Author says -

“Like most Australians I am vaguely aware that indigenous Australians are poorly served" but note that "However all the indigenous" he knows are "educated" and in "middleclass contentment".

Then John claims that "But if we take the trouble to inform ourselves then we have reason to be ashamed at our ongoing failure to enable all Australians to enjoy the quality of life that we tend to take for granted”

Again I ask as ALWAYS:

WHO is this WE, WE, WE

Does "WE" include the 10 million citizens who have no connection to the historical misdeeds in this indigenous issue, namely those from "non-European backgrounds"?

If so then do you also include or exclude in this "WE" the millions of poor white Anglo Australians who similarly had Absolutely NO CONNECTION to those misdeeds since their ancestors (i.e. convict slaves) were also abused and gravely mistreated by the elite white classes for last 200 years.

I very much doubt you considered this, or if u did, if u gave a damn.

I know this to be FACT since what truly authentic person of any kind who is honestly espousing and wishing to pursue issues of helping the oppressed and underprivileged would not talk about and include ALL these oppressed people, rather than just one or a few sections of the underprivileged (like the indigenous) as they are currently socially “TRENDy” for such,
and a sure key to their “apparent character” getting points for decency amongst their pale-skinned neighbours each of whom entered this world with a default inheritance position of 1 million dollars in assets.

Also . . .

REALLY Ludwig,

You claim that regarding equality - “Perhaps in a society like ours, which is among the best and fairest in the world, equality is about as good as it is ever going to get”

Why would you think this let alone say it.

I can safely assume that Mr Ludwig is not of the underprivileged classes, otherwise such nonchalant demeanour to a vile reality would not be so easily let go.

Rhosty,

You say:

"we are unequal from the day we are born" as there "are physical, intellectual and emotional differences" BUT "that can never be used as an excuse for the strong to exploit the weak, but rather, reason to protect".

I agree but I note the confusion in your conceptual comprehension, and further note that this very inept conceptual-grasp is why we have "master-slave" type cultures globally and for ever thus far.

I wish to educate thee on the correct conceptualization.

Think of the self (individual) like this -

1. Each and ALL persons are beings born and "thrown" into a world of a specific environment different to all others and a world that self cannot control or change.

2. That said this seemingly random splattering of souls throughout the world and into bodies in all sorts of situations MAY lead to the myriad differences and inequalities we see in the world of men, the fact remains that there exists in ALL and EACH person the deepest desire to overcome such boundaries.

3. However, I strongly express that regardless of each individual's "thrown position" such that he is less or more, slave or master . . .

. . . each person possesses essentially an "EXISTENTIAL EQUALITY" which makes them essentially EQUAL.

This type of equality is what I think leads to our social belief in absolute equality, but we are inept to comprehend it fully

This essay provides a unique Understanding of the human situation, especially vis-a-vis the "21st century".
http://www.dabase.org/p3family.htm
I remember John from by student days at Flinders University 67-68-69

<< REALLY Ludwig,

You claim that regarding equality - “Perhaps in a society like ours, which is among the best and fairest in the world, equality is about as good as it is ever going to get”

Why would you think this let alone say it. >>

Hello Jottiikii.

I can’t imagine why you’d have a problem with that.

It’s obvious isn’t it – inequality has always been an issue of considerable concern and hence of political importance. Over recent decades governments have made very significant efforts to help our most disadvantaged people.

They’ve achieved a certain amount, but there is a long way to go.

So what would you do?

If you think that we can deal with the various forms of inequality in our society relatively easily, then how would we do it - in realistic manner, not just a theoretical one?

Talk about the fairies escaping from the bottom of the garden, this bloke must be their king leading the charge.

I really can't find if ­zero carbon networ­k is anti carbon dioxide, or all carbon. So does he want to starve all flora of CO2, or eradicate carbon life forms. I guess eradicating carbon life forms would go with the Stop Population Growth Now party, it is just a bit more radical perhaps.

We see from the article that John prefers top get his ideas from movies, rather than real life, but what else do you expect from fairies. I have always wondered about people who actually believe what is put out on film, documentary or fiction. I can't understand how some take this stuff as gospel.

Once past that John is a little hard to follow, jumping all over the place. It is so disjointed it reads like something someone high on pot would write. If this is the type of thinking someone about to gain a PhD in the area of Global Justice displays, it is rather alarming.

Ludwig,

PART I -

You ask me to address real world practical considerations for this reform.

I admit the answer is not simply nor is it easy. But I am certain that much of the focus will tend to revolve around reforming the education institutions but simultaneously with other cultural Media and Popular Entertainment arenas as I believe all has been infected within the last 30 odd years of the elitist self-interest group, the Leftists, hijacking the universities and specifically those main Arts Departments usually more prevalent in Philosophy, History, Sociology and Political Studies.

To provide you with an indication of the type of realistic practical model I would like to use to reform these institutions I will be forced to focus narrow only upon this small section although it is a spike at the fore of this hijack I think.

From personal experience as a Philosophy major I can recall numerous instances in which a student or a teacher would make some extremely emotive-intense remark like:

"Little Johnny Howard enjoys throwing coloured kids into the sea" as "he knows the more he drowns the more votes he gets in election".

Take this typical remark and think on the effect of its existence and of its usage in such a supposedly higher learning environment.
First anyone in the class who voted John Howard instantly feels attacked morally and very deeply in a most unfair manner. The comment conflates being a Howard voter with being a person who enjoys seeing Howard drowning refugee kids and in fact such visual pleasure entices a future vote for Howard.

But surely this is not only unfair to assume by conflation e Howard voter is likely a racist it also assumes that many constituents who vote for Howard are also racists who somehow enjoy seeing refugees drown.

Yet the severity of these remarks and the extreme conclusions/judgments of being "immoral" and racist and a bad person is added to the concept of Howard or Liberal by use of the strongly emotive-intensive language and shaming or guilting a person into submitting to their views.