Mangled Thoughts

Having inveighed against the Stalinist Junta of Brackistaniland, and, waxed long on Beazley and Federal ALP as Oz’s uber National Socialist party, what is galling is the Coalition also make a damned good fist of resembling the morons who continually reduce France and Germany to amputated geriatrics who can’t even crawl into a wheel chair. Face it, who would have believed that pack of good for nothing tossers who sit on the Treasury benches, spin lies, steal property by the truck loads per second, ram down stalinist decrees every couple of hours, would have survived as long as they have let alone reckon on another civil war day win? But, then you look at the Greeny hugging wringing wet soaks the Coalition mounts as the opposition, lead by paper Doyley.

Gerard Jackson has had a depressing sort of a fight inside the Vic. Liberal party. This is a no boner, the alternative greeny hugging socialists won’t do what they should do, save the plastic bag . He’s right on this too,

Minimum wage lies v the US economy and the Victorian Libs

Monday 27 February 2006

As it looks like the Bracks? Government is going to use Prime Minister Howard?s industrial reform legislation to bludgeon the Victorian Liberal Party in the November election it should pay us to take a brief look labour markets and minimum wage laws.

The problem is, it’s not simply they are are ostriches when it comes to sound economic theory. Part of it does trace back to Ming , who founded the liberal Party to beat the ALP game of national socialism, with the Nats coming up the rear as a rustified attachment to the bottom. Listening to the Fed. Coalition in Parlaiment can be scary. Costello is in the grip of kenyesian rubbish.

Today, he declared the Fed. govt. is the only body which is saving in Oz today. What’s wrong with that? Savings is capital, and he, with the goon squad ATO, and each of his state and local council counterparts have been sacking capital until it falls into heaps of dust and ashes. Does Costello have a clue as to the damage regulation does, alongside capital taxes and the RBA forging money round the clock? John Stone doesn’t, as Jackson has related. Super is just one aspect of the three tiered effort of bloody socialisto politicians to demolish savings.

ALMOST $120 billion has been grabbed from the retirement nest eggs of Australians since taxes on super contributions were introduced 17 years ago.

A quadruple hit of taxes on contributions, earnings, benefits and surcharges ? together with forgone earnings ? cuts some retirement savings for low-income earners by almost 25 per cent …Dipping in: Philippa Smith says successive governments have been poor household budgeters.

The headline sums up the nasty national socialisto impulse:

Nation’s super nest eggs $120bn poorer
Gerard McManus

No it’s not McManus, super is savings of every poor bastard who is being sacked so bloody politicians, each tier , can continue on in their daily squander, as they indulge their national socialist fantasies.

Then, the insidious nany state, and the professional dole bludgers have been at it all week, saying, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Oz drinks too much, eats too much, smokes to much, and, so there , that’s `why we have to tax all those evil doers’ pleasures’. Now, to that, they say, we have to be made pure because of dah nation’s health. Bugger off, you interfering good for nothing, kept pricks.

Mudicare, each tier of govt has increased consumption on medical services and, they are getting worse but that is exactly hat happens to national socialist medical schemes, they end up resembling the rat infested shitholes the Cubans are forced to endure as hospitals. it shows, the long queues, patients neglected, abused, killed. Others, having waited a decade or two can for an op can just jolly wait for another decade or two in agony or, better still, die first. Govts. drive up costs of medical services faster and higher than a shot to the moon. Why don’t the bloody polticians just take a hard look at some object lessons, the British NHS and the Euro verisions, all of them, depsite the repeated increases in funding, are commie dung heaps.

[Erk, will finish this first thing tomorrow morning , have to buzz off.]

Something one has in view, and so, for the time being , here’s some pretty pictures. For those with cast iron stomachs, go and throw up here,The Navigable Atlas of the Human Brain.

[` Charls’. `Why, hello beautiful, let’s tango.’]

See: being male and female is, like beauty, not skin deep, it’s buried in the vitals. Remove it and, none one would make it past the first smash em up derby race, the race to date the ova, as a neuter ugly old hag/git. This, though, is not why these happy snaps are up. It has something to do with god botherers, and dualists - the mind in body thingo - no, not one little humunclus to be seen in any pic. of the old b.-mange: they have problems as do bloody politicians going hysterical over the garbage of Pol Pot’s fan club the Greens

Bye the bye, there is a particular number, something to the power of a 10billion or so which is exaclty the same for the universe. The brain is, analogous to the universe and there it is, squished and folded into that block of wood the old cranium -cum battering ram.

Also, god bothering creationists and fatallahists, pantheists,and the humunculi brigade have another problem, the brain is still evolving. Yes, it has been observed occurring right inside the old nut. The alleles which are evolving are those which are somehow bound up with what makes man a brainy bastard. On the other hand, if the political parties continue with Fat God Almighty Nanny State All consuming Govt., devolution might be the upshot.

Indeed, it can be observed, just look at the sheer numbers plugged into it, receiving their daily dose of socialisto `cocaine’, that lot are not evolving but are in freefall regression to the condition of that pack of losers, Neanderthal Man.Or, could it be, when Homo Sapien took over, some Neanderthals mange to pass on their ga ga jeans via unfortunate girls who were brutalised by the, in those days, dole-bludging-`uni stoodent’ dropkick greeny brigade. Not impossible since, there is fear, some of the good for nothing cave lizards might have done just that and lo, Theodore Dalymple documented their shiftless, criminal descendants in his Speccie column.

Over the weekend, during a pleasant afternoon, in chat with a stranger, tyhe conversation shifted. The acquaintance lobbed a bombshell. I was stunned and shocked, and it was news too me, and pointed me to some archive material. I won’t expand on the subject, for one thing, straight after the conversation I felt like vomiting. I checked the archives yesterday, and felt like vomiting again. I found it difficult to credit the my interlocutor’s statetments. It was with disbelief one read the material available, as well as feeling upset. I can’t expand upon it, not simply because it’s shocking, besides which, I never had a clue about it - it came as a complete shock, the only thing which stopped the jaw bone falling and hitting the ground the ground was the the old leather and the lower lip affixed to the upper lip tightly.held in place to upper. The archive material available is not much to go on either, nothing more in substance than a summary, so one simply has to accept what’s summed up.I should like to say it’s typical leftoid type muck flinging. I can’t. I’m more stunned than a stunned mullet. It dampened the blogging ardour a tad yesterday, though, admittedly, last week the fingers were a bit slothful on the old keyboard. All I’ll say is, it was a very depressing hot news flash, as it were, and one doesn’t mind saying, one would have preferred to have continued on in the bliss of ignorance on this occasion . There are moments and on some things it would be happier to have that bliss undisturbed. My dinner yesterday evening might have been carboard, the wine hooch. Yet, is ignorance prefferable even on such disgusting, shocking matters? No. To say appalled would seem to trivialise what is monstrous.

Yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk.

In the mean-time, I’ve started going over the South Australian Hansard. Funny isn’t it, the Beattie ALP Govt. is corrupt, the Lemon Lemma ALP govt whiffs of corruption, rather as the stinks of a sewage farm hang around on a still day making any passer by gag, and with a touch to boot of The Bracks ALP Stalinist Govt. What is emerging is, it seems, the Rann ALP Govt. is trying to conceal the extent to which the administration is up to the eyeballs in debt or, rather, long suffering taxpayer is, that the S.A. notion of economic is the same as Bracks, just squander killing off real enterpriser in the process, compounded by the South Oz polticians penchant for funny `govt. owned corporations’ blowing oodles of taxpayers stolen property . Next, Rann and his fellow gangsters have been trying to find ways to prorogue parlaiment, in order to stop parliamentary investigation into how corrupt that administration is. In the case of Rann’s Attorney General, however, that won’t save that rotter’s skin.

Rann is neck and neck with Bracks and Brumby in the bring on an almighty economic depression stakes. But, I have to study some Hansards first, and some reports which are available. For instance, Rann’s `land development and projects’ stinks. Mind, they are typical of the schemes set up by S.A. politicians, building lots of building at great burden to taxpayers and making tremendous losses and renting them out at subsidised to the hilt rents. The S.A.Parlaiment is nothing but a long running joke. Indeed, the opposition vies with Paper Doyley for good leftoid credentials. No doubt the S.A. liberals also have their Kroeger and Toorak Doctor’s wives types yanking chains.

Jihad Jack, convicted of receiving cash from Osama bin ladles out bombs Laden and forging an entry in his passport, to disguise he’d been in Afghanistan for two years, and Al Qeada. How the jury could not convict him on the bleeding obvious, he did supply, willingly, his services to AlQueda, is a mystery? He still faces a max of 25 years. His dad called it a victory. Some victory. Rudders Ruddock has the right take on the jihadi, little Thomas is no little bobby in sky blue socks carrying a security blanket, all bug eyed who boarded a flight with a ticket stamped, Disneyland, and found himslef in Osama’s cave because the pilot made a left turn instead of a right turn over the Pacific.

Thomas has declared Hicks and Osama and Hicks are nice guys. Osama, he muses, is really nice, he hugs you, just a gentle uncle type. Nah, sounds more like a pederast as well as a mass-murdering Islmao-fascist type bastard. Clearly, it ain’t just bomb-making and beheading victims that goes on in the caves.

I saw The producers’ Sunday night, a bit of a borrowing is in order:

Spring-time for Osama,
Winter for Jew, dhimmi, and infidel….
A bang here, a boom there…

Nah, that bang and a boom is anticipation, the day the coalition troops who nab stick him on a pile of the finest explosive attached to a slow fuse , after he’s been `hugged’ - the biff type hug, the sort of biffing the dropkicks of the U.N. froth at the mouth against, out of their pity for mass murdering, totalitarian ,stone-age, scumbags.

There’s a real problem stuffing prisons with muslims. The British and Americans have found out. When in numbers, they actively recruit other prisoners to Islam and , terrorise those who refuse. A stabbing there, a slit throat here, a gang bashing somewhere else. As some-one related over at A Western Heart, not just other infidel convicts, guards too. They are’nt regular crims, as violent a scumbag the ordingary crim can be. They have to be dealt with differently. Hmmmn:

Thomas claims that, towards the end of his time at terrorist training camp Osama’s Cave, he decided he disagreed with Osama’s methods. That implies the bleeding obvious: but the aims, ah, that’s different, and they are obvious, to subdue the world under Shria Law.

The distinction of a `moderate’ and an `extremist’ on that score is `methods’, which is why many have had a gutful of mulsims and Islam. So, perhpas Thomas might be happier in Islamic Paradise, Iran.

The exercise of discrimination is a second pin of tolerance.A manager, an executive, an owner-manager of a business, if they are to run their business successfully must acquire through practice of hiring and firing competence in selecting individuals they judge will best serve the function of the firm, in a given internal function. Discrimination is exercised in the evaluation of art, which is why the brigade of socialist Yartz Council funded `artistes ‘ scream and howl against anyone who says their work is rubbish, and fight tooth and nail to keep and increase the gravy train of tax revenue flowing to them: they , realise art lovers will exercise sound discrimination by not purchasing their trash they purvey as art. Discrimination is exercised in grading exam papers, whom to befriend, who to avoid, which association to belong to, which opinion is better than other opinions. This is not capricious, it is fundamental to making one’s way in the world, it frees the individual to focus on what is essential in their interests, to avoid pitfalls, to ensuring they achieve the best that they can irrespective of what anyone does - fools, after all hand over their savings to conmen but the prudent always seek sound investors and managers to run their interests and avoid conmen - discrimination is, for better or worse a fundamental dimension of action. What makes for sound judgement cannot be pinned to anything explicit, cannot be specified, prescribed and defined, it can only be summed up as one dimension of competence and is acquired and is cumulative right from childhood, and is part and parcel of growing up and acquiring the traditions which makes civilised intercourse possible, it is bound up with the grounds of civilisation and thus civilised action. We don’t walk around with rule books to look up what one can and what one cannot do, each one is reliant upon what they have been raised to and on that basis they exercise judgment, it informs and guides them but does neither dictate nor determine their judgment.

Confidence in one’s exercise of discrimination is part and parcel of being competent, in making one’s way in the civilised world. The attempt to undermine the individual on that score and make them dependent on some pooh bah who will decide for them, renders them both dependent on the pooh bah and prone to things which can serve them ill. Consider something as simple as:

1. Parents and reward children, point out to them what is good and bad, whether how they are doing something is the right way or not, whether the child’s had writing is neat or ugly, and so on. In other words, everyone learns from childhood a myriad of things which can and cannot be tolerated. Good children do not tolerate those who can lead them astray, let alone make friends of them : Mum/Dad says, `Keep away from Bob or Jane, they are rotten to the core, mark my words my son/girl, by the time they are 20, they’ll be in prison.’ Children exercise discrimination even on the character of those their own age. Children quickly exercise increasingly subtle acts of discrimination.

2.Children, until psychology and so forth was made the pin of `education’ ,left school literate, could write well and distinguished between trash and works of merit. Many these days leave school barely literate, and of those who do, many lack that aesthetic judgement. Real university degrees require of candidates judgement, discrimination, pseudo-university degrees such as sociology and environmental science rest on the basis of discrimination has been undermined, it requires enough `undergraduates’ who believe piffle is sound learning, which leads into the next point.

The demand for `tolerance’ according to leftoids undermines ,as 1. is about, something essential if a child is to progress. There’s an element of survival and avoiding pitfalls. 2. is simply about how subtle is the act of discrimination by civilised men and women, no matter how modest their circumstances are. It is entirely lost on the leftoid intelligentsia the sheer number of those of modest circumstances who do appreciate art of real aesthetic merit, do not need som pooh bah speaking at them about art and, more-over dictating to them what is or is not good art. Those same men and women exercise just as subtle judgment when it comes to their main priorities.

Discrimination on civilised lines, is not incidental, nor a feeling, neither is it universal, nor can it be taught except of formal matter, it’s acquired by the grind of experience through application to interests. This is the main point to what has been set out in Part A and above as also, discrimination entails intolelerance, rejecting what can be unacceptable or inadequate - it’s o.k but really, that is better for this purpose. Intolerance, therefore,is good, it is a mistake to demand tolerance of all and intolerance of nothing because tolerance is inseparable from the act of judgment. One rejects something because it cannot be tolerated. A screw a minute fraction out in diameter of the tolerance range is rejected because it is for a crucial component in an aircraft and must be of an exacting diameter. Commerical airlines reject pilots who cannot fly craft to specification, as do, of course, airforces. The demand for universal tolerance,as the Bracks Junta demands is, therefore, worse than the vulgar rubbish of stalinists, intolerance is fundamental to all of human action. The distinction is, common law and economic freedom has broadened tolerance and intolerance extensively, and given it an impetus entirely different than that of the tribal savage, refined it , made it a civilised virtue. What is intolerable to the religious man, the primitive tribal savage has no bearing whatsoever in civilisation, has no force at all.

Economic freedom, rule of law, absolute property rights, leaves anyone to believe what they wish to believe, so long as they keep in view the distinction between meum and tuum. The civilised basis of tolerance does, but not that of leftoids as so brilliantly illuminated by the Bracks Junta. Some-one may adhere to the mores of the primitive tribesman, however redefined as whether through, say, socialism or Islam, that is their business. When they try to foist it upon others by overthrowing property rights and common law, that is another matter, that is violence, that is forcing upon others your beliefs, beliefs peculiar to you. It is not lawful -This is, in the civilised world, real intolerance, the intolerance of the tyrant. It is real intolerance to demand the subjugation of others to meet the demands of particular interests including `community groups’. That is forcing upon the civilised to tolerate what cannot be tolerated at all, and with that, even forcing them to tolerate things which otherwise free, decent men and women would not tolerate at all.

The leftoid demand for `tolerance’ entails intolerance, since what it involves is some obscure, capricious notion of what are hurdles to tolerance. The hypocrisy is all the more insidious for, they tolerate not only things which only they approve of, but, they personalise it too: those tolerated are those who obey their dicta, and, as the Blasphemy witch sniffer’s inquisition, deliberately seek to find some excuse to throw into prison anyone they can accuse of blasphemy. Bracks’ blasphemy law makes the hypocrisy of commies plain as it also makes plain, what will not be tolerated is anything said which is not sychophantically given to those protected by the `blasphemy law’.

They, the Junta are liars , as well as hypocrites. On the second account, they are intolerant of anything which contradicts their commie notions and plans for Victorians. They are liars, because while committed to making the exercise of discrimination by anyone but themselves a criminal offence, they none-the-less exercise discrimination and make that the `law’ for all Victorians. Worse, while under common law if some-one’s judgment is flawed the ramifications are confined to only their interests, the Junta’s flawed judgements hold for the actions of any Victorian, including anything which the man in the street could find legitimately to be vile and rotten to the core. Take parental authority and guidance as illustrated above, `don’t be friends with that rotten little Bob or Jane’, that already has been undermined in schools, and the rot was started where one would expect it to appear first - Govt. schools, and since the 60’s things have degenerated to now, many govt. schools are3 really nothing more than playgrounf for little violent trained crims - and notice, bound up is with that socialist decree - all children have a `right’ to (`free-’) schooling. Yes, parents in Victorians are irate their authority has been undermined and usurped by `Govt.’ That is precisley one of the many vile ramifications of Bracks’s Bill of Rights.

The `Bill of Rights’ perfects what is already contained in the Blasphemy `Law’. Victorians are to subject themsleves to things which they not only might not tolerate but which cannot be be tolerated at all. One of the provisions is to place some selected interests, `commoonity groups’ /whatever the species of hooman wombat is, above the rule of law altogether. Victorians face the prospect they will have to tolerate and accept some criminals as being as virtuous as their neighbour or business colleagues, and not merely so tolerate them but regard the actions of some criminals as entirely lawful.

The Bill of Rights completes the communist vision of the Bracks Stalinist Junta. It lays out in common law rights are completely overthrown. It renders, effectively, every Victorian the property of the politicians, bureaucrats and judges. It effectivley eliminates all property rights. The ramification of the Bill of Rights is nothing less than a full blown communist police state and yet,as one has documented, this has been prepared for by much of the `legislation’ of the Bracks’ Stalinist Junta right back to their first 12 months in `govt.’ A Stalinist Police state in which what is intolerable is not at all the same as what is intolerable to the civilised,decent, man in the street. Bracks’ notion of tolerance is that of the savage. This takes us to the major and false belief of the socialistos as summed up under the rot of `mutli-culturalism’, the assertion of `culture’ over tradition. This false notion is a major error which was fully developed by the formidable philosophers, historians and theologians of the second half of the 19th century of Germany. Since many are familiar with Hegel, it is simplest to say, that error is fundamental to his `philosophy’.

Bound up with the false conception of `culture’ is the also false: Rousseuanian rot of the noble savage man; organist conception of man, with or without dualism, though it requires dualism; a complete misunderstanding of tradition and the function of tradition, mystoguogy instead of history; ignorance of economics. All these are foundational to Hegel’s pseudo-philopsphy. The false notion of cutlure is written into Bracks’ Bill of Rights, and it is fundamental to the load of shite called multi-culturalism. This requires a Part III.

To foreshadow the conclusion, after Part III, the mussie problem is fundamentally a matter of civilisation over primitive savage tribalism. How on earth could mussies, out to overthrow western civilisation, be let in and in large numbers to pose such a danger to Europe is bound up with the very matter of the ground of civilisation and its overthrow and this is the problem in Australia: The monstrous position of being forced to bow down to muslims by Steve Bracks and his Junta, and tolerating Islamo-fascists in Oz, who go round terrorising Melbournians, as well as Sydneyites, is bound up with precisely successive `govts.’, each tier, over-throwing absolute property rights and common law, so starkly amplified by the Bracks Stalinist Junta. No-one, in the civilised world, has to `understand’ and `respect’ any particular `culture’. What can be expected is, all will be informed and guided by the same general civilised, impersonal traditions, irrespective of what `culture’ some-one may be and, indeed, where some aspects of that `culture’ conflict with the grounds of civilisation, those aspects will be abandoned. Shria law is one such thing, just as primitive tribal custom ( not ,as some assert, `law’) , they have no place in a country in which the rule of common law prevails: or, rather, should prevail if it were not for socialisto politicians, bureaucrats and judges busily overthrowing Common Law for what is incipiently totalitarian rule prepared for by diktat, as amplified by the Stalinist Junta of Brackistaniland.

{ Needless to say, the comments by Howard and Costello has, pleasingly, sent the leftoids into another of their frequent fits of foaming at the mouth nervous breakdowns, and , it is about time the rubbish of multi-culturalism was met head on by politicians of th emajor parties. Funnier still, the Federal ALP , a real surprise, `supports’ Howard. How Federal ALP looks to Steve Jo Stalin Bracks on this score is a most interesting giggle of a question. }

Intolerance, against socialistos, is good:

Blessed is the man who is intolerant, for he will boot out the Stalinist Junta and all their hangers-on goon squads and squillions of bureaucrats and taxpayer kept good for nothing sookie, whining, socialist twerps, and over-turn all their rotten works and restore the Rule of Common Law and absolute property rights, and restoreth the name of Victoria from its current name, Brackistaniland.

The leftoid notion of tolerance is rubbish and it underpins `multiculturalism’. Sod that cretinous notion of tolerance - Sod, in that case, tolerance, I like being intolerant, intolerance is good, and intolerance is a an excellent habit to acquire.

Hypcorisy and Cowardice PartI was a preamble to something, else, in view of Bracks’ stalinist `blasphemy law’, which is to be superceded to the even more thorough `Bill of Rights’ - should it be passed. Some points raised in the preamble are central to the sound notion of tolerance:

The lie, freedom of speech is universal. Freedom of speech is not universal. Economic liberty and the great English tradition of the Rule of Common Law actually made freedom of speech possible, it is why from the end of the 16th century Oxbridge colleges advanced in leaps and boundss in science as against their European counterparts. It was the realisation, due to Common Law, freedom in scholarship nor science nor opinion posed a threat, commerce, and free association, are not threats to, in particular, govt., unlike on the continent. On the continent, and the Western European Press are in fact not free to publish, their articles are censored by the European absolutist socialisto govts. There is no freedom of the press in Western Europe. Freedom of speech and not just the press, is grounded in economic libery, beginning with uncrompromised property rights, including in oneself, and upheld and advanced by common law.

Do the leftoids who spout both platitudes make good what they promise, to fight for your freedom to say what you will, right or wrong? No, and it is pointed, for those who constantly spout contradict themsleves thoroughly. In the early 80?s , while spouting those platitudes, they leant their hand to enforce political correctness. Contrary to a gentleman who, a number of years ago, wrote in Quadrant, political correctness is annoying but harmless. No, it never was harmless, it was an insiidious effort to undermine sound advance in the humanities and the sciences. Professor Blainey is living proof of, the coup-de-tat against him by the student union and a number of tenured professors and lecturers,political correctness is not harmless. Worse, if he made the speech on immigration and multiculturalism today in Victoria rather than then, he would not be merely ousted from the University by leftoid thugs, he would risk being arraigned before the witch-sniffing court and face the prospect of being jailed by, Szoke, May Helou, Diane Sisely, and Judge Michael ?Vyshinski? Higgins.

One of the excellent characteristics of common law is, when the actions of two entities cross, say two neighbours or two companies,the reason for the crossed action can be rather neatly identified and an elegant theorem formulated which both parties can readily recognize is just. It holds for criminal cases, though those days are now long gone when even the criminal recognised `fair cop guv.? The overthrow of the rule of law, which has matched the onward onslaught of leviathan has made that a thing of the past.

One of the upshots of economic liberty, advance and, Rule of Common Law is, next to the fact actions so informed do not threaten peace nor do opinions, thus civilised men and women can abide of others a rather extroadinary array of things which are not tolerated in primitive tribal societies, and not under socialism and Islam either. The clerics( of the major denominations in Australia) oppose common law because,as one senior cleric said, it is a-moral, it serves no higher moral ends and doesn?t serve `social justice?. That oxymoron is all of a-piece with `higher moral ends, the bullshit of protean dictators. To the contrary, in that case, it is highly moral, it entails not only self-restraint, reliability of action and so forth, it entails tolerance, and common law is the source of the English sensibility called tolerance, and it serves the dignity of the individual exceedingly well, whereas tibalism and its other forms of socialism and Islamic theocracy do not at all.

So, tolerance is not universal, it is due to traditions which are superior to many others, common law, which is grounded in absolute property rights, inlcuding in onself, and thus covers freedom of contract. That is the root of `defamation rights’ too. Tolerance is not a `natural disposition’, it is not a sentiment, it is generated out of traditions which developed over centuries. Freedom of speech and tolerance of differing opinions is thus restricted by the very reasons for the generation of tolerance. What does the argument entail but, tolerance prevails between those who observe the same and similar traditions. There-in is one of the many falsehoods of the continental notion of Human Rights, it divroces rights from property and freedom of contract and depicts as a condecension by absolutist govt., in relaity politiicans and bureaucrats, as compensation for coercive rule. This underpins, until since Peel to the present, the major divide between Britain and common law countries and the continent, the individual on the continent is,effectively the property of `govt.’ and rights are rights of govt. over every individual. This distinction traces back to Henry II and why also the Catholic Church opposed the Ruleof Common Law and Henry’s innovation, the Sovereign/Executive shall be constrained by Common Law, will observe it, be guided by it, and that applied to taxation also. Until Sir Robert Peel, the Executive had no a-priori (divine) right to raise tax, a tax had to be passed by Parlaiment and on the basis of, it is restricted, and to be terminated. The reason: because taxation is sequestration of private property and thus violated fundamnetal prinicples of common law. Tax measures were not absolute `rights’ of `govt.’, not a `power’, were not permanent and raised only for emergency purposes, the, that is, only reason for what is falsley called govt., warfare.

Against the continent, the notion law is made, whether by a King or a parlaimentary excutive is foreign to common law, as also the notion of Judge made law , contrary to Justice Kirby whose view of ( Judge made ) law is nothing less than totalitarian. Kirby has damned himslef enough, his last effort, only the Consitution is a barrier to him and others seizing absolute power. Can Kirby’s position be more truthfully stated: he proposes the judicaiary commit treason and, besides ,effectively, the usurpation of parliament, treason as judiciary overthrowing the only extant tradition law and bastion of liberty , Common Law? Is it too harsh a word, treason? Well, that is exactly what the Bracks Junta is overtly about, treason, the B.o.R., will be the completion of their aim to overthrow the Rule of Common Law and the usurpation of the function of parlaiment, with the courts reduced to enforcers of the Junta’s many totatalitarian decrees. That is not law, that is criminal lawlessness paraded as law and that, Kirby, is what you too propose, but exercised by judges instead.

There is no doubt, State’s and Federal Consitutions have freed the judges of the restraints of common law, the articles detailing `powers’, inclusive of taxation, as some a-priori right of `govt’ over the property of others has exactly that force. Such articles have also loosed polticians from the restraints of common law, the original function of parlaiment as a court of common law testing actions of the executive and proposed actions according to principles of common law recast to the absolutist reality of executive and parliaments of Europe. It cannot be emphasized enough, the framers of State’s and Federal Constitutions took much of their inspiration from the continentals’ pseudo-philosophy of law and `govt.’, restrained in their eagerness only by the reality of common law and, then, conventions.The notion, for example, parlaiment must do the will of the people, as inscribed in tiles in the foyer of the Victorian Parliament House is a pin of specious special pleading for absolutist `govt’. `The will of the people’, as so much gnostic metaphysical rubbish in any case,is nothing more than the tyranny of a few relying on numbers tot, well precisley, to fly in the face of common law. Porectionism, and the IRC are nothiing more than gangsterism upheld only by the extent politicians and bureaucrats and judges weild real coercive power and indefiance of the Rule of Common Law.

No, Peter Costello, regulation is not the Rule of Law, it is a pin of absolutism. The tax regimes of each tier of govt. are a shocking violation of the rule of law on a large number of counts and it shows up, for example, in the ATO as effectively a secret police state goon squad.

Those of common law tradition are tolerant of others precisely because, their abolsute property rights are advanced through common law, and, in the special case for the use of coercive violence, advanced by the arrest, trial and execution of dangerous criminals, and of those who would overthrow the basis of liberty. Tolerance does not extend to usurpers of the very traditions in which freedom is grounded. It cannot be tolerated, for example, a large number of immigrants be let in who are, bascially , hostile to the rule of law and seek to overthrow it with something else.

Economic freedom and Common Law are thus a major pin of tolerance. The expansion of Leviathan since the end of WWII through the `welfare state ‘ to the all consuming mnonster that it is today illuminates the point well.The Coalition Parties and the ALP have done three things: fuelled dependency of rather many on Govt., establishing a large voting block which frees them to break common law and overthrow property rights. It comples many by the use of coerion to pay for things which they might not otherwise do volitionally. The `welfare state’ buries those in genuine need of ( volitionally given charity) under the weight of sheer numbers and with that, the help they might actually need is not necessarily forthcoming at all or, at best,inadequately. The `social welfare state ‘ has indeuced many to deliberately become mendicants,as the `sole parents’ pension has’ - viz, the sheer numbers of `mothers’ who deliberately got pregnant as teenagers to do just that.So: others have their property stolen by polticians to pay for stupid girls and their bastards, and/ or provide them abortions and so forth. That strips property off others who have their own interests to keep, including families. It forces many to fund that, even though, they would not do so.

`Welfare’ is also argued by the Coalition, not just the ALP, as some apriori `right’ govts. must enforce, and do so by overthrowing property rights and thus common law. It is not `tolerance’ which decides some to be tolerant of the `Welafre State’, it is the sheer violence of police state coercion by whih they are forced to abide things which they do not tolerate and would not tolerate of themsleves nor their own children. The trouble is, the constantly growing Leviathan has forced many who have been independent onto some level of dependency on govt. Leviathan corrupts civilised morals precislery because the weight and increasing weight of Leviathan drags so many down to their break-even point and worse. It is understandable why protectionist farmers, for example, don’t argue against welfarism, they cannot afford what would be the true charge of hypocrisy. On the other hand, they are hypocites: they whine they should not be taxed heavily while supporting measures which can only be met by hight tax exactions, and thus, socialist `farmers’ are really doing nothing more, out of their own interests, supporting their own impoverishment due to all consuming govt.

The welfare state, taken with protectionism, fiat ( forgers’) money, taxes, regulation, cripples the capacity of individuals and their families to order and secure their own priorities, as they are forced to support increasing hordes of the permanently indigent, and the demands of those who otherwise can look after themselves. To repeat, and those in genuine need of charity, inlcuding for medical services miss out or are buried in the morass of permanent mendicancy.The `unemployable youf’ is not a fiction. It has done worse than that, as Theodore Dalrymple regaled Spectator readers over, the Welfare State has advanced the mores of primitive savages, has ensured large numbers do not acquire civilised habits and observe civilised conventions. That is intolerable, and the man in the street would not, if free, not tolerate savages, savgery and the cultivation of svages through the welfare state. It is not tolerance which makes the man in the street tolerate the intolerable, it is coeriive plice state measures, inlcusive of `wlefare’, which forces them to have to endure the intolerable.It’s worse, though, since the 70’s, `welfare’ has been converted into automatic `rights’, and many who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of `welfare’, including `govt. schooling’ are now depicted as `victims of social injustice’.

“Victims”- aborigines, women, children of modest income earning parents , and any one who can be herded into a subgroup which can be depicted as a victim. Common Law has to be overthrown compensate all these victims of , well, victimhood. Had a bad childhood, and commit murder? Never mind, the judge blubs tears and agrees, the murderer is more vicitm than the murdered victim, the murder has done something horrible but, it’s o.k., the `govt.’ will `rehabilitate them’ upon which, after a few months in `prison’, they are released and commit another murder. Never mind, the now double murderer is still a victim and can still be `rehabilitated’. The `tolerance’ of socialist politicians, bureaucrats and judges, for the intolerable has worn out the tolerance of the man in the street, for murderers and the socialist politicians, bureaucrats and judges, more so because, depsite the claims of Bracks, Hulls, Holding and Nixon, under this Stalinist Junta, violent crime has increased, it is now unsafe to wlak in many suburbs of Melbourne. Some bedrock criminal applications of prinicples of common law have been overthrown and Melbournians are no longer for only the execution of violent criminals but for the execution of those who are responsible for this parlous state, the commie Junta and its politically correct `servants’. There is now no tolerance whatsover of the man in the street for any consideration of dangerous criminals whatsoever.

They, the man in the street is right to be intolerant, he is the one who faces the prospect he might be slayed, bashed, raped. His common law freedoms and property rights are overthrown while Mlebourne is made safe for violent criminals. That is why violent crimes are on the increase: the intolerable is made a virtue by the bloody Stalinist Junta and Judges of Victoria.