhauser-Bulow to aid the US effort during the Cold War to propagandise against Communism behind the Iron Curtain. It was equipped with a voice program and the idea was to have its thoughts broadcast over the covert Radio Freedom operation as an amiable anti-communist ‘DJ’.

D was designed to pass the Turing Test, programmed with responses to 500,000 possible questions relating to Communism. Unfortunately D barely passed the Turing test and the project was shelved. I decided computer science was not my field and moved into particle-physics instead where I helped initiate research into the Jackerstrocchi particle (a much greater success I hasten to add).

My contacts at the Pentagon tell me that D was accidentally reactivated after a thunderstorm in Washington DC last week and like the fictional Tron has managed to infiltrate his presence into various parts of the World Wide Web through wires leading from Pentagon mainframes. We currently have a clean up operation in place to put it back in its lid.

I sincerely apologise for any psychological damage caused.

Yours sincerely
Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter
Faculty of Physics and Cosmology
Massachusetts Bay University

I wish for everyone to be happy, now pay a squillion through the police state method called taxation. Yup, just ticketty boo that.

Socilaist intellectuals is an oxymoron.

A simple exercise: 1 added 3 times.That is the minimum of what each dollar of tax actually costs, and it is more in the order of 4 to 5 times. In other words, that is $dollars real taxpayers do not have to apply to whatever their priorites and discretionary expenditure.

Add on, as an exampple, Medicare:

1. The tax taken to keep the ATO
2. The tax to keep the `department of health.

3. 1 and 2 are before the `Govt.’ spends one sigle cent on its consumption of medical services and products on behalf of all who are addicted to the rubbish `it is a right and must be free’.

4. On socilaist medicare schemes which medicare is, internal cost shoot verdict. For each dollar spent by govt. on it, the internal costs shoot up swallowingthe majority of each dollar govts spend. The price of mudicare is in the order of at the minimum of 12 x that which would prevail of govt. got its grubby mits out of the supply of medical services and products and not least because suppliers then would have to supply services at prices which consumers will pay, and, run their internal costs accordingly.

Before Whitlam began the long march to an Oz version of NHS, there was no NHS. Parents on very modest pay could afford to pay cash for home visits from GPS and could afford top medical insurance. Those, the very few who were destitue were catered pro bono and suppliers could do so because the burden was zip of nothing.

Medical services are consumtion items, not items of investment contrary to what federal and states’ politicans claim. For the last three years the Federal cabinet alone has increased the budget for medicare by $3billion per annum, on top of states govts - the Bracks commie Junta has this year increased spending on hospitals by $1b, or, t real taxpayers, $3b minimm. Councils spend a not inconsiderable budget on trivial services. What is the upshot?

Internal costs have shot skywards again and the waiting lists are increasing and for what but a few extra patients treated in hospitals.

Rule: supply equals demand but what the govt. supply is the items of consumption. Needless to say, govts buying medical services and products to supply them free is matched by a corresponding increase in demand by just the existing usuers of medicare.

Until National socialist medical schemes the great advancers in medicine from the early 19th century to the 60’s were brought on by free markets. By the end of the 19th century, the latest advances in medical services were being taken by not just high earners but families on very modest earnings, same record with schooling.

Other ramifications, the hideous charge which is socialist consumption of medical services and products means real, major economic losses , since the sheer amounts of funding taken by taxation and thrown down the socialisto consumption medical gurglar is funds which have been directed from savings which means capital which also means fewer jobs. To check, take the current federal budget alone and run the hypothetical of compounding that at a modest rate of 6-8%/annum over 3 years, then 5, then 10, then 50, then 100 years.

All thoise who beleive they are getting a really turly good deal by Medicare a fooliing themsleves. They are not, they are worse of immediately than would be the case in free markets in supply and , the long term ramifications are worse.

So,

Nabakov says:

October 11th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Right on D! I too am at one with Zardoz as we purify the earth of the filth of brutals!

Well, it is socialist scams, Nabokov, which are really brutal.Medicare is a rule of thumb: if you want first rate medical services you really do have to be on a high incoome because, thanks to the socialist policies and theft called taxation, the reality is, govt. consumption and taxation does mean you have to earn far more to buy what was bloody cheap until the socialists got going. As I say, not just the ALP but the Coalition are also stupid bloody ruinous socialist parties.

Oh, and, despite the hideous charge of tax for things like medicare, that’s why I have medical insurance, I want to buy medical services from those who serve customers and on the basis I want them and not on the basis bloddy commie polticians and bloody bureaucrats decdiinding what I will have what and when.As an e.g, no why will I ever go to one of those dumps called a `public hospital’

Another case: `Govt schools’ The annual charge per pupil is $80,000 to $100,000 annum: a boy can be sent to Eton for that instead of the zoos run by states’ `govts’ What a thucking rip off , more so in view of the pigsswill of what is `taught’in `chools.’
As I say, so many Aussies are so corrupted by the so called freebies they cannot face up the fact that they are worse of. Bloody socialist pollies like that, permanent mendicancy of as many as possible because, that ensures they can continue on with their socialist scams which has nothing to do with charity’, it has every thing to do with the acqusiion of `power’, the road to absoltuism. As I said, the precious `conseiences’ and `compassion’of socialists exists only at what they stare at, they ugly thucking navels.

I will stay here and await your return, while explaining to Ms Rampling the mysteries of homo sapiens procreation.

(This should really give you some fun search strings Mark)

`D, are you typing by the light of a single candle as the night winds shake the doors and rattle the windows and the mobs bay for blood in the distance?’ I wouldn’t mind having that as an excuse for the typos.I’d whip out the service revolver and enjoy a fine time potting the mobs baying for a bit of the blood out of the old veins while swigging the scotch, and issuing blood curdling curses at the `Parisian’ louts outside the gates.

However: two things to sum it up:
`compulsory voting’ is simply a measure to buttress the falsehood of `the rule/will of the majority’. The purpose of an election is simply to put in a Cabinet whose charge is simpply the execution of the trust when it comes to war, the only function of what is falsely called `government’ they will do so not recklessly.

Secondly, each of the major parties, the Coalition and the ALP are committed to what is nothing less than national socialism. The analogy with Germany 1870’s to 1930’s is tight, very tight. The policies bothe the Coaltion and the ALP are committed, marked by the overthrow of common law for `regulation’, draing on the mystical powers written into the `Constitution to justify that’ were pioneered by the Germans under Bismarck. Then, socialism was called `organisation’. It is most amusing, during that period of the German Federation, that slide into totalitarianism was accompanied a slide into mystical rubbish , of which Hegels pantheism was but one example. History was, for example, mythologised and myth historicised, while hocus pocus was purveyed as science and that is the case as the claim `man causes global warming’ and the psuedo-sciences and their proliferation by each tier of govt. such as sociology and the no less bullshit of `environmental science’ are disgusting examples. There is a distinction: at least the German mystogogues of the 19th to early 20th centuries were brilliant unlike the Oz mystogogues who are fith rate - and that is being generous to the Oz bullshitters.

All those developments are fundamental to the rise of the National Socialist Party and Hitler.Just as they were fundamental to Marxism and the rise of Hitrler. The root of each is the same, they are but hues of socialism. Socialism will always end in tyranny and that is what the lying bullshitting hypocrites of the two major partries will achieve becaause they, the Coaltion and the ALP are just two more national socialisto stupid parties. Without them,their commitment to socialism, the greenies and the Dems would not have even surfaced on the voting card.

As I said, the ALP, the Greenies and the Dems rail in parlaiment about some`police state measures’ of the Howard Govt. but they are lying hypocrites because for the very reasson, what they are committed to is not liberty through the rule of common law which does entai its ground, economic liberty. No, what they mean by the `rule of law’ is exactly the same as what the socialist-kenyesian bull-shitter Peter Costello means, the issue of diktat - in dah name of dah people, of course. And, keynesian economuics is quackery , charlatanis,, just as sociology and environemantalism are. That is all before the States’ socialisto `govts.’ and the no less thieving, lying ,socialisto spivs in `local councils’.

Taxation and the bribery of protectionism and other tranfers, from `Medicare, `free schools, `free child minding’ , has bought a voting block ,a large one of Aussies who are, it can be nailed, gultess, whining whingers who now fear being kicked of the ruinous udder of fast god almighty socialisito thieving lying spiv govt.The notion of facing up to life as adults as all too, much for the buggers, right down to: now they all must `have a university experience’ and the `govt. must guarantee them a careerah’ ( careerahs are what the dead have had as in, that was the course of their life, careerahs are for the dead.)

This is where you finally come to on this issue, do you not? There are many substantial arguments for compulsorily facilitating voting, but if a majority of individuals autonomously decide that the value of not being faciliated is of more worth, then fair enough. Although I think the situation can be simply legislated away, the only fair way to change it would be to put the pro-voluntary position to the vote … in which case, would the pro-voluntary crowd stick to their principles and advocate a voluntary plebiscite? Heh.

Today I’ve been traipsing around used-car yards with an 18 year old, again in blistering heat, so I’m not sure I’m going to make any sense.

cs, reading through the thread I thought there was a distinct unwillingness to engage with John and I can see now why. It’s a topic that’s not immediately enthralling and people tend to take up entrenched positions that don’t move. The VV camp tend to base their arguments on individual rights and it’s hard to counter those arguments on the run. One needs to lay out one’s position in some detail so that the basis of one’s position becomes clear. I actually think I haven’t yet done that and now is not the time to try. But I’d be very interested in your exposition in a seperate post when you are appropriately inspired.

On the 0 to 10 voting, I agree with you on the practicality. You’d need computerised voting, but with a paper trail so that there could be auditing and recounts. It’s a concept that occurred to me in a former life attending committee meetings, when you had to vote +1 or -1 to a proposition that you were lukewarm about. In that case you’d need a + and - scale and with computers such a system could be used in an instant to test the strength of feeling in a straw vote at any time in a discussion before everyone finished having a say. It might save some pointless argument.

John, the issue of rights and responsibilities. I don’t claim to be a full bottle on this but it interests me.

I think rights generally carry responsibilities. For example if our 18 year old wants the right to have a party on our back deck every Saturday, assuming we agreed there would be a long list of responsibilities spelt out.

But there is a question as to how rights originate. In some cases they are claimed, but they have to be socially constituted through norms, concessions or laws and may not be unconditional. More interesting, however, is the notion of ‘natural rights’ or rights that stem from what we are rather than what we claim.

For example, it is clear, I think that parents should love and care for their babies unconditionally. It is a responsibility arising from the reality of the situation rather than any claim. Indeed an infant cannot make the claim in any rational and coherent way. You can say that the infant has a right to care, but perhaps that is just a manner of speaking. You can say that the responsibility is absolute and it is a question of what society is going to do if the exercise of this responsibility breaks down.

Nor is it clear what rights if any parents gain from having the responsibility of love and care.

What I’m raising here is whether there are responsibilities with no attendant rights.

But in any case the responsibility doesn’t mean anything outside a social context.

I’m arguing that we are not rights-bearing isolates who negotiate our way into a social context, but thoroughly social beings who may choose to step outside a social context. We are all born and become who we are inside a social context. There may be responsibilities stemming from this social context without any direct implications in terms of rights. Or maybe my Prussian heritage is showing!

Still I think you should be perfectly free to decide that no polity suits you, although not to escape tax. In fact my main criticism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it assumes that everyone must be part of a state. Actually it specifies this as a right and assumes that everyone would want to be, without making clear how stateless persons would find a home in a society somewhere.

I think we should be generous and hospitable to stateless persons and accord them maximum rights including the right to travel. But then who issues the passport? Whoever holds your birth certificate, I guess. But we are back to a social context again and a problem that no-one perhaps wants to get too excited about.

Finally, there is an Australia way of doing democracy, which I think is one of cs’ main points. Not perfect and capable of improvement, but as Nabs said, “Australia has probably the world‚Äôs most straightforward yet robust and rigourous voting systems.” I understand 70% currently favour compulsory voting and to me there is no compelling case to change this to cater for an argument based on individual rights. While you are of course free to persuade us otherwise, for now the tribe has spoken.