Mangled Thoughts

That’s all one can make of the CIS’s front-man’s response to my challenge and to Jackson’s effortless demolition of their atrocious campaign to bludgeon many Australians into the dust by carbon taxes.

It’s only taken a smidgeon over three days since I posted “The CIS fully supports destructive carbon taxes” for their front-man, Humphreys, to come up with this response:

You guys are obsessed.

1. a carbon tax will be bad for the economy

2. the petrol tax is bad for the economy

3. income tax is bad for the economy

Now I have a simple question for you — which is the worst? If you had to pick two, which two would you pick?

Personally, I think the whole concept of an income tax is quite stupid and I would like to move away from a system of taxing productive work.

If you replace a petrol tax with a carbon tax, then the carbon tax will have economic costs. But the costs previously created by the petrol tax will no longer exist.

“Obsessed”? That’s the sort of trite remark the IPA’s boy Chris Berg makes. This is a very serious matter; the well being of millions of Australians is at stake, and Humphreys comes out with a ’smart alecky’ crack. Bye the bye, there will be many Australians who will be “obsessed” with the consequences of the “tax of carbon credits and trading”, it will be named coerced unemployment and destitution. It’s simply not registering with the CIS what a carbon tax is and its wicked force.

There is something very odd about Humphreys’ response. He doesn’t answer my objections, and he hasn’t answered Jackson’s solid article. Evasion and diversion is the order of the day it seems.

The sticking point is what the CIS and Humphreys are campaigning for, carbon taxes. That carbon taxes are destructive of capital. That ‘carbon credits and trading’ is also a carbon tax. There is an irony since Humprheys has raised it, in his display of concern for employees and their chance of engaging in ‘productive work’:

Only capital raises the productivity of employees, and their pay packets. Income tax doesn’t change that crucial point. Smash capital and wages are cut, an absolute cut in pay rates, not in the nominal pay rate but in the real effective pay rate.

Smash capital and productivity of labour is savaged too. Moreover, there is nothing less productive than paying jobs wiped out due to a carbon tax. Only raising the ratio of capital increases the productivity of labour (and thus pay rates raised), but the CIS wants capital smashed through the fraud of a carbon tax ( irrespective of type).

Humphreys commits the fallacy of a false dilemma, the 3 bad taxes, ending with the question of ‘what would you pick’. This is evasion of what the real argument is. It is not a matter of picking a tax, it is a matter of attacking what is (another vicious) tax that smashes capital.

So, Humphreys’ expression of compassion for employees of firms, is false. Perhaps he would like to tell employees how he and the CIS and Rudd are being considerate of them by smashing capital and pay packets. Yes, Sir, that is real empathy for modest Australians.

It is worth pointing out, companies are already scrambling around, trying to work out how much damage they will incur. Then, for example, this:

Compo urged for power firms

The industry warns this could potentially wipe more than $10billion off the value of older coal-fired power stations, which are found mainly in NSW and Victoria.

That’s only a beginning, not the end of the destruction of capital.

Neither does Humphreys come to grips with the excuse for the imposition of what is a direct tax on capital, that ‘man causes global warming by co2 emissions’ is a lie. Not a shred of science supports it.

In the name of the lie, three former Liberal Cabinet ministers, David Kemp, Ian Campbell, and Malcolm Turnbull set about hitting capital with taxes and ‘alternative energy scams’, and smashing pay as a result. Now we have Kevin “Mussolini” Rudd and his cheer squad in the CIS and IPA baying for far worse than even what Turnbull contemplated ( and that was very savage as it was).

Let’s remind Humhpreys of a few things:

1. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is so small it is as good as zero. Human emitted Co2 is such a small percentage of that percentage of atmospheric gasses that it only shows how incomprehensibly inane the clamour over ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is. Inane, Humprheys, not science, it’s rubbish on the same plane as the belief in voodoo.

2. Plants emit by a great factor far more Co2 than man does, during the night. Ah, let’s burn all plants and trees instead.

3. Co2 does not form a ‘blanket’ that generates the effect the boosters of the lie claim. It cannot even begin to occur.

4. Co2 is continually reticulated. Co2 is constantly being dissolved in H2o and washed into the earth’s surface. From there it is absorbed into soils, forms dolomite and, basically does infinite work. It is the essential building block of plants, animals, and man - no Carbon, no brains. Co2 is simply carbon in its gas phase.

5. ‘Climate computer modelling’ models nothing. I have explained before in a long article, why. The so-called evidence is bogus. It’s a lie. ‘Climate modelling’ is a grotesque cost charged to real taxpayers so that computer buffs can write programs and see if they run - that is all that those charlatans preteding to be scientists are doing. It’s an expensive ‘playtime’ for brats.

6. Despite the claims of ‘scientific consensus’, science does not run on sentiment; it runs on critical skeptical inquiry, arriving at explanations of laws of physics, theory. It is an act of individual’s making discovery about the laws of the universe, and the body of theory is far from complete. Indeed, forget climate, scientists are far from arriving at exhaustive explanation of what might be assumed to be simple, weather patterns. How can claims be made about climate and what it will be when much about mere weather patterns remains a mystery?

The Grand lie rests on not one theorem of physics at all.

7. Thousands of scientists over the long years in which this fight has been pressed have signed petitions, given evidence in the US congress, and elsewhere on one singular point; the claim is a lie, not a shred of science underpins it. So, while there is no exhaustive account of climate yet, thousands of scientists are decided in this, the great lie is just that, a lie, and it is destructive of science.

8. The lie is destroying science, because ‘voodoo’ is being asserted instead of science, in schools and in ‘Universities’. It is a brainwashing progrom of which, as one has remarked previously, even former Liberal Party Ministers proudly boasted. How disgusting, and in the name of the Liberal Party to boot! What a pack of vicious cretins, that is all that I make of those ex ministers - they deserved to be booted out of office.

8. John Daly of, Still Waiting for Greenhouse, documented the petitions, and papers by thousands of scientists, a gallaxy of them very distinguished indeed. The left slimed Daly but where were the rightwing ‘free market think tanks’? Stone-cold silent. Here’s another site that punctures the voodoo purveyed as science, Errors in IPCC climate science

9. McIntyre and McKitrick demolished the complete fabrication by Mann the “hockey stick”. This lie was the bogus evidence on which that political fiction and not a science body, the IPCC based its lies.

10. The teleology involved in the lie is alone a flat contradiction of physics. It is a strict determinism which is outright rubbish, but with the edge of belief in magic - man manipulates the laws of physics, man controls climate.

11. The lie is a pseudo-hypothesis, and in the face of each solid argument against it, the charlatans shift the goal posts. First, it was man causes global warming. That was rubbery as it was, but it was quickly demolished by scientists. The boosters then changed it to the catch-all of ‘climate change’. For the benefit of the CIS and IPA, this alone is sufficient to damn an hypothesis let alone a pseudo-hypothesis built on a pack of lies.

I can muster up a number of those objections, and can refer to other sources and scientists for other crucial arguments, but the CIS cannot?

Oh, the HR Nicholls Society did bring Daly to Victoria once for one of its ‘conferences’. No one heard about it. I found out when it was all over. Why? It had nothing to do with fighting the left and boorish politicians. They dragged Daly out to make themselves feel good in another of their closed-door ‘aren’t we brilliant’ chat club sessions.

They wasted Daly’s time. They insulted that man, that is what that lot did. And we have the common denominator between the HR Nicholls Society, CIS and IPA, the likes of Hugh Morgan and Des Moore. Now, on a great lie, built on a stinking dung heap of voodoo, the CIS and Humphreys, proceed to campaign for a tax that destroys capital.

So, these self-styled defenders of liberty and classical economics, the CIS, and also the IPA, make two grotesque errors. They do not attack the lie, setting out why it is a lie, and do not attack those purveying it ( readers can check the IPA’s pulp for themselves). They compound that massive failure of intellect and spine by then ignoring true economic theory, on capital, by campaigning for measures that will immiserate Australians. They sink themsleves deeper in their own mire by posing the false dilemma quoted above.

It must be repeated, Humphreys cannot recognise a solid, classical economic analysis when it is flung in his face. I cannot now bring myself to regard that man as a free market economist at all. Even worse, instead of answering solid, sound economic reasoning, he smeared Jackson, who is a fine, solid classical liberal economist.

I looked at the “Libertarian” website on which Humphreys also pontificates, and all I can say is this:

Together the following have wrecked the solid, sound, cause of Liberalism and it is not another ideology:

The HR Nicholls Society
The Institute of Public Affairs
The Centre of Independent Studies.

We can add one more, the “Libertarian” website.

These types are wrecking the Liberal cause. What they did on labour market reform is a grievous example of how they are convincing many voters of what is incipient totalitarianism, socialism. And here we see the CIS, Humphreys, and the “Libertarians” at it again. What a pack of moronic dopes. The only side this lot serves is the left.

What is even more amusing about Australia’s rightwing is, they never attack, nor confront the left. Indeed, they mostly take great pains in apologising to them for saying things leftists don’t like. Australia’s rightwing energetically smear genuine Liberals instead and here is the ironic twist:

As we have seen, Humphreys completely misrepresented Jackson’s article, calling it a ‘weird rant’. Australia’s right-wingers complain against genuine Liberals for being ‘disloyal’. Humphreys’ false description sums up what the Rightwing mean by ‘disloyal’:

Any genuine Liberal who objects to what they assert for solid reasons is disloyal. Any genuine Liberal who does not accept what they write is disloyal. Anyone, who dares challenge them is disloyal. In the Victorian Liberal Party, any member who objects to Kroger, Costello and their stick-puppets is disloyal, and must be punished as David Kemp made plain.

What does loyalty have to do with things, when what is at stake is serious principles and grave matters? Evans, Moore, Morgan, Kroger, Costello, and their stick puppets epitomise this obnoxious hypocrisy of Australia’s rightwing.

They don’t like being challenged. They don’t like hard-edged debate. What they do is, when they cannot control others, they hide, or smear others, and, finally fall silent and return to their cosy, expensive rooms, in which they hide from the public.

This is the crew, a narrow gene pool who wrecked the campaign for labour market reform, wrecked the Liberal Party and now they want to bring even greater destruction upon all Australians via Carbon taxes. On the “libertarian” website, there is another example of how to stuff the case for free labour markets. That lot are missing what is required, a solid, thorough grip on classical, Liberal economic theory, and that is, apparently, beyond them.

That is the moral compass of the CIS. That is their great intellectual endeavour. That is their great endeavour to engage the public ( by spitting on them). That is how that lot fight the left, by handing the left victory after victory, by making a mockery of classical Liberalism and burying it under a heap of mud they dug up and pretend is penetrating, hard edged analysis and attack.