Mark Latham vs. John Howard

[Bolsheviki]

So, who's the candidate for you? It doesn't matter if you're Australian or not, it's a hypothetical question. If the voting began tomorrow, who would you vote for to lead Australia? The steady, known quantity that is Howard, or the intelligent, brash Latham?

Personally, I am a Latham man. I don't agree with the war (I'm a Utilitarian) and I think that John Howard lies more than most politicians (which is quite an acheivement). Latham has his head screwed on and his policies too.

[PatrickHenry]

Hey Bolsheviki: What's a Utilitarian?

Howard a bigger liar than GW Bush? Unh, unh...Our liar can beat your liar any day!

Seriously, when's your election and what are Latham's chances? If Howard thinks war is good he's a loser in my book...

[John]

Latham will put Australia where all the previous labor leaders had us. In extreme debt with a ruined economy (especially with simon crean as shadow treasurer) and a vastly undermanned, underfunded military.

Personally, I hate labor, I think they are nothing but scum. Latham is an unaustralian hypocritical gutless coward who copies state of the union speeches to use for himself because they sound good and he cant come up with his own material.

Hey Bolsheviki,

Welcome. I guess I'd have to vote for anyone against Mr. Howard. I couldn't give a damn about Australia (I'm sure it's nice ), but Howard is a Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, etc.

If Howard drops, Blair will, and Italy eats their PM, it makes Mr. Bush's "coalition of the willing" look like a bad game of risk.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Hey Bolsheviki: What's a Utilitarian? Howard a bigger liar than GW Bush? Unh, unh...Our liar can beat your liar any day! Seriously, when's your election and what are Latham's chances? If Howard thinks war is good he's a loser in my book...

libertarianism has some Utilitarianism in it.

utilitarianism  SYLLABICATION: u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism NOUN: 1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility. 2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. 3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.

where the philosophy breaks down is at its core: the 'value' of a thing is NOT determined by its utility - 'value' is not objective and is not constant - it is wholly subjective and is determined by the morals/principals/needs/wants of each individual. Market 'value' is the aggregate valuation of all folks involved in the market - a truely correct democracy since value has a cost and thus reflects actual choices of acting humans, whereas a 'voting' democracy suffers from votes being costless and anonymous.

"The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."One person simply cannot gauge the 'happiness' or even some sort of quantitative quality of happiness in an effort to gauge correct action.

Honest and informed utilitarians would be libertarians by default, realizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people can only come about through rights protections and the free market...

michael

[John]

Originally posted by dotComa, Hey Bolsheviki, Welcome. I guess I'd have to vote for anyone against Mr. Howard. I couldn't give a damn about Australia (I'm sure it's nice ), but Howard is a Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, etc. If Howard drops, Blair will, and Italy eats their PM, it makes Mr. Bush's "coalition of the willing" look like a bad game of risk.

Thankfully a lot of the Australian public don't look at it that way. Australia is an aging population which has seen what previous labor governments have done to Australia and considering they are the bulk of the population Howard should win, and also the fact that he is a monarchist, which a lot of the older population is.. Howards stance on the Iraq has won him votes here if anything, at first out of all the coalition of the willing, Australia supported the war the most. Howard currently holds an election winning lead in the polls(which i know dont mean much). Howard will win the next election in a landslide.

[giuliano]

i'm undecided. i think howard campaigns on a sleazy platform. he won the last election to a large extent on his border protection policy (keep the asians and muslims out). no matter what your opinion of that policy, it is not a major issue in the grand scheme of things. he milked it tho.

latham is trying to do the same thing now by jumping on the back of the anti-US/bush/war wagon. trying to recruit peter garrett is a prime example of that. would latham have tried to recruit garett in october '01? no way

i can never decide who to vote for

[John]

Originally posted by giuliano, latham is trying to do the same thing now by jumping on the back of the anti-US/bush/war wagon. trying to recruit peter garrett is a prime example of that. would latham have tried to recruit garett in october '01? no way

And the labor supporters dont want garret to just walk into the kingsford smith electorate. Latham has basically said he dosnt care and garret will be the member. Labor could lose votes there. Latham thinks Garret will be his ace of spades for the election.. I think not.

[giuliano]

i suspect garret will decline the offer.

it's not really labor supporters who are against i didn't think, but branch members.

labor aren't far enough left tho for garret's views, i agree latham may have miscalculated that.

[Compugasm]

I wonder why the coalition is such a big deal in other countries? Itally was high up on the list in participation, with only 2700 troops. What is AUS contributing that makes it an election issue?

[John]

The previous labor governments before howard.. Paul Keating and Bob Hawk. Were the worst thing that could happen to Australia:
- A $96 billion debt
- $10.3 billion budget deficit
- 17% interest rates
- 10.9% unemployment

Originally posted by Compugasm, I wonder why the coalition is such a big deal in other countries? Itally was high up on the list in participation, with only 2700 troops. What is AUS contributing that makes it an election issue?

Of course it's a US election issue. I don't care if Australia commits 1 canoe to the coalition, it shows support for what we're doing despite the lack of UN support. It helps justify what Mr. Bush is doing in my opinion.

[John]

Originally posted by Compugasm, I wonder why the coalition is such a big deal in other countries? Itally was high up on the list in participation, with only 2700 troops. What is AUS contributing that makes it an election issue?

At the height of the war we had about 1200 troops there.. Including 200 elite SAS troops. We now have around 850 troops, mainly air traffic control and a company of infantry from 2RAR and APCs from 2CAV for VIP protection.

The Iraq war will have some impact on the election but i dont believe it will be the deciding factor, unlike it probably would be in the U.S

[giuliano]

interesting becuase in fact it was the aussie SAS troops who were ahead of the US troops into iraq. SAS guys were sending GPS coordinates for targets ahead of the main advance.

as others have said, the aussie contribution is largely symbolic. it's relevant to aussie politics, as it stamps the howard govt as a supporter of the WoT and the war on iraq. it helps bush by adding to the credibility of his "coalition of the willing" tag, which in turn makes him look more like a liberator than hitler blitzkrieging across europe :)

[castille]

I'm not registered to vote. However John Howard is a sexy man, so I will tell all my friends to only vote for him.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would vote for whomever understood and valued liberty, and sought to instill that in every facet of government.

Does either fit the bill? If not, vote in someone who does.

[Bolsheviki]

John, it sounds like you don't appreciate Labor governments too much. Economics seems to be your main problem; why ignore human rights and ethical values?

John Howard doesn't seem to like Easterners too much: he either locks them up in the desert, allows them to drown or supports GWB in bombing them.

John Howard has done very well for the economy, some Labor governments haven't. Why do you apply short term experience to all governments? You see, in economics there are long-term cycles: Kondrateiff Waves. I don't know how much economic knowledge you have, but it is quite clear that these Kondrateiff Waves are quite difficult to control under a fiat currency, unless some serious market manipulation and fraudulant behaviour is displayed. So, it seems to me that any government that hasn't pereptuated an inflating economy that can barely sustain itself, is one that understands the system and knows that in such a system, to perpetuate and disallow a deficit to be produced quickly, is to ruin the economy even more. You see, if one perpetuates the excessive printing of money (such as the Bush government is doing), one sets the economy up for not merely a recession, but a depression. The Labor governments did a good job, now Howards riding boom after boom, until eventually it shall bust.

Think a little bit more long-term. Remember the transition from the booming 20's to the depression of the 30's. Soon, you wont have to remember it, a similar scenario will be played before your very eyes. Unfotunately, Latham will get in, just as John Howard's boom economy is going bust. You won't remember our little talk and you'll blame it all on Labor.

[John]

Hmm, you gave credit to the Howard government for doing good work with the economy and then you say the economy is good because we are in some sort of good economic cycle?

So are you saying that Australia's good economy is due to previous labor government efforts? And if labor gets in and the economy goes bad it is because the good economy boom has done its cycle?

I could just as easily say that the good economy is due to a good government and great treasurer, and if labors bad economy goes bad it is entirely their fault and nothing at all to do with any kind of economic trend..

Seems to be a bit more than a coincidence that labor governments have a bad economy when they are in power whereas coalition governments have a good economy when they are in.

For what it's worth I am 100% behind the Howard governments stance in illegal immigrants. I do not like Mark Latham's ideas of just leaving the door open to anyone as he was quoted saying. Once the word got out that Australia accepted any refugee they will come here in droves.

[Bolsheviki]

In economics, we speak of cycles. Governments can slow a cycle, they can alter a cycle to a certain extent, but in the end a government can never halt a natural progression or regression.

As for Howard's immigrant stance. It gives no consideration to Australia's duty as a fertile and economically viable country- a duty to help those less fortunate than us. It is altruism. Fight as you might, profess egoism and even quote Rand for all I care. Egoism is the product of those who do not understand that all ideologies or creedences if you will, from Islam to Christianity and even (if not especially) a Nietzschian style survival of the fittest, altruism is the only way to progress as a species and as a society.

John Howard is a small time lawyer who happened to make it big in politics. Heck, he was an awful politician for over 10 years in his early days. He's a slow learner. John Howard just got lucky; he got given a chance. John Howard won't give anyone else a chance at living a deserved lifestyle.

[Vee]

well the point is now moot since Howard won with an increased majority but the war wasn't a big issue either as many suspected

I could balance John's Labor argument and explain why Howard is or was at least originally benefiting from Hawke/Keating economic reforms but John whom I assume is an ideologue with either dismiss me for a Labor supporter or just dismiss me

simply put for the Americans - Labor = democrats (social issues) and Liberal = republicans (greedy corporations and economics)

the left have moved considerably to the right in the past 20 years and the right have moved considerably to the left - both parties now are more or less centrists