Little children with Big Boys' Toys

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Is it really okay that almost everything we own is Made Outside Australia so really we cannot have a decent transport system because it's too expensive to make it here?

we want cheap ... that comes at a cost. I think a lot of people are only just now realising that cost.

I suggested once that all our problems would be solved if we simply told the reffos they could come in provided they had their papers (cutting out the People Smugglers), and if they accepted housing and employment in rural centers for five years they could apply for naturalisation.
I think it would be a good idea to implement something like that for ALL immigrants. A minimum term in a rural centre.
However, I need to point out that when in fear of your life and running from your government, it is not always possible to get all your papers. Many refugees have no choice but to run without papers.

Note that while capitalism can work well in a socialist environment, the reverse is not true:
Until capitalism is failing, then you can be sure the advocates of capitalism will do everything in their power to make sure socialism saves their arse. Take the Australian banks during the GFC for example. They were the first to demand govt. guarantee deposits to prevent a run on the banks. Without that some of our banks would not have survived.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
Many refugees have no choice but to run without papers.
True, but so many admitted under interrogation that they had been forced to surrender their papers to the people-smugglers simply to get on the boat, in addition to paying through the nose.

And thank you for a thoughtful response.

Implementing compulsory rural life for all immigrants could be problematic. For example, here in WA Sir David Brand was Premier from April 1959 to March 1971, and worked very hard to decentralise WA business and industry. Many rural centers owe their existence to his work. However, he lost out to John Tonkin (Lab) who preferred a centralised economy, then Charlie Court got the nod in April '74 to January '82 and he really went to town undoing Brand's hard work. Most people agree he really wanted to concentrate as many voters as possible where Liberals could brainwash them with TV advertising which was not really available out in the Sticks and it didn't hurt that the Country Party would lose electors. Since then, regional WA has had a hard time and lost many, many people to the Big Smoke. So there's not much chance you could send immoes or reffos out to the sticks and expect them to make it.

And I'm not sure any State would hold still for the Feds to lay down any law about State development. Having said that, the Feds could actually use their financial clout as bribery rather than extortion to persuade WA to reinvest in the regional centers, thus (hopefully) restarting the decentralisation. Certainly if work was available in the Sticks then many immoes would be happy to take it, especially if the State came to the party with schools and hospitals. I could bore you to tears with ideas on changing our medical system to indentured Public Service Doctors and Nurses being required to spend time in the Sticks :oldman
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
So there's not much chance you could send immoes or reffos out to the sticks and expect them to make it.

they'd have to have a job lined up before arriving, or purchase a business. The only exemptions I would allow having thought about it some more, would be family reunions. I guess it's pointless applying for a family reunion visa if you can't reunite with your family.

Decentralization is a tricky one. Whilst we need to make sure every aussie has access to any services they need, it is cheaper and more efficient to have everything near by. At least from an administrative point of view. I don't agree with you that it's about trying to concentrate all the voters in one area.

And I'm not sure any State would hold still for the Feds to lay down any law about State development.
On that, my opinion is that we should abolish the states altogether. Three tiers of govt is one tier to many and is only useful for buck passing and avoiding responsibility. We only need regional and federal govt's. Everything else is overkill and a waste of money.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
On that, my opinion is that we should abolish the states altogether.
Ohhhhh that takes me back to my days with the ADs. Their mantra was "Get rid of the States!" But I asked a couple of AD pollies one day, "How do we intend to corral the LGAs?" "Ummm... I'll get back to you..."

The big problem with deleting the States is the division of tasks. And the fact that while the Feds don't have a Department of State Government, all the States and Territories do have a Department of Local Government, simply because the LGA Council members have exactly no intensive parliamentary training, and have been known to dip their hands in the cookie jar when they think no one is looking. Given the miserable track record of all Federal Governments since 1901, I remain to be convinced they can manage all the little micro-governments that abolition of the States would give us.

I've always believed we need the Feds to have a Department of State Government, however this is a bit thorny since all States are Sovereign Governments answerable only to their electors. Fortunately the States sort of forgot to demand their taxation rights back from the Feds in 1947, so that turned out well. Unlike the unholy mess the Yanks gave themselves.

And if you think our system is messy, take a good long shufti over at the Poms. It takes a lot to render me speechless, but the Pommy system has succeeded.

OTOH, the Poms have given us the Very. Best. Gift... Our Head of State lives over there, and only comes to visit us very occasionally. Or sends one of her kids. We don't have to pay for her, except her expenses when she visits us, but those are really chickenfeed, and we get to be a republic at the same time! :drinks (I'll let you do the homework on how Oz is actually a Republic as we are now.) I will admit the way their kids are brought up does amount to child abuse, but the kids do seem happy enough, so...
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So. A government forcing people to vaccinate themselves is not socialist, it is realistic. Government intervention for the public good is not socialism, it is realistic. There is an old saw: "There are those things the individual can not do, or must not do, or should not do, for lack of ability, authority, or training." Of course there is a corollary: the individual should so train himself that he can do, or may do, or be able to do. That is socialism: allowing popular access to or involvement in those facilities which enable the public good.
Are you saying, that it is the government that decides what the public good is? That it is the government that decides what is socially practical and necessary for the public good? Sounds like socialism to me. In a purely socialist system, all decisions are made by the government(distributions, productions, pricing, output, goods and services). The individual relies totally on the government's decision for everything, from food to healthcare. Sounds like a socialist authoritarian practice to me. In reality, there are only mixed economies in the world. There are no purely socialistic, capitalistic, communist, or even democratic economies.

How is the public good being served through lies, deceit, coercion, disinformation, and half-truths? How is the public good being served by imposing crippling mandates and restrictions, and by suspending our basic freedom of choice? Or, by the creation of hate, prejudice, elitism, and division into the Australian society? All because of a flu-like illness with a 98%+ survival rate? The only thing realistic about the governments juvenile and immature reaction to this flu virus, is its new spin about why these mandates will be partially lifted on the 14th in Queensland. People will no longer need to prove their vaccination status in pubs, restaurants, sporting venues, theaters, hotels, etc.

Was it ever realistic to expect over 26M people to keep 2 meters apart? Or, to enforce the wearing of useless masks by millions? Was it ever realistic to expect that man could ever prevent anyone from being infected by a virus smaller the the wavelength of visible light? Was it ever realistic to expect that any vaccine could prevent anyone from dying from a viral infection? It was insane and unrealistic from the beginning. Now the back-peddling is beginning. I suppose that the "public good", will now join the same mutable clichés, like WMD's.

The false narrative spewed by the government's media, was flawed with omissions, fallacious context, and intellectual dishonesty. The response to this pandemic was sensationalized and over the top. The response was reactionary, opportunistic, and politically self-serving. So, I respectfully disagree here. Everyone's medical history should stay between themselves and their doctor. Everyone should always have the choice, to decide voluntarily what to stick into their body. Surely you can see the slippery slope that involuntary vaccinations can lead to, if abused? No one should ever be coerced into making this type of decision(direct socialistic government policy). People who make these sorts of comments, simply do not fully understand how the immune system works. Or, how this experimental vaccine works.

Capitalism is the only tool needed in Utopian society. In a Utopian society it self-regulates according to the laws of supply and demand. But where the Utopian ideal is damaged, where there exist tiers of wealth, then Capitalism fails due to its inability to tolerate inefficiency in supply and demand which mandate lower prices which must be covered by lower wages.
Firstly, Socialism is the direct reaction to the failings/abuses of capitalism. And, just like the existence of a Utopian society, the law of supply and demand that actually regulates itself, is just another myth. Just another meaningless economic platitude, told to justify the efficacy of democratic capitalism. But in reality, what really drives supply and demand, is artificially creating a need for a product, backdoor international deals, industrial monopolies, price-fixing, false advertisings, destroying competition, industrial espionage and take-overs, destruction of our environmental resources, and the influence of wealthy lobbyists/political groups. To name a few.

There are many failings attributed to core capitalism. Capitalism can easily subvert the economic interests of the majority of citizens. Capitalism does not include social values and happiness in its profit-driven equations. Capitalism creates poverty by its design, and not as a consequence to its practices. It is designed specifically(in its purest form) to keep the poor poorer, and the rich richer. Capitalism is consumer-driven. This means that a person's worth is based entirely on how much he can consume(buy). Capitalism is not producer-driven.

Without some aspects of socialism in our mixed economy, those social tiers would become even more crystal. As long as the government controls all essential and critical goods and services, I think that most socialized government programs are a very necessary evil. Governments should always step in to guarantee that everyone have the same opportunities and freedoms, as everyone else. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens, from both internal and external threats.

Socialism is effective in tiered societies where wealth may be sequestered to alleviate poverty. Note that while capitalism can work well in a socialist environment, the reverse is not true: socialism does not take root in a capitalist environment.
I agree. But since this system does not exist anywhere on the planet, I'm not sure of the relevance here. Maybe you can give me an example, where wealth is being sequestered from the rich to alleviate poverty?

Another was the indentureships given to newly graduated teachers from the cost-free Teachers' Colleges. The graduates were required to take positions in rural centers at raised rates of pay for a period of years and earn the right to teach in the Cities -- Perth/Fremantle, Geraldton and Albany. This imposition was accompanied by an incentive giving preferential promotion in metropolitan schools to those teachers who stayed longest in the bush, thus ensuring their twilight years would be spent in civilised circumstances.
I am familiar with this scheme. My daughter did three years teaching at a school in Mitchell. An 8 hr drive to visit and stay with her for a week. This scheme would add 3, or 4 years seniority, for every year spent teaching there. It is an incentive scheme that any qualified teacher can choose to join. It is voluntary. With almost 18 years of accumulated seniority, she is now head of the science department, in a newly built private school today. I think this is a win-win for both the students in the outback, and the students in the city.

No government privatises social programs out of divisiveness. They are privatised when a government wishes to move away from a socialist outlook, toward a capitalist program. However, most capitalists fail to understand that Utopia is but a day-dream of unattainable perfection, not realised in real life. Privatisation does not "take away the burdensome political bickering over performance/responsibility issues", it is the cost of unbridled egos placed in positions of authority by electors who no longer care.
Sorry, not sure what any of this means. The private and political sectors have different sources of motivation. I do agree that the human condition does plays a role.

Anyway, this was my two cents worth.
 

Senexx

Active member
The original poster makes some good suggestions but that does not mean “we can not afford nuclear submarines”.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
The original poster makes some good suggestions but that does not mean “we can not afford nuclear submarines”.
Thank you for the kind thoughts...

Care to explain the "... does not mean ..." please? :Salute :) FWIW, I'm fairly sure the cost is more than just dollars, although I haven't unwrapped that yet. Mostly because I did not think it necessary.

Aaaahh, that looks better! I should have used Verdana from the start :Hi
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
The big problem with deleting the States is the division of tasks

Not really. It might take a while for them to nut out all the details, but basically, anything at a regional level is the responsibility of the regional council and everything else if federal. If that means the feds need to develop a 'department of regional governments' then so be it. If they need help they can look at all the other countries that have 2 tiers of govt.
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Holland has provinces, not states. That exhausts my knowledge of Dutch government.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
I think Holland works like that, provinces are just big groups of LGAs.
I'm too lazy to write this up properly, so I'm pasting a mashup from Wikipedia. It's close enough to the truth we can use it as a not-quite-primary reference. Many nations have a forgotten-about tier of government, the top one. However, I believe youse when you say there are countries with only two tiers, but youse will need to quote them as I don't know which they are.

The politics of the Netherlands take place within the framework of a parliamentary representative democracy, a constitutional monarchy, and a decentralised unitary state.

Regional government in the Netherlands is formed by twelve provinces. All provinces are divided into municipalities (gemeenten), of which there are 345 (2022). (~The 2 wiki pages I consulted differ on the number of municipalities. I'm going with the number quoted here for no very good reason other than it provides a date.~)

Municipalities are responsible for education, spatial planning and social security, within the bounds prescribed by the national and provincial government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#Government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Subnational_government
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
There are no provincial parliaments—they are just administrative regions.

We could do that here.

1. State capital city—one LGA (like Brisbane.)

2. Homogenous areas, in SA the South East, the Riverland etc could form LGAs. SA becomes a province—an area demarcated for administrative convenience.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
Italy, with 60 million people only has regional and federal. Works well for them.
Ummm... No. OK, Wikipedia sucks on most days, but occasionally its contributors get it mostly correct. OTOH, logically ordered articles are not Wikipedia's strength, so it's more difficult to pin down the facts. Again, pure laziness, but here are the required URLs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Constituent_entities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune

I did not bother with the Metropolitan Cities since these don't differ very much from the Comuni, or the top tier, the Republic. Ennyhoo, Italy enjoys a 5-tier system -- and that really did surprise me: I thought they only had 3 tiers.
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Ummm... No. OK, Wikipedia sucks on most days, but occasionally its contributors get it mostly correct. OTOH, logically ordered articles are not Wikipedia's strength, so it's more difficult to pin down the facts. Again, pure laziness, but here are the required URLs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Constituent_entities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune

I did not bother with the Metropolitan Cities since these don't differ very much from the Comuni, or the top tier, the Republic. Ennyhoo, Italy enjoys a 5-tier system -- and that really did surprise me: I thought they only had 3 tiers.

commune are typically administrative and they do the bidding of the regioni
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
commune are typically administrative and they do the bidding of the regioni
Doesn't matter. If it's an administrative entity, it has elected representatives, and vicky vercky. In Oz, we don't see suburbs/localities with elected reps, so they're not administrative entities.

Having said that, it looks like I can't count. Italy has a 4-tier system, not 5.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
So it looks like nobody's interested in Australia bettering itself.

I remember back in 1998, the environmental NGO I was volunteering at was having a meeting to rebuild/facelift itself to attract more members. One of the wishes was for a better Vision Statement. I put forward "The Pursuit of Excellence", and you should have heard the screams! "Elitist shit" was the most common rejection. Almost all present were Greens -->> Labor orientation, and could not work out why so many wannabe volunteers were lasting only a few days.

Seriously folks, this "convict transportee heritage" thing is about as useful as the Rum Rebellion. It may be worth considering that any nation in SE Asia is far wealthier than Oz, and mostly sees us the way Yanks see Mexico: an interesting place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there. One of the features of Asian culture is their expectations of their kids at school: "You will work as hard as you can so you can get a better job than we have, and you can support us in our old age."
 
Top