Liberal or Labor? (or other) (1 Viewer)

[ihavenothing]

The Liberal Party represents quite a narrow sector of the population, and hence I don't believe it acts in the interests of the general public.

Which would lead me to support the ALP, if it were not for it being close to indistinguishable in policy terms. Cynical, incompetent traitors to the social democratic movement like Beazley, Iemma, Bracks, etc just add to the party's unelectability. The ALP's patheticness just adds to the public's perception of the political class as a bunch of cynical and dishonest freeloaders.

Who's left? I'm not convinced of the Green's depth of economic and social policy beyond environmental grandstanding. The Democrats are admirable in some respects but are basically irrelevant. I don't know who to vote for.

Agreed. The political scene in the ALP are too conservative and won't take a chance that may reward them, ie Gillard.

 

[gerhard]

lets start the new democrats

 

[ihavenothing]

I prefer the term the Progressives

 

[withoutaface]

You know that social justice has a different definition and that it cannot be reconciled with the other view of justice. So why ask it?

Procedural justice would ensure that everyone was treated exactly the same regardless of anything. To make an employer pay more than he or she has to according to the market is unjust because he is playing by the procedural rules of the market.

Social justice is more concerned with abstract notions of fairness. Mainly because procedural justice, in the sphere of society, tends to destroy it. Treatment of people totally according to hard market principles eventually destroys society or the collective. Whether you recognize the notion of 'society' or not, to the great majority of people, it still is a great source of comfort and mutual benefit to everyone.

I honestly hope you don't take advantage of anything whereby you receive a benefit as a result of a policy supported by social justice. However I'm pretty sure you use Medicare and take advantage of student concessions.

The fact that I will have to pay medicare levies means that I am forced to use it, or pay for my health care twice. Same deal with student concessions.

 

[withoutaface]

Those who forget the disadvantages of the totally free market tend to get lost in ideology land like the fundamentalist socialists who start to cry when anyone says ‘market’. What’s the difference between blinkered free market people who want to apply market principles to old people, foot paths and the whole of the medical system and a die hard socialist who refuses the recognize the benefits of the market? Nothing, they are both idiots stuck in their ideological and theoretical world, which unknown to them, isn’t the real world.

The general trend shows that as a society's economy approaches a genuine free market, the quality of life of its citizens decreases. That, along with the fact that various forms of socialism have been implemented all over the world and had generally poor results means that there is evidence socialism probably doesn't work, whereas there's evidence from places such as Chile in the first few years of the Pinochet government (i.e. before the IMF and various other lefties interfered) that there were massive amounts of growth, lower unemployment etc.

 

[transcendent]

Lets not pay for health. Lets just outsource it to a big corporation. Then you can pay for that massive surgery you want with all that extra money you have lying around. Or you could always mortgage your property. I guess I'll do without the surgery that and eating for the next 24 months. Oh wait, if I don't get that surgery, how am I going to work to pay it off? What to do, what to do... you wouldn't have happened to actually STUDY the benefit and complications of privatising the health care sector would you? Cause if you have I'd love you hear to oh so rational arguement on the benefits of economic rationalism. I personally don't mind paying for health care. I much prefer to pay tax then deal with insurance companies.

 

[gnrlies]

Liberal, but libertarian rather than conservative.

Why? I hate the handout policies of the left. I think a system of welfare is inherently flawed and creates a culture of dependence on the government teat. Government-funded IVF? Benefits just for having kids? No thanks. Being able to indefinitely remain on the dole? Not on my dollar.

I despise political correctness with every fibre of my being. Multiculturalism, while a laudable ideal, does not always work in practice. Sometimes people don't fit in with the culture of the country. No, women aren't oppressed in Australia. I don't believe I should have to say sorry for the injustices of the past (ie. reconciliation), especially since my family are only third-generation immigrants on both sides. And for the worst example of political correctness gone mad, check out the HSC English syllabus.

I believe in a free market economy, lower tax rates and incentives to work hard. The left's cries of 'tax the rich!' leave me wondering why anybody would want to work hard under a socialist-style government. And a free market means that both public and private schools have the right to exist - there is always a market for something.

VSU gives me rights at uni - the right to choose whether or not I want to contribute to something that is essentially a protestor's slush fund. VSU will not cause the downfall of the educated world. And privatisation of catering services at Sydney Uni can only be a good thing!

The IR reforms will also not cause the downfall of the economy - the 'exploitation or unemployment' thread has my views on that. I think the media beat-up of them in some circles is left/union scaremongering.

There are some things intrinsically wrong with some conservative policies. The baby bonus is ridiculous, for one. And I'll always defend the right to choose an abortion and the right to have a gay civil union - because what you do in your bedroom is your business, not the government's! But you'll never see me vote for a left-wing party, simply because the majority of what they have to say is politically-correct posturing.

thanks! thats a good post.

what role do you see for the government though?

Like things like the baby bonus are trying to tackle core issues in australian society. Sometimes the market fails, and if we want to keep our population up some things like this can help. Its probably more of a populist policy than an economic one, but nonetheless it is tackling an issue that could not be solved without some form of market intervention.

 

[gnrlies]

If i had to choose, Liberal. I prefer not to head in the direction of communism and Beasley is more incompetent than Paul Keating.

I think both sides have their faults, e.g Peter Costello! But Labor have heaps going for them cause they will wipe these new laws, or try to. I'm going to start my own party, called 'other parties suck party'. I will as the democrats say 'keep the Bastards honest' but actually do it. Truthfully, i'd be much worse than Bob Green probably so thats as bad as you can get. Me, i'm a potential dictator

Haha I disagree with your character analysis. Paul keating isn't incompetant, he's one of the best treasurers australia has had. As for peter costello, I like him. Not because I dont like Howard, but because he represents a more moderate side of the liberal party (even though hes not explicitly a moderate, but hes the closest thing anywhere near the leadership)

 

[withoutaface]

thanks! thats a good post.

what role do you see for the government though?

Like things like the baby bonus are trying to tackle core issues in australian society. Sometimes the market fails, and if we want to keep our population up some things like this can help. Its probably more of a populist policy than an economic one, but nonetheless it is tackling an issue that could not be solved without some form of market intervention.

Why do we need a baby bonus? Because we need more workers to fund the retirement of the baby boomers. Why do we need to fund their retirement? We don't, and in future people who earn above $x in their lifetime should receive no old age pension from the government.

 

[gnrlies]

You are such a fundementalist. The sad thing is one day, due to the decline in the interest of the public sphere, you will probably end up involved in running the country in some way. All the skill ends up in the private sector because it pays more. We are seeing it right now. Severe shortage of skill at the state or federal level of politics on either side.

What do you think of John Howard's family payment? Take and then redistribute to families? The point was made on insiders that this kind of policy is core ALP policy. Take and then distribute to whoever 'needs it'. Even worse is that it is middle class welfare, a true Liberal party person would be horrified and turn in his Liberal membership. Middle class welfare? Thats the ALP's job!

Lets not forget the game that politicians play. They play politics, not idealism.

Politics is a game of sacrifices. Give the public whats gonna score votes in some areas, but then implement the idealistic policies in others. I garuntee that this budget is going to be a sweetner to lessen the blow of the IR reforms.

 

[gnrlies]

I'm sorry, but in large part due to my Jewish roots I would never vote Liberal in my life, the concept of unionism relates to a concept of family and less emphasis on the divisive policies of the Liberals. With the Democrats who in large part would have more represented my political view, yet the current dominant faction in Labor at the moment. If gay marriage is ever going to happen, it will still take a leadership change, I'm hoping Anthony Albanese, Lindsay Tanner and Tanya Plibersek who I have written to and will hopefully push towards it.

I have no faith in the current Government under Howard, as being a student, working in the hopitality industry and under 25 automatically makes you feel belittled by the system from the current workplace law changes and VSU which was implemented just in time for my generation of students to be the most unexperienced and powerless yet. Just because the unemployment rate is going down, it pisses all over our basic workplace rights and more young workers will be sacked.

Without a doubt, Howard has definately had to be one of the worst Prime Ministers in this country since Menzies and has ridden on a bed of lies and corruption ever since he was elected and always slipped under the radar because now we have become too materialistic and economy-centric to give a damn about the atrocities this government has caused.

How much of what you said is based on emotion rather than rationalisation though?

 

[gnrlies]

Why do we need a baby bonus? Because we need more workers to fund the retirement of the baby boomers. Why do we need to fund their retirement? We don't, and in future people who earn above $x in their lifetime should receive no old age pension from the government.

well I dont think its quite as simple as that, there are other social reasons.

Not being involved in sociology, im not really qualified to talk about it, but then I guess it is "desireable" to lift our birth rate.

At what cost does it start becoming a waste of time? well I dont really know.

 

[transcendent]

Well you just go ahead and spend all you time making money. You'll pop out one, maybe two, based on your financial capabilities. You'll continue to work and so will you partner and outsource your parenting to childcare centres who, and God I love this part, is now run by a sole monopoly cause that jackass has been buying up all the childcare centres throughout Sydney with threats to sue them, paying lower and lower wages to carers all the while they are suppose to raise the standards by which the child is cared for and have the qualifications to do so. I really just love the market and how you continue to justify everything under economic rationalism. And guess what, YOU are they reason why THIS country is going to import those so called hated immigrants to this country because we have a skills shortage all the while complaining of lower quality workers and immigrants stealing the jobs of Australian youths. God I love your rationalising.

 

[transcendent]

not to you mate.

 

[katietheskatie]

liberal .. seriously, as if labor. as fucking if.

 

[gnrlies]

Well you just go ahead and spend all you time making money. You'll pop out one, maybe two, based on your financial capabilities. You'll continue to work and so will you partner and outsource your parenting to childcare centres who, and God I love this part, is now run by a sole monopoly cause that jackass has been buying up all the childcare centres throughout Sydney with threats to sue them, paying lower and lower wages to carers all the while they are suppose to raise the standards by which the child is cared for and have the qualifications to do so. I really just love the market and how you continue to justify everything under economic rationalism. And guess what, YOU are they reason why THIS country is going to import those so called hated immigrants to this country because we have a skills shortage all the while complaining of lower quality workers and immigrants stealing the jobs of Australian youths. God I love your rationalising.

economic rationalisation is a powerfull thing.

Its the thing that allows society to achieve the best possible outcomes within a society. The problem with economic rationalisation is not the rationalisation itself, but the emotion assosciated with it.

People get their hair all tied up over the thing.

Can you imagine the outcry if they suddenly made schools a business striving to earn a profit for its shareholders? But you know what, the privatisation of schools would be the best possible thing for schools and students alike.

Where economic rationalisation can get nasty is where people fail to accept that some government intervention is necessary. For example with that schools plan, there would still be a requirment to make it fair for all children irrespective of their background, or location (in the form of government assistance).

But the economic rationalisation itself is a great thing. Next time you bag out economic rationalism, how about you throw out that DVD you just watched, and return those designer jeans, and park that car back in the garage, because without economic rationalisation we'd be back to the days where we'd be farming, cooking, producing things for ourselves.

 

[The Brucemaster]

And surely we couldnt do anything for ourselves at all now could we...

 

[gerhard]

how about you throw out that DVD you just watched, and return those designer jeans, and park that car back in the garage, because without economic rationalisation we'd be back to the days where we'd be farming, cooking, producing things for ourselves.

terrible argument. it amounts to 'it worked before in this situation, so therefore it must always work in all situations'.

 

[gnrlies]

terrible argument. it amounts to 'it worked before in this situation, so therefore it must always work in all situations'.

What are you talking about?

Im not even applying economic rationalisation to anything specifically, im talking about how economic rationalism is a very powerfull thing.

The point is that a lot of the things which we take for granted wouldn't exist unless we implemented economically rational policies. Economic rationalism only has a negative face in the eyes of some because the positive benefits of economic rationalism arent directly evident.

 

[Generator]

Im not even applying economic rationalisation to anything specifically, im talking about how economic rationalism is a very powerfull thing.

The point is that a lot of the things which we take for granted wouldn't exist unless we implemented economically rational policies. Economic rationalism only has a negative face in the eyes of some because the positive benefits of economic rationalism arent directly evident.

Nobody is denying that it's a powerful construction, but I take it that you have missed the way in which other economic systems have also provided us with much of what we take for granted? (with some of these things being slowly eroded by the rising tide of economic rationalism, funnily enough).