Poverty and Trade

The adjective ‘left-wing’ is about as broad a term as you can get when categorising political and economic philosophies. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the world and how human affairs should be managed. Its meaning has also changed over the years, varies from place to place, and even from person to person. People have told me that Hugo Chavez is left-wing, but so is Barack Obama. That Green Left Weekly is left-wing, but so is The Economist. However, despite the breadth of the category, there are some aspects that are common to all those with a left-wing viewpoint.

One of the traditional self-defining features of left-wing thinking is a concern for the poor and disadvantaged. In fact, it could be described as the core principle from which the majority of their social prescriptions are derived. It is used as a justification for all sorts of nominally remedial government action, from unemployment benefits to restrictions on how we trade with other nations, which is the area I want to touch on this time.

Poverty comes in two flavours – relative, and absolute. Both are fuzzy sets, meaning there is no hard and fast rule about whether someone is relatively poor or absolutely poor. By convention, and for the purposes of this post, relative poverty is what we get in developed nations – falling beneath a certain standard of living. This is often expressed as a large fraction of average income, such as the Henderson Poverty Line. Absolute poverty, on the other hand, is the kind found in developing countries – people with little or no access to the basics, struggling just to survive.

Ask an Australian who identifies as left-wing about which kind of poverty is more important to alleviate, and they will respond with the obvious – the poorest should take priority. Yet if you then ask how they feel about trading with them, most likely they will give the standard left-wing answer that there should be restrictions on how that is done, that free trade is not acceptable.

Barr/Root, showing the way.

From Libertarian Republican.

Reports from the Bob Barr blog and scattered reports from the field indicate that the Libertarian Party will be handing in over 15,000 signatures to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office later today. The number of signatures exceeds the required number to get Bob Barr and Wayne Root on the ballot for President and Vice-President. Though, the validation process still needs to be completed by the SOS.

 If reports hold up, this will put the LP in a very good position for 49 state ballots plus DC and Guam, with an outside shot of all 50. Oklahoma is the one state unlikely to have the ticket on the ballot, though a lawsuit is still pending. West Virginia was clearly the most difficult of all the ballot drives.

 I am really impressed by the way the LP has at long last come up with mainstream candidates who are able to relate to moderate America and appeal to those voters who are looking outside the major parties. Had they stood the usual sort of dropkick policy wanks, their enthusiastic campaigners probably would have still got the ballot numbers (they’ve done it before) but would have been looking at another less than million vote thrashing.

 This time they will probably pull 3-5 million.

Barr/Root are pretty much all a libertarian could ask for in a candidate, except of course they are a bit soft on defense which is unfortunate, a bit like a muscle car with a ten liter tank, or a F350 without a gun rack in the rear window.

What is left and what is right?

I’m not a fan of poofs. That’s not to say I dislike gays in general; I have no concerns about gay couples who simply live together like Justice Michael Kirby and his partner. What I am referring to is your openly gay, “look at me” type poof. The ones who more or less advertise their sexuality. The ones who like to shock us with their risque behaviour, especially when they suggest it is exciting and tempting to be like them.

Why am I not a fan? First, I like women. In a sexual context, I prefer all women to all men. There isn’t a man I’ve met who I’d prefer to have sex with than any women. I admit I’d rather not have sex with some women, but there is no bloke I’d prefer in that situation.

Introducing “left v right”

Hello. And welcome to a new Australian political blog with a twist. Most political blogs are consistently “right-wing” or “left-wing”. In contrast, this blog will pitch a team of “right-wing” bloggers against a team of “left-wing” bloggers. The constant theme is that all authors are supporters of the political party — Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP).

The LDP is a new type of political party that is neither right-wing nor left-wing… which is why it attracts people from both sides of the political spectrum. Instead, the LDP stands for greater freedom, tolerance and an open society — libertarian ideas. These are ideas that cross over the right-left divide.

All LDP “left v right” bloggers support a free open society. But they do so from very different perspectives. One side comes from a “right-wing” or “conservative” (or “redneck”) perspective, while the other group “left-wing” or “progressive” (or “trendy wanker”) perspective.

The ”right” team includes Jim Fryar and David Leyonhjelm.

The “left” team includes Jarrah Job and Shem Bennett.

Let the battle begin…