Comments on: Missing Link Daily

By: Bill Posters

Bill Posters — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:10:24 +0000

If Mirko’s client Tony Mokbel is getting argument of that quality in his defence he’d best prepare for a long stint in the big house.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:13:54 +0000

Nope, I can’t get to JQ either. He was fine a couple of days ago – in fact, was loading extra quickly. Sometimes that presages disaster…

By: NPOV

NPOV — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:54:29 +0000

BTW, I assume it’s not just me that can’t access JQ’s site?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:52:44 +0000

Why do you have so many anti-American and anti-Israel posts in your line up? Why are you guys always boosting the enemy?

By: gilmae

gilmae — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:11:41 +0000

You were that guy?

By: Gummo Trotsky

Gummo Trotsky — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:10:16 +0000

Jeremy,

My error. I blame Monday’s encounter with … (double bass pedal note) … public dentistry.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:02:31 +0000

(BTW the second Joshua Gans link is still wrong.)

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:01:31 +0000

Patrick, I’m perfectly OK with allowing adults to form whatever groupings they like and conceive and rear children in such groups – the problem comes once a government is seen to sanction a practise that has traditonally been arguably somewhat degrading to women. Certainly no government would want to be seen to be legalising polygamy because of the demands of Muslim males.
If women and men were equally forthcoming in demanding the right to marry polygamously I’d be with them all the way.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:27:37 +0000

I wonder what our resident libertarians have to say on the matter.

In principle, I acknowledge that there is an argument for gay, polygamous or whatever marriage and doubt than any of them is inherently worse for ‘the kids’ than an other – presumably all are on average better than single motherhood.

In practice, I prefer the traditional monogamous union, however badly it seems to be practiced. But I don’t think my preference is strong enough to legislate it.

But I don’t know if I qualify as a libertarian except by contrast with NPOV

By: JM

JM — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:13:05 +0000

“and the Democrats are better than the Greens, Family First, or that no pokies guy from South Australia.”

Which is an interesting viewpoint, to which I can only retort “GST. Meg Lees”

By: gilmae

gilmae — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:06:12 +0000

Legal Eagle gives a slap to the notion that judges making precedent is unprecedented. Or necessarily wrong. (With apologies to Ms Eagle for the lack of link. And ashamed glances in the direction of mum; won't happen again.) The law is a a moving, unknown beast. I know that sends terror into the heart of all and sundry, but the fact of the matter is that the law changes and shifts with time (generally slowly, but it does). Otherwise we could still apply decisions from 200 years ago and not bother with any new decisions. The law has to shift or else it becomes unjust, calcified in precedent, and unable to adapt to changing circumstance.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:44:36 +0000

Have our legal posts dropped off the Troppo radar? LE did a beauty on Janet Albrechtsen’s attemts to wade in on the law of restitution: http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/06/poor-old-keith-mason/

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:10:43 +0000

oops you’re right NPOV. I’ve deleted the item on the Newspolls. Read the feed reader too fast.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:08:56 +0000

“If it bothers him that much, maybe he should take piano lessons.”

No need, Gummo, the post actually linked to YouTube of me bashing away.

By: gilmae

gilmae — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:33:15 +0000

NPOV: You are correct about the link, yes. ^C, why did you forsake me?

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:29:02 +0000

Um…”Newspolls also show the Coalition 10 points in front in Victoria and Queensland”…unless I’m missing something, the Newspolls show the reverse of this.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:24:21 +0000

Because of a historical tradition of strongly male-dominated societies. The degree of male domination is likely to naturally break down over time anyway (as it has among Christianity-based cultures), but allowing polygamy is only likely to encourage a step backwards. And I would argue that this would significantly reduce freedom of choice for many women.

What happened to your second ‘e’, BTW?

By: John Grenfield

John Grenfield — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:18:51 +0000

Remember, most of the differences in gender outcomes in our society are freely chosen.

By: John Grenfield

John Grenfield — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:18:10 +0000

NPOV

What does it matter if the outcome is not gender-parity? Surely the only concern should be freedom of choice?

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:12:03 +0000

Your “why it may not be appropriate to include petrol” link appears to be wrong…it goes to Peter Martin’s blog. I’m guessing it shoudl be to this:
http://economics.com.au/?p=1589.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:08:34 +0000

Anyone see the article about Muslim leaders proposing that polygamy should be legalised in Australia?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-sheik-backs-calls-to-legalise-polygamy-20080625-2wv9.html

I wonder what our resident libertarians have to say on the matter. FWIW, I can’t really find myself supporting it with the knowledge that it will inevitably lead to a large number of men with multiple wives, and very little chance of the reverse occurring. Otherwise, in principle, I don’t have a problem with any number of adults deciding they wish to consider themselves “married”, though the problems it would cause regarding taxation and government benefits would be considerable.