The answer to profiteering is the free market, since profitable industries mean they are supplying what lots of people want, so attract competition. The real unfair monopolistic profiteering comes when the industry allies with government to keep competition out, e.g. by protectionism and regulation.

Burt Folsom’s books Empire Builders and The Myth of the Robber Barons are most instructive. Folsom points out that many an anti-capitalist “fails to separate market entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed by creating and marketing a superior product at a low cost, and political entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed by using government to give them an advantage.”

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

The issues that upset me the most and ultimately lead to my departure from the NP were the way the Party sold out gun owners to Howard’s draconian sporting-gun bans, and the ambivalence shown toward issues like abortion and the homosexual activist agenda.

Ewan McDonald.

There is a strong reason why I do not side totally and unconditionally with capitalism. It is because modern capitalism over the last few hundred years is very different to earlier forms of it.
As for socialism and communism I reject them as far far worse of course. I do not equate them but I do believe in a capitalism that is modified and subordinate to objective moral laws and to the teaching of the sovereignity of Christ the King It is still ‘on the books’ if you like but has been shouted down due to modern forms of ’social justice’ ( allegedly) hijacking from not only socialists but also from economic and amoral liberalist thought. In other words the inteventionism I have in mind is part of the unfolding 2000 year Church Tradition with especial reference to the pre Vatican II developments from the late 1890s from Pope Leo XIII onwards.
I actually reject the economics of the bankers and mercantilists and the trading models of post Reformation Holland and Britain. God was dethroned at worst or at ‘best’ quarantined to hearing lip service from the modern nation States by being privatised more and more by the exaggerations in the false holy cow called the ’separation of Church and State’. Govts and business worked hand in hand to remove Christ as King over them and replaced Him with themselves instead.
Michael Webb

While capitalism is accused of rewarding selfishness, in reality, while capitalists may be selfish, they need to please their fellow man to succeed. The error of the Left is to presume that politicians and bureaucrats are not equally selfish. But their selfishness is not channeled constructively into service of their fellow man. Worse, it’s not just that power corrupts, but it attracts those already corrupted power-hunger.

It’s already been cited on this site, but here is link to an article on the book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay Richards and his lecture on the topic. He argues that “third way” advocates don’t really understand economics.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

I try not to ‘gripe’ too often; but one matter that resurfaces as a concern constantly is when people ‘obviously’ filter their faith-based worldview through their potlical allegiances (rather than the other way around). I say ‘obviously’ because, in truth, I think we all inadvertently suffer this malady at some time and in some way.

I guess it’s a constant reminder that we’re ‘in the world but not of it’ and we need constantly to check ourselves against the truth rather than the program!

Paul Russell

Yes Ewan, I too do not take Family First seriously. I like the CDP and have been giving it my vote until I discovered that the DLP was still around and at the last Federal election voted DLP in the Senate. I then contacted them and joined. I am an interventionist though. I am however opposed to Rudd’s too huge and misdirected spending. For me the two stimulus handouts to households were far far too big. Also I take parliamentarians seriously and find it most unprofessional of the current ALP Govt to have been so slow in implementing infrastructure spending. Further, I would say that the amount of money they are offering( and begging) both public and private schools to take off their hands is crazy stuff. Cardinal Pell is deeply concerned that they are offering too much money that the Catholic school system doesn’t even need!
Of course during the Howard years not enough was spent developing infrastructure during the boom. Hence our surplus was too big. Govt , to my way of thinking, is about keeping a tiny bit of surplus but not running up billions in surplus just to boast. In fact much of the surplus we once had until recently was the ill gotten gains of sell offs of government businesses and utilities. They fetched a good price which proves that govt service businesses eg Commonwealth Bank, the old GIO (insurance) in NSW , electricity in Victoria were all great for us when in govt hands. Now base load power, maintenance etc gets run down under private control for profits beyond what the new owners deserve IMHO.

As for the National Party amalgamting with the Libs for survival, well I think it is a bad thing if the Libs have the upper hand on policy direction. The Nats have gone backwards due to their refusal to listen to rural voters going back many years eg country people wanted Telstra to be fully Govt owned. I agree with the country voters there and that along with many other free market polices of the Libs is why the average National Party voter deserted them for ONE NATION and Pauline Hanson. Ron Boswell needed to listen to Hanson and the majority of rural voters during her time of influence. Boswell and those like him refused and suffered and deserved the loss of voters to Pauline. SO Ewan if the Libs have the upper hand then I’m afraid it is more of the same old/same old ill treatment to be meted out to the poor ol’ rural voters yet again.

Now remember that before RU486 a few years back teh Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory under Marshall Perrin wanted to introduce euthanasia. It was largely due to Robert Balzola- ALP staffer, Tony Burke ALP MP, John Murphy ALP MP and Kevin Andrews Liberal Party who worked on defeating this proposal.
One other important point Ewan is that conservatism or more importantly social conservatism is not the the preserve or monopoly of any side of politics. That is a myth to be wary of. Family values, pro life etc is not owned by any one side. I think that the acknowldgment of the dignity of committed Christians who are socially conservative can be found on both sides. It is not their fault that pretend Christians, pagans and other secularists have hijacked the ALP over the years.
Social conservatism meaning to value and preserve life form womb to tomb, and all the other life and moral issues is held by many a church goer no matter what side of politics they vote for. The trick is get people to either reclaim the Party fo their choice or to offer them something in keeping with what most closely aligns with their views on other issues too. If someone feels comfortable with economic rationalism, privatisation and reducing workers to casual hourly rates and other impoverisment measures and votes ‘conservative’ or Liberal Party for those very reasons to maintain and grow their wealth excessively, they should not play the Christian card and patronise good decent Labor folk that in order to be right with God they should vote for the side that wants to give them a s bad economic deal. Such pretend Christianity is a cousin to the socialist Left and pragmatic ALP Right who give us their pretend ’social justice Christianity’ which is another form of pretending.

May we all point out all pretenders as part of improving our culture for Christ. On both sides.
Michael Webb

I agree that too many Liberal/National MPs (State and Federal) are pseudo-conservatives and yes that was very evident during the debate to legalise the human pesticide RU486. What really needs to happen is for the National Party to amalgamate with the Liberals, and this would maybe then provide the opportunity for a new genuinely conservative party to fill the void left by the once conservative National Party. Kind of like the way the PCA benefited from the formation of the UCA, when the liberals in the former joined the latter leaving the conservatives in the PCA to get on with the job.

Ewan McDonald.

His mother attended an abortion clinic in London when she was pregnant with James but was told that the pregnancy was too far advanced to be aborted (abortionists in those days must have been a little bit less enthusiastic for their work). He was fostered out and reunited with his mother when he was a little older and she was more able to look after him. Not unsurprisingly then that he is anti-abortion. He has stated that he will leave the ALP before he is forced to vote for abortion and will publicly stand against it.

We should encourage politicians of all ilks to express anti-abortion stances, seek permission to quote them widely and then hold them to it.”

As above, James has given me permission to relay this story and I will certainly hold him to his commitment publicly.

Graeme Cumming

I support anyone joining the party of their choice if they beleive and do the right thing according to Christ’s teachings. I do however have a strong preference and urge people to join the DLP instead. Strategically, to get elected to Upper Houses at Federal but more particuarly and practically much relatively ‘easier’ into State Parliaments. It is a hrd battle but State Upper Houses’ quotas systems are easier than Federal level.

One example for you Ewan. If you look at say Greg Donnelly in the NSW Upper House; he is ‘old Labor’ and is not only seen at Australian Family Association functions but is found at many other church functions for pro life, pro natural marriage forums etc and votes the right way to prove his worth. It is good guys like this that we in the DLP support. After all the DLP is really just the old ALP minus the nonsense of political correctness and of far left chaos in the unions. Electorally we would prefer to hold the name ALP but both Parties cannot, hence D-LP.

‘Anti-biblical’ can be taken two ways Ewan. It can be and I am sure there are areas we share in common; the term can also be used when making one’s own private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures (often subconsciously) in areas where the Church has often not decided and left up to us to make our prudential judgments on. Of course I agree with you where being ‘biblical’ means relating to non negotiables on doctrine as decided by the Church to which we all must sign on to and where private interpreation plays a neglible part or no part at all depending on the words of definition and the presence of solemn manner and of repetition with which Councils from Jerusalem, Nicea et al to the present day call us to obedience.

The rank and file of the ALP sadly do NOT count in the estiamtion of the Party leadership Ewan. Example: at the recent NSW ALP State Conference a ratio of 7:1 opposed privatisation of NSW electricity. Guess what Ewan. The then Premier Morris Iemma and most of his Cabinet decided to push it through despite threats fo expulsion from the Party and despite the vote of 7:1 ratio against them. This is how they treat ordinary rank and file. So this sad situation of disdain for ordinary party members- the rank n’ file would occur on many other issues including pro life too.
The rank and file would also need to speak amongst themselves to find legal means to sack party officials – both parliamentary or adminstration staff who often hold the power on behalf of powerful lobbies to really clean out the Party root and branch. I don’t see this happening but I do wish good guys and gals eg Greg Donnelly and women who refuse to join the Emily’s List (yep there are ALP women who refuse to join them).
I joined the DLP because it already has a terrific pro Christian heritage and Constitution and set of polciies to match. It is neither of the Right (ie the unprincipled pragmatic right – read unprincipled) nor of the Left (socialist). The DLP avoids such extremes, relying instead on sensible govt intervention based upon solidarity and subsidiarity etc.
Michael Webb