Many would be surprised at how little people care about 'inequality' as long as they control their own destiny and have access to land. So the best way forward is for decentralising power into the hands of local communities, let them rise or fall on their merits.

The man is nuts , what's all this about democracy? Does he want sweaty workers to choose our masters? Taxes are for peasants to pay and not the gentry. And education? Heaven forbid , what is he coming at , street urchins knowing what the newspapers' editorials are discussing? SMH is quite correct , no chaos and anarchy.

This one little statement, "the promotion of collective interests over private ones" just about sums this garbage up. The man obviously still believes in communism. He believes it will work if done his way.

Why is it that those people who hold their hands out for a cut of taxpayer funds each fortnight, always believe there is lots more of it to give to everyone? Could it be suppressed guilt at ripping us off?

This piece is the perfect example of why we should always get the airy fairy academics the hell out of anything of any importance. Expensive as it is, better for them to waffle on to each other with their day dreams, than let them try to implement any of them.

How many did communism kill in eastern Europe & China? That's their fool idea of social justice. When academics start suggesting that the university sector has become bloated & excessively expensive, it will be time to listen to them. Meanwhile, please keep their musings in the funny farms that produce it.

That the Sydney Morning Herald refused to print this clowns waffle has lifted them somewhat in my estimation. Did you notice, he even quotes Hewson, & then expects to be taken seriously God help us. I wonder how long we paid this bloke?

Stuart Rees is a well known public cretin of long standing. Again in this post, he proves it quickly.

First sentence, second line: "...social analysts insist that citizens have lost faith in democracy." Really? Which "social analysts"? On what evidence does their insistence rest?

Second sentence, first line: "...public dismay about capitalism and democracy..." Evidence for that?

Anyone who quotes Hewson as an authority has serious questions to answer about his own credibility.

Oh, and he didn't like the results of the Brexit poll, the US presidential election and fears "the prospect of right wing successes in Europe".

Humans 3, Rees 0.

If even the Lefty losers at the SMH won't publish Rees's communist crap, why does OLO?

Still, it's another fine example of the Left's totalitarian instincts.

So, sweaty workers shouldn't get to choose their masters?

Tote that there cotton boy and put your back into it! Lay-a-bout, good for nothing cannon fodder and grunt!

Justice? Well ah say corn pone, it don't come as cheap as it use ta?

Get up offen that lazy blubber rahz! Ah don't pay you a dollar a day boy, to sleep on my time!

I think we've had enough of privilege routinely and regularly usurping democracy to last for several lifetimes and the only way to put master servant thinking back in it box is at the ballot box and the very next opportunity!

Then elect folks with a very different vastly more democratic mindset, without ever once abandoning pragmatic economic principles! And then invest in cooperative capitalism, our own people and their better ideas!

Then use that fair and egalitarian template coupled to sound common sense to grow a turbocharged truly massive economy that serves us all, as opposed to (a few asbeens, wannabes, troglodytes and dinosaurs) the privileged only!?

We need fair dinkum tax reform and brand new pragmatic energy and water policies etc. That unite one nation rather than divide it, with the spoils of defeat being fought over in some mindless game that ended in kindy and the sandpit, allegedly!

Enough of that eternally counterproductive (me, me, me) fundementally flawed, divide and rule stuff! And selling our heritage and our economic sovereignty to the lowest bidder!?
Alan B.

Stuart

That's not a re-think you fool, that's just the same old sh!t sandwich, not even re-packaged.

*Think!*

"This social justice, human rights perspective is non-violent"

So none of the policies you advocate are going to be enforced?

The increased foreign aid you advocate is going to be voluntary, and only you and everyone who agrees with you, is going to pay it, and nobody who doesn't consent will be forced to?

Correct? You renounce government foreign aid? Or you advocate violent aggression against person and property?

Which?

*Think!*

So if a majority vote for slavery or rape, you can't see any ethical issue with that? It would then be a "right", according to your theory of ethics and jurisprudence?

Yes? No? Which?

*Think!*

What are the limits of legitimate government action? It obviously includes attempting to control all carbon and reduction reactions on the planet, and hence all human action - a creed of unlimited government power.

Yes?

*Think!*

Show us the process of reasoning by which you justify getting paid by forcing people under threats of prison and rape to submit to the confiscation of their property so as to fund your propaganda, with your blatantly dishonest pretensions to give a sh!t about "peace".

If you want to know why Trump got in, take a good look in the mirror