Our "democracy" is sliding away from us all the time.
We have now reached the point where one man, say John Howard, decides to go to war against a country that has made no threat to us, so that we can claim that it is to support an Ally.
So one man can take us to war ands invade another country.
This is the same as Adolf Hitler invading Poland and then a succession of other countries.
Where is the democracy here?

Recently a billionaire spat the dummy because he did not get his own way with a party he had been supporting and having the money to spend, sets up his own party, throws money at advertising then wins a seat for himself and enough Senate seats to possible hold the balance of power. Fine you might say that's his democratic right.
But is it really democratic?

There are no doubt a lot of people who could and would be able to be more representative in parliament than the billionaire but who do not have the money.
The system needs to be adjusted.

A step in the right direction would be to limit the amount that could be spent on an election by any individual and none spent by a party.
Make it a low figure so that most people could afford to stand for a seat.
Next would be to totally ban all donations to parties or individuals.

Continued

Lastly the Swiss have a good system in place where referendums can be called by petitioning with a set number of signatures.
The referendums are fitted in with elections and costs are not exorbitant.
In some cases referendums are held on an important policy, at any time.

Now we would be getting close to democracy.

The last thing would be to have all voters pass an intelligence test when they register to vote.
The reason for that is that I know of cases where voters have had dementia and still had a vote.
They are not to blame for this of course but it makes a mockery of democracy.

John Wright is a philosopher who publishes on "ethical issues of economic rationalism", yet he can spin his first paragraph so hard to try to produce a false understanding on his subject, you'd have to be blind, or left, not to see it. I can't imagine why anyone would read any further after that start.

Then we get Robert LePage telling us "Recently a billionaire spat the dummy because he did not get his own way with a party he had been supporting" claims it is a sign of failing democracy. To my mind it is an indication that at least one party can't be bought, & at least there democracy is alive & well.

The fact that our ABC then picked up said "billionaire", courted & promoted him, shows just how dumb our lefty, publicly funded media really is.

Then our Robert wants an IQ test for voters, no doubt written by him. I can see it now, anyone not left of Khrushchev would be considered not smart enough to vote. God help us, what next?

The wealthy have been using the lie that their wealth trickles down to the proles for centuries.

The Barbie Bishop and Phoney Tony coalition work for the rich and, as politicians, when they help the rich, they enrich themselves.

What the rich most fear is that the proles will revolt and take their riches and, in re-distributing their ill-gotten gains, spoil their little game forever.

Howard was the darling of the rich. Phoney and Barbie plan to do likewise.

How much longer are we going to tolerate this capitalist-coalition con, condone gross inequality and greed?

Why does the author think we are not already in a plutocracy?

I don't think we should give up so easily on each person having a meaningful say. The invention of the internet could be just the thing to reverse the slide, but we would also need to adopt the principle of "subsidiarity" a concept first described formally in Catholic social teaching (http://www.helmut-zenz.de/hznellbr.html).

"Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity)

While the neighbourhood is not currently a recognised "authority", with the advent of the internet for personal input and collaborative organisation it could easily become an authority. With collaborative development & storage of know-how, and with easy access to that knowledge on the internet, it's easy to start to imagine just how much neighbourhoods could take control of for themselves - from training & service provision to food production & housing (see internet prototype http://www.createvillage.net/village/forum/id/18).

Empowered neighbourhoods would be a force for councils & governments to respect.

There'd be plenty of non market place opportunity for all, & housing security rather than paid employment could replace the current idea of "mutual obligations" which are market place rather than community focussed. (see http://ntw.net46.net/NTWmodel/NTWModeloverview.htm)

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

"To my mind it is an indication that at least one party can't be bought, & at least there democracy is alive & well."

Especially as they have already been bought by another billionaire.

"shows just how dumb our lefty, publicly funded media really is."

And the alternative Murdochracy is better?

"IQ test for voters no doubt written by him."

Nowhere can I see where I have said that I want to write an IQ test but words in other peoples mouth especially if they are out of context is normal with some on this forum.

I don’t know what Hockey actually said, but if he really said, as reported here, that reducing tax for superannuants with incomes over $100,000 would create jobs, our treasurer is wrong.

Self-funded retirees do save taxpayers money, but they are still richer pensioners – richer than tax-payer funded pensioners. And, even though they have more money, the richer ones usually don’t throw it about. Some of them might invest in areas that employ people – areas in which workers will end up end up being rich pensioners themselves; finance, stock markets etc. But in general rich retirees do little for wage-slaves.

But, I have only the author’s word for what Hockey said.

This statement, however, is the authors: “After all, it is traditionally the Labor Party, and the Left more generally, that has aimed to lessen the gap between rich and poor.”

Is he serious! That might have been right in Ben Chifley’s day, but it’s a “tradition” that died out long ago. All politicians are in it for themselves; they all retire much better of the rest of us, and much better off than when they were first elected. The political class is a career minded class; it does very little about equality for anyone. Socialists retire just as rich as ‘conservatives’ without having done very much about anything.

Still, statistics show that there is NOT a “growing gap” between rich and poor; there will always be a gap, but it is the rich who supply most of the ‘poor’ with their jobs, and most of the retirees with their pensions. The rich who do the supplying are still ACTIVE EMPLOYERS.

And this is why the irrational hatred and envy of the rich is just plain stupid.

Democracy does not rely on “economic equality”; there is no such thing anywhere in the world as “economic equality”.

Democracy is at risk in Australia. But it is not caused by the rich or inequality. It is at risk from relatively well-off voters who tolerate incompetent politicians with totalitarian tendencies,

The first two paragraphs say it all. Right wing conservatives have always instinctively practiced 'Thatcherism' in economic matters - ie allowing the trickle down effect to service those unfortunates on the bottom of the economic pile, and practicing 'economic rationalism' to varying degrees of severity but which always involves job losses. Too often the trickle down effect becomes a sideways flood.
Joe Hockey is right on target to become a Howard/Thatcher acolyte in his forecast economic reforms - he is also on target to be the worst treasurer of the worst Australian federal government ever.

Is this John Wright being paid with our tax dollars ? If so, I want my money back !