The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > And so it begins: Government by the Religious Right > Comments

And so it begins: Government by the Religious Right : Comments

By Kate Mannix, published 31/3/2011

O'Farrell will be under pressure to give to the religious right because they will be in charge of delivering his social services.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
This sounds like the ALP fear mongering machine in action, I am guessing it isn't but it sure sounds familiar.

"What we need to fear from the new Liberal government is the wholesale outsourcing of health, education and welfare systems that State government is meant to deliver."

Wasn't Roxon and the Ruddster going to take over all the hospitals, and various swings and roundabouts since .. where are we now by the way? What is Juliar doing now?

Sure the governments are elected because we are still in the old paragigm where we think the government has a duty to deliver services. No one in the ALP seems to see it that way though.

The hospital system in NSW is a disaster due to the ALP, not the new government .. did you ever criticise them?

"Once in the hands of other organisations, with other rules and ideologies, these essential services will increasingly become a tool to impose a particular vision of social order"

To be honest most of us don't care at the moment, we just want the services to be brought back up to speed.

This is unnecessary scaremongering - let's let the coalition have a go at cleaning up first, before we start accusing them of anything, what's it been now 4 days? Already we have people accusing them of all manner of things.

What do you reckon is the solution Kate?
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:04:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus look at the about the Author bit?

Amicus we all know you can't see past your own nose but imagine for a moment if the only hospital near you was run by a Religous sect that didn't allow blood transfusions? would that be of concern to you?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:07:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kenny .. thanks, what I fear more is baseless fearmongering, what if this or that or .. "insert current scare here"

Like yours ..

Question: why flame me for having an opinion kenny?

"imagine for a moment if the government was run by intolerant posters that didn't like differing opinions? would that be of concern to you?"
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not fear mongering, it happens. When the Catholic Church took over the John James Hospital in Canberra the IVF Program was booted out - it was one of the best programs for those seeking IVF treatment.

Personally I don't think it is the place of Churches to run hospitals in a secular society where different views may conflict with Church dictates as far as treatment is concerned. There was a ridiculous situation here where the Catholic Church was handed Calvary Hospital on a platter and in later discussions about returning it to government the greed factor over shot any consideration about public good. (PS this is not an anti-Catholic rant-this case happened to involve the Catholic Church but could easily have been any other).

However, that said, as long as there are sufficient alternative treatment centres, I cannot see the religious right in NSW having an overt influence on health. The quality of healthcare will be solely up to government competency and ability to address a wide variety of health needs particularly in regional NSW.

As a voter I would only ask for value for money and an emphasis on essential services rather than vote-buying fluff policies of which both sides of government are rather too focussed.

If the new NSW government fails to achieve they will also be booted out next time around (if the ALP has got its act together by then).
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Kate,

Look I am not going to argue the ethic's of IVF, Stem-cell Research, Cloning, Vasectomy, Abortion/Right to Life, Euthanasia etc. I have various shades of opinion on each.

But I have two points.

Firstly I don't see the policy of any privately operated instution, even if receiving funding from us taxpayers, need be discussed. It's a fact and we should just accept it and work alongside it.
Secondly it is more a comment on the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of state labor governments that such a huge proportion of our health and aged services are now left to be operated by churches.

That's what needs to change. Minimise their influence by funding health and aged care instead of national parks, huge bureauracies, excessive and intrusive governments, wastful spending and green initiatives. All of which have developed expotentially in the states under Labor Governments... and that trend is now apparent federally.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:14:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:” Firstly I don't see the policy of any privately operated instution, even if receiving funding from us taxpayers, need be discussed. It's a fact and we should just accept it and work alongside it.”

Are you drunk?
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:29:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well after the complete failure of the irreligous left I will find this very refreshing. Hopefully less killing of babies will be one outcome.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:21:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, now the “Religious Right” is in power we’ll have to say farewell to the glorious Labor days when all the trains ran on time, sex change operations were happily paid for by working-class families, and the lion and the lamb played together.

Bottom line: This lady doesn’t get it. Labor is toast and all she can do is imagine an evil world with evil characters making decisions she deems as evil. Typical ABC researcher? Granted, this type of denial will safeguard more Liberal victories.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:10:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hopefully less killing of babies will be one outcome."

Actually, Runner, it will probably be more. As more and more babies are born to women who are desperately ill equipped to care for them, and who were prevented from getting proper birth control advice when they needed it, the proportion of unwanted and resented babies at great risk of being harmed by desperate or incompetent parents is more likely to go up than down.
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL...Runner still banging on a single drum. I get all warm and fussy:)

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quantumleap,
Warm & fussy ?? I think you're more of a Quantumstumbler, it's fuzzy actually. Did you too go to a QLD Public School ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 31 March 2011 4:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Jewely

It's the NSW labor politicians that let the situation develop while they were ... ah drunk and involved in scandulous extra marital and odd ball sexual deviate behaviours.

While I've only been occassionaly and disasterly drunk it's always under someone elses sober control, however my sexual deviance, but not oddball deviance, has and is my more common practise and ... I might add a daily occurance ... happily.

.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 31 March 2011 6:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kate is right. It would be a disaster if we only had religious organisations running ALL healthcare facilities.

Just 2 years ago I was working for an Aged Care Provider run by the Baptist Church.
The bulk of the residents and staff in that facility were not Baptists at all, but had only one of two choices in our small town as to which Aged Care facility they could attend.
Most families arrange for their elderly frail relatives to go into the next available bed in town, when the time comes for more care.

Both the residents and the staff were not allowed to have any form of gambling on the site... including Melbourne Cup Day sweeps, Footy Tipping, raffles, or even bingo!
To add to these resident's woes, they were not allowed to drink any alcohol either!

Think very carefully before you wish that religious organisations would take over all health facility management.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 31 March 2011 7:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzeonline

'To add to these resident's woes, they were not allowed to drink any alcohol either!
r u sure u r telling the truth Suzi. Most Baptist I know including Pastors drink alcohol?

I would be more concerned about the irreligous Greens who want to force electricity prices so high that many will freeze. Many can't wait 1000 years for the 0.05 increase in 1000 years being predicted by the High Priest of global warming.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kate,

What a surname yours.

If you are from Melbourne and have read Frank Hardy’s ‘Power without Glory’, you know of a Bishop with your surname.

There are Sacred Cows in the hospital industry that few dare challenge and one of them is in the Catholic Hospitals.

The industry in its whole is known as ‘Charities”.

At last count the number of charities in Australia was more than two hundred fifty and growing, spurred by legal firms specializing in the exploitation of legislation too hot for politician’s sensitive hands.

Each charity has a complement of executives and bureaucrats with a well fattened body of do-gooders.

It costs many tens of billions per year to Australians. It can be called ‘the industry of parasitism’.

The courageous journalist Adele Ferguson working for the BRW wrote about it some years ago.

A serious study of this industry is much overdue.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:45:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

So what you're saying is that we should fund private organisations with public money. And you say you're a liberal voter? What kind of liberalism is that? The agrarian socialist type I think. Getting gov't out of our lives is a core liberal platform. Using public funds to support private organisations is the worst of all worlds.

I agree that NSW labour are appalling I and don't intend voting for labour anytime soon. I would never vote for the greens as they are the modern day communists and socialists under a new banner (see the dimwitted Jebby Obyrne). And I'm certainly not interested in the nationals type of socialism, which is founded upon the redistribution of wealth to rural supporters.

The liberals have got a lot of work to do to convinve those who supported them in NSW that they can actually govern any better than the Labour Party. Admittedly a rather low bar.
Posted by PaulL, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I don't think it's the place of government to run television stations, universities or hospitals, so given the state-worship of the left wing, which is every bit as irrational and superstitious as the Catholic church, how is that any different from these things being run by a religion?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, I swear I am telling the truth about the Baptists who ran the group of Aged Care Homes I worked in for nine years, until I left 2 years ago!

The elderly residents filled out a survey a few years before I left, saying they resented being refused access to alcohol at their age.
The Baptist Owners eventually agreed they could have some alcohol, but only if they drank it alone in their rooms!

I kid you not.

They preferred that the poor old dears be cupboard drinkers, than to allow them to socialise with the others over a glass of sherry.

I also had the misfortune to have to socialise with the owners and the Nurse managers when they came to visit our site.

We would go out for an evening meal, but they totally frowned on us ordering a bottle of wine to share between four of us!

As a lapsed Catholic, I had been used to everyone around me being able to drink alcohol if they wished, and all with the Bible's good wishes.

The Baptists read a different Bible apparently...
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 31 March 2011 10:42:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL indy....Quantumleap,
Warm & fussy ?? I think you're more of a Quantumstumbler, it's fuzzy actually. Did you too go to a QLD Public School ?

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, it is actually a very good article, because the writer appears well imbued with the authentic outlook of concern that comes from the Beatitudes, rather than the harshest legal narrowist excesses of the Old Testament.
And it's not some thing that would have been proliferated by Cardinal Mannix and his zealots, at their worst, either. Kate Mannix is clearly about as similar to the late militant Cardinal as this writer is to Roy Rogers, although likely as tenacious as the late prelate.
So my reference to a bygone era would be that we appear to have inherited the worst of that era rather than anything positive, since. Times were tough back then and they did what they could.
As to substance, yes. I think Stendahl would be turning in his grave at the way things have developed lately. Especially I agree, as to the forlorn retreat from responsibility that characterises modern neoliberalism, with its seige "first self, then self, then self again" mentality.
The continuing and ruthless Americanisation of this culture continues apace, regardless of rational objection or alternative propositions for public improvement.
A zombie culture is so much more amenable to exploitation than a healthy civil society.
Posted by paul walter, Friday, 1 April 2011 3:04:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most interesting aspect of Kate Mannix's article, is that she can see the social and political dangers of Catholicism, Opus Dei, and "the religious right", but nowhere in her article is there any mention of Islam.

I find it significant that the same journalists who denounce people who negatively prejudge, stereotype or labels Muslims as a threat to their society, can not see any contradiction when the journos are doing the same thing to Christians.

It is a clear double standard.

As a secular person, I consider the aims and teachings of the Catholic Church and "the religious right:" with suspicion and deep mistrust. Give them half a chance, and they will use whatever means to force their religious, sexual and social views down my throat. So my commitment for tolerating religious freedom is dependent upon these people not becoming too powerful.

But I don't consider the "religious right" or the Catholic Church to be anywhere near as bad a threat to my countries liberal laws and lifestyle as Islam, and I find it odd that journalists like Kate Mannix can see the dangers of certain Christian sects, yet have a case of acute myopia when it comes to the dangers of an evil religion like Islam.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 1 April 2011 5:48:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“While I've only been occassionaly and disasterly drunk it's always under someone elses sober control, however my sexual deviance, but not oddball deviance, has and is my more common practise and ... I might add a daily occurance ... happily.”

Glad we cleared that up Keith. :) I’ll return to why I asked…

Keith: “Firstly I don't see the policy of any privately operated instution, even if receiving funding from us taxpayers, need be discussed. It's a fact and we should just accept it and work alongside it.”

When the privately operated and tax payer funded institutions negatively affect the public then I think we can’t simply work alongside them. It needs to be discussed to death, then tossed on the same heap we’d probably put oddball deviance. Any government that supports private businesses and funds private businesses that are rife with abuses towards peoples of Australia needs correction.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 1 April 2011 7:17:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The most interesting aspect of Kate Mannix's article, is that she can see the social and political dangers of Catholicism, Opus Dei, and "the religious right", but nowhere in her article is there any mention of Islam."

... or of the State. We see around us evidence of its high crimes on a grand scale, it's double standard ("I'm allowed to hit you but you're not allowed to hit me"); it's aggressive wars, its murders and mass murders, it's licensing of privilege, it's corruption, theft, violations of liberty and property, waste, divisiveness, its planned chaos. But there seems to be this cognitive dissonance: people see all this, and just endlessly re-circulate the belief that the state represents the greater good, that the state is selfless and indispensable, that the state knows better, that the state is over and above the selfishness of the individual, that the state can fix anything, that the state can even control the winds that blow. Pure religious supserstition.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 1 April 2011 1:49:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kate Mannix,

My humble apologies.

I said that the number of Charitable institutions in Australia were about two hundredand fifty.

I was relying on my memory.

I found my notes to-day; there are six hundred and forty three (643) of them .

That is at the start of this financilal year.

I am too old and lack the strenght to reserch this matter and its implications on our economy.

If you are young I would recommend your deep attention.
Posted by skeptic, Friday, 1 April 2011 7:03:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, whilst your points about the behaviour/iilegtemacy of the state are well taken, what is our other option?

Assuming that a classic liberal society is a more just society, than a democracy. How can we, Australia, move away from a democracy to a truly liberal society (which I can see the benefits of), without massive social upheaval, more wars, more corruption etc, plus the predation of other states. Because it seems to me, on the surface of things that Churchill had a point when he said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I'm aware he said gov't, but we could equally use the term 'society'.

Lets say I fully agree its a more correct course. I'm much more in interested in the practicalities of achieving it.
Posted by PaulL, Saturday, 2 April 2011 12:12:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HI PaulL

You seem to have a very narrow view of liberalism. My liberalism is open to all sorts of viewpoints and activities. I don't have a closed or fixated view on anything. I think you might be confusing Liberalism with conservatism as do many of todays left leaning commentators. Fortunately the open minded voters in many electorates across Australia have shown they now don't either.

I think it wise a significant part of health care, for a multitude of very sensible and pragmatic reasons, including aspects influential on costs and research, should be under control of the state.

I also think it wise healthcare be open to private enterprise for very liberal/conservative and competitive reasons.

I think it unwise to have churches running a large part of our health care in a totally separate health system. I'd tend to try to model things as we do with our private schools.

Jewely we don't spend time arguing over our funding to private schools and they run their own agenda's with some control over the cirriculum. We know what would happen if privte schools didn't receive taxpayer susidy ... and I wonder where public healthcare would be without state funding of private hospitals? I do think private health care does contain much more positives than being particularly harmful. It's optional not compulsory to attend and even if you do attend for a say a heart proceedure it's unlikely their negative aspects will get to harm you. You're unlikely to want a termination or to be euthanasised.

You know the system we used to have before Labor Governments everywhere stuffed things with their management meddling that has resulted in the massive inefficient and costly bureauracies would be better.

I and Tony Abbott think we should return to the days of effective local hospital boards.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 2 April 2011 12:39:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL
It’s a very interesting question: in short, how to transition to a voluntary society, rather than the one we have now subjugated under big government’s systematic fraud and legalised aggression?

The transition to a free and prosperous society can happen quickly. Slavery – common in virtually all societies for millennia – was almost entirely abolished in less than a century. Germany went from a starving bomb crater two years after WWII ended, under the US army’s centralised controls and ration tickets for everything. Werner Erhard abolished them all, and within 5 years, Germany was one of the richest countries in the world.

The practical problems are the least. The big problems are those of *ideas*. Mediaeval people’s irrational faith in the church has been replaced by modern people’s irrational faith in the state.

Imagine if the church still had power to subject all children to ten years’ compulsory indoctrination, the content of which was entirely dictated by the church. What would we expect, but that the church would inculcate in the whole population an uncritical faith in the church’s moral superiority and indispensability? Well that is exactly what we have now, only with the state doing it, with similar results.

Both church and state are corporations. Both corporations were established by force. And the irrational faith in both is essentially the same:
1. the corporation is presumed to have an inexhaustible supply of moral superiority no matter how gross or obvious its crimes and fraud, and
2. it can suspend the laws of natural scarcity in our favour – the church’s miracles, and the state’s “free” hospitals, schools, cheap credit, etc.

These beliefs cannot withstand critical scrutiny or scientific refutation. They are irrational and faith-based, that is all.

Churchill’s dictum is incorrect. Democracy – perhaps owing to the false belief that “we” are the state and vice versa - has actually resulted in government more intrusive and arbitrary than the absolute monarchies of old.
(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 2 April 2011 7:47:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... Louis XIV never pretended to know what kind of light people can have in their own homes, and the modern democracies’ regulation of every aspect of industry and personal life is far more extensive and intensive than that of the great fascist dictatorships - and getting worse.

Churchill’s dictum tells us only what *is* or *has been*. But the question is, what *can and should be*?

To ask what we would replace the state with, is itself to presume that it provides us with moral and material benefits that could not be better provided otherwise.

The state is a legal monopoly of the use of aggression and fraud. What would we replace it with? What would we replace a house-fire with? With not-a-fire. What would you replace a cancer with? Nothing. Much productive work was done under slavery. What, the slavers might say, would we replace coerced labour with? We would replace it with consensual labour, or nothing.

Exactly the same arguments apply to replacing taxation.

The belief that institutionalized aggression causes social harmony, peace, and probity, itself exemplifies uncritical credulity in the state. That old joke is our answer: “fighting for peace is like f*kcing for virginity”!

One of the problems with big government is that it creates serious intractable social problems. An example is the unsustainable rate of growth of so-called “welfare” - dependence on government in the western world. There would need to be provision for the aged, whom government have made dependent by confiscating their savings during their working life.

But once there was general agreement as to the immorality of slavery, the transition to voluntary labour was relatively easy.

Similarly with the state. It has *no* moral superiority and does *not* make society materially better off – on the contrary, its function is to benefit those running it, while it makes society in general both morally and materially much worse off.

The state is essentially a criminal organization, that’s all:
http://economics.org.au/2010/11/government-is-criminal-the-paragraph/

An example of a 30-day plan for transition to a free society is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

Fundamentals of a voluntary society: http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 2 April 2011 7:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

Despite the focus of your argument about Churchills quote, he specifically talked of experience of the past, not the possibility of the future.

In fairness, you have turned my question of what to replace the state with, into a rhetorical device to repeat your attack on the state. I have already stipulated that I can see merit in the criticisms of the state. I asked what comes next. What are our alternatives, and more specifically, how would we implement them?

What about those people, who you might reasonably argue are bewitched or indoctrinated, who still choose the state over the alternative. Isn't it fair to say that there is no voluntary society until everyone is ready.

Put another way, can it get up, if its anything other than a universally supported, global movement? Can a geographic society such as Australia go it alone and suceed?

Slavery, by the time it was abolished, was detested in most of the world and only managed to survive as long as it did, because it was the preserve of the wealthy elite, and mostly conducted, in Europe anyway, out of the eye of the public. Slavery didn't exactly die easily, the american civil war was long and bloody and Hitler was still using slaves of war in 1945. Yes I know, the state has been at it for much longer, reinforcing the moral imperative.

The state however, enjoys widespread support, particularly through its redistribution of wealth (yes, I know, stealing and regifting).

The thirty day plan talks about voting, and the legitemate role of the state. Aren't these entirely counter to the spirit of the voluntary society? It seems to me that there is no talk of revoking the whole state, and there is reliance placed upon the constitution and organs of state such as the defence department, who you have been scathing about. Surely there is no possibility of voting, since voting suggests someones rights are going to be violated. And retaining a defence department which surely suggests voting, is an anti competitive monoply on force.
Posted by PaulL, Saturday, 2 April 2011 9:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, that's all true. It depends whether one is talking about a 'classical liberal' society i.e. small government, or a voluntary society, i.e. challenging the very idea of government. Mere compliance with the US Constitution would nevertheless produce a classical liberal society.

Where to from here is... smaller government, any way you look at it! The English Whigs between 1750 and 1850 repealed 80 percent of the laws of England enacted since 1215. I'd like to see something like that - a clean-out-the-broom-cupboard-of-state type party.

To me, pretty much any reduction in the state is desirable, reserving provision for those who have been unfairly made reliant on it, such as the aged. I would start with abolishing corporate welfare, abolishing taxes, repealing all restrictions on all consensual activities including industrial relations law and occupational licensing, abolishing foreign aid so-called, so-called "welfare", the regulation of families and consensual sexual relationships, divesting government of lands, abolishing government funding of arts, science, education, hospitals, family breakdown, etc. etc. I could see a 50 percent reduction in 5 years without any major social disruption - apart from outraged opinion from the unweaned, that is.

It is certainly viable for Australia to have a much smaller government, though how small in this state-filled world, I don't know.

However I recognise that the state is not going to get any smaller while ever the vast majority think it's so selfless and indispensable.

And for every person who works his way through the brainwashing to realise that the whole thing is built on lies and exploitation, the state graduates a hundred thousand fresh from their ten years of indoctrination.

At a personal level, I try to heed the words of the ancient Taoists "Do not help on the big Chariot - you will only cover yourself in dust." So I just try to arrange my affairs to maximise my own freedom regardless of the state's meddling, and in my spare time put forward the arguments for liberty.
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 2 April 2011 11:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith
I agree with you that the amount of money that has been wasted is disgraceful. The environmental causes have stripped most of the money from where it should have gone. We need to get back to basics and prioritize what is needed most. I think that Hospitals and Roads should be brought up to scratch before any more money is outlaid on environmental dreams. The environment will survive as it always has, but you and I might not if the money is continually poured into this and also money being sent overseas to bribe other countries into standing beside Australia when it comes to voting on international matters. Australia needs to get back to basics.
Posted by 4freedom, Monday, 4 April 2011 12:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy