Uni Students - VSU vs. USU ? (4 Viewers)

[Minai]

That seems true, however I doubt unis would simply take the bullet for the students - continued breach of the legislation might compel the courts to put an injunction upon the unis to stop them

and the unis wouldn't dare go against a court ordered injunction.

As I said elsewhere, students could also take court action against uni's if they were forced to pay fees which they had a legal right not to.

 

[Xayma]

I doubt any of the uni's would force students to pay

If the fine was the only thing to hit them, then I think a few might have. If the union loss is as big as all the USU supporters say it will be then it will become less attractive for International Students.

In any case I still think they will force compulsory fee's then offer the refund in 28 days (puely as people would be less likely to take the refund if they have no other financial committments around that time and have already paid) if they are smart they would make it so that when they get the refund offer, it is smothered in propaganda, and isn't at a time when textbooks are needed.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In terms of basic politics philosophy Howard is legislating to forward the interests of the individual over the 'greater good'. Like most thingsHoward legislates for mainstream Australia and mainstream only. It is of great concern to anyone who has their eyes open that Howard has stepped away from what previous governments have done and started to ignore those who he considered not mainstream. Again this promotes monocultural and attacks diversity of pretty much everything.

It is John Howards methods that attack liberal democracy and accountability under a liberal democracy that worry most people.

'Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities.'

Fostering an attitude of extreme 'me first' and individualism (A weirdly used argument by the ACT liberals against the Human Rights Act introduced in the ACT)

Here we see the discrepency in our thinking. You asked why I was a Liberal supporter, given my stances on abortion, agnosticism, gay marriage, etc.

It turns on the fact that I place greater priority on individual, or private rights, than you do; your concern being moreso the common good, as you said. Liberalism does create inequalities (ie. unequal distribution of wealth as a result of capitalism) but in theory it also shines on some facets of equality. The common good, being concerned with the benefits to the whole, means minority rights are often trampled. Liberal ideals promote the rule of law and individual liberty -- one is safe, in some aspects, from the repression of the majority.

Now I realise that paradoxically, liberty is also restrained through inequalities in wealth. Some regulation is needed, I seem often enough to think that regulation should be less than you do.

However, obviously both considerations are extremely important. It annoys me that the current Government neglects its liberal ideals arbitrarily on some matters for which they are most important and asserts the objective of upholding the common good on some very skewed, notwithstanding popular, views on what is "good" for society.

I doubt Moonlight would support the changes to senate rules (again something the majority of the Australian population will be too apathetic or ignorant to care about) where by the majority party in the lower house will also control the senate - rendering the senate as impotent.

No I would not support that but I was not aware of any such proposed changes??

 

[Rorix]

In terms of basic politics philosophy Howard is legislating to forward the interests of the individual over the 'greater good'.

I would argue that the philosophy of the policy tends toward promoting individual freedom and as such allowing the individual to satisfy their own interests which ultimatly will lead to more 'good' provided that these interests are not satisfied from the infringement on the ability of others to satisfy their interests.

What do you mean when you say 'greater good'? It really is just a subjective term that can be applied to collectivism-tending policies (as opposed to individualism-tending) as a means of justifying them simply because they focus on the 'greater' and not the individual.

What is the 'greater good' essentially? Is that a moral term or are you referring to happiness? If it's a moral term, then it's an area where laws can apply to restrict immoral human behaviour under individualism policies, and if it's a happiness term I propose that economic concepts would apply and that the individual would be much more efficient at making themselves happy than an external body (state, i presume) would be through policy.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

What is the 'greater good' essentially? Is that a moral term or are you referring to happiness? If it's a moral term, then it's an area where laws can apply to restrict immoral human behaviour under individualism policies, and if it's a happiness term I propose that economic concepts would apply and that the individual would be much more efficient at making themselves happy than an external body (state, i presume) would be through policy.

I think the only way the argument works is if 'the common good' is used as a moral term; to say otherwise is to suggest what is popular is the common good, and that can hardly be justified

 

[Rorix]

Satisfying ones own interests allways invovles an infringment on another persons intersts.

I think you've misunderstood what I said - what I mean is infringing on someone else's ABILITY to satisfy their own interests. Of course, those with anti-social interests cannot be freely allowed to satisfy their interests in say, cannibalism, without infringing on others, and that is why there are human rights and laws etc.

The criticism you raise can equally be applied to collectivism policies.

Rights are claims. Freedom can be construed as a positive right which asserts a claim on another.

Freedom does not exist without a claim on another to not infringe on that freedom.

agree, see above

You fall in down in that you assume freedom will result in the greater good. That assumes that the freedom involves no claim on another person and that no other persons right to freedom (from interference) will be infringed.

Of course some rights to freedom will be infringed, such is human nature, but the point is that the philosophy of the system is individual freedom rather than collectism, broad rules which force action toward what is claimed to be the greater good by infringing on the individual freedom of citizens. If you are trying to argue that freedom will result in greater good if and only if it does not infringe on others freedoms, and that this is impossible, then there is no way you can be congruent in supporting a system which has higher infringement on individual liberty. Simply because the infringement is universal does not make it non-existant.

The greater good is thrown around by everyone.

Which does not make the term have meaning in itself.

the greater good is generally seen as 'everyone'. Not everyone is in a great position to assert their individual rights.

As I see it your argument is that collectivism rules on everyone, the greater good is to do with everyone thus collectivism is the greater good. While this is logically sound, the use of the term 'good' thus becomes redundant, as you have held that it does not have any moral meaning, but rather is just a term used to describe the act of doing something universally.