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 > An open, liberal democracy is not a team > Comments

An open, liberal democracy is not a team : Comments

By John Wright, published 28/11/2014

In an open liberal democracy, there won't just be disagreement about strategies for achieving an aim, there will also be disagreement about what the overall aims ought to be.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yes John, and the minute we allow manipulating money loving morons merely masquerading as caring for the common good, power hungry pollies, their longed for control; is the day we will all turn into automatons, all following each other in an ever decreasing spiral to nowhere!

Q: Who are you going to vote for Mr eternal whinger?
A: None of the above!
R: Well don't be in such a bloody hurry to get it done; think about what you want, what's good for the country, (one and the same usually) and just get up off of your lazy excuse making backside and vote for it!
Just doing nothing or refusing to get involved or play a part, has never ever accomplished anything!
Don't just do something, stand there casting aspersions!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 28 November 2014 10:51:17 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
Perhaps the aim of a nation is to continue to hold the territory it holds. Australia, being girt, has an easy time of this. Small wonder that we are somewhat at a loss for a worthwhile national purpose.

Perhaps we need some sort of massive national project. My personal favourite is that we should pave the outback with solar cells and use the energy to electrolyse water and CO2 into alcohol. What we don't drink, we can flog to the rest of the world and we'll all be rich as arabs forever.

Failing that, a national broadband network might be a worthwhile goal to pursue. Or some sort of serious rail network in preparation for the day that flying between capital cities becomes uneconomic.
Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Friday, 28 November 2014 3:28:49 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
I thought a worthwhile national purpose would be publicly funded bare-breasted dancing girls all over the place; as the socialists never tire of telling us, it's the government's responsibility to supply the gaps left by market failures.

Another worthwhile national purpose close to my heart is a project to make artificial reefs anywhere the coastline is afflicted with a sandy bottom, so as to harvest ocean swells and convert them into surfable peeling glassy barrels.

But politicians never seem to fund my kind of infrastructure *sigh*.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 28 November 2014 4:23:16 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
What a great article. Thanks!

The author pinpoints why the territorial-based nation-state is evil. The larger the state's territory, the more evil that state is, because it reduces people's choices to live in a society which shares their goals and values and forces more people to live in a society whose goals might even conflict with their values.

In the case of Australia, as we already have established states, albeit they historically originated for different reasons, the obvious first step is to upgrade the states into independent countries, dropping the commonwealth regime. Obviously nothing prevents independent countries from cooperating, working together on those of their goals which they share and having trade and other agreements between them, as well as combined military arrangements for shared defence, such as in NATO.

The process of breaking down the monolithic state into smaller units (whether independent countries or only autonomous regions, etc.) should not stop there, but that would be a good start. This will enable people to choose to live in societies that resonate with their own dreams and do not conflict with their values and morals. Amen.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 30 November 2014 7:31:09 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
Paul: >as rich as the Arabs forever<
Before you could turn water and Co2 into wine/alcohol, you first have to convert it into simple carbohydrates/sugar. And then convert that into ethanol, by the usual means.
And in so doing, create the world's most expensive alcohol!
And given the outlays, us into the poorest nation in the world. (If only we had J.C's costless water into wine recipe! Walter Mitty's imagination perhaps?)

I prefer J.K.J's less wasteful idea of bare breasted women?
However, why stop at baring just bouncy boobs, when there are other interesting bits that need looking into/further examination?
In the interest of curing male baldness perhaps?

As to getting the state to fund it, perhaps you could talk to those politicians, who like and intend to fund Paul's idea!

Let me know if you have any success!
And if so, send a few jug jiggling joggers up my way!
I promise not to get bored out of my brain, for at least twenty minutes!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 30 November 2014 10:16:30 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
What a delight to read a well constructed and written essay. Thanks. Yuyutsu's suggestion that smaller is better sounds pretty good, until I recall living in a small village as a boy. When everyone knows everyone else's business, the freedoms gained by anonymity are replaced by conformity gained through bullying, which is one reason there are so many suicides in the 'Bush'.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 1 December 2014 12:10:33 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
Ultimately the people in Yuyutsu's visionary world will fall victim to either tribalism, the need for some of their neighbour's territory or become the servants of a bully war lord. Humans don't have a good track record of living in peaceful coexistence.

Even Utopia will have some form of law, some form of acceptable and unacceptable cultural practices, and those who care about the law.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Monday, 1 December 2014 5:36:50 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
This article deliberately seeks to confuse the issue.

Abbott was referring to the absence of loyalty to this country
and the Australian people as a whole, When he spoke of Team Australia.

The fact that the Muslims in this country couldn't answer a direct yes, is very telling.

Well, answer the question, where does your allegiance lie?

No this is not a debate about the running of the country as the
writer of this article seeks to imply but a direct question to
the Muslims who race to fight with the warlords, who threaten
Australians through the media and through their supporters here.

Just where does your loyalty lie? don't try to fudge the meaning
of the word team, you know dam well what it means in this case.

Your outrage at the word team and it's meaning is nought but a
smokescreen.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 1 December 2014 6:46:50 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
Don't be so silly, Cherful.
Sensible peoples' loyalty lies with kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, egalitarianism, respect for the elderly, love of children, diligent respect for the land, plants and animals. They do not follow blindly any leader or party, because that reduces them to mindless robots.
Your exaggerated fear of Muslims is unfounded. OK, so they believe in an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent superman in the sky who watches their every thought and move, ready to punish or reward, but so do all the millions of Christians and lots of other religions. It makes them seem silly to free-thinkers, but not dangerous. I didn't detect any outrage, merely a desire to point out the idiocy of calling a country a team.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 6:59:56 AM
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
Dear Hippie,

<<Ultimately the people in Yuyutsu's visionary world will fall victim to either tribalism, the need for some of their neighbour's territory or become the servants of a bully war lord. Humans don't have a good track record of living in peaceful coexistence.>>

Why, nothing needs to change in this regard.
Today the big state serves (or is supposed to serve) a defence-pact in order to keep the peace within and without. Smaller states are still capable of keeping their peace from within while nothing stops them from making defence-pacts with other states to keep the peace from without.

<<Even Utopia will have some form of law, some form of acceptable and unacceptable cultural practices, and those who care about the law.>>

The law is too crude a tool - common sense is so much better!

Those who want to live under a law can still do so, only they may not impose their laws over those who are not interested: against those, they instead apply common-sense as defence. I have just explained the difference on another thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16764#297026
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 7:03:22 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
ybgirp-<Sensible peoples' loyalty lies with kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, egalitarianism, respect for the elderly, love of children, diligent respect for the land, plants and animals>

You can be kind,generous and all those things you list above with
the exception of honesty
and still be disloyal to your wife or husband.

Loyalty simply means commitment and honesty. In this case it is not about the state or leaders it is about being loyal to the "people" of Australia as a whole,"team Australia" as Abbott put it.
Not being loyal to a particular ethnic group, religion or tribe
above your loyalty to the Australian people as a whole.

All the civil wars in the world at the moment seem to involve
these muslim religious tribes(and they are tribes at the bloodline
level) because their religion forbids marriage outside of their
believers)

They tear countries into divided groups and then want to fight
for control of the countries they are in. And yes the
Christian religions have done the same and would still fight wars
if threatened and the reason this happens with all religions, is
simply that they practice segregation into religious groups which in the end divides and tears societies apart.

Wearing the Hijab in Australia is an example of practising
division and apartheid which has the power in the long term
as the apartheid group grows ever larger to split the
nation into two and plunge us all into civil war.

This is not an unreasonable fear or phobia, it is happening
in countries locked in conflict around the world now a we speak.
And has been happening right across the known history of man.
It is not an unreasonable fear, but is a factual observation
documented in history books and encyclopedia everywhere.

So put away your Islamophobic-call-them-names-to-shut-them-up
stick,and show me in what way historical facts don't verify what I
am saying.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 4 December 2014 10:57:29 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
Cherful,
There’s no such thing as “being loyal to the people of Australia as a whole.” we have a population of individuals with as many different ideas, thoughts and preferences as there are people. The loyalty Abbot wants is unquestioning acceptance of his ideas on how the country should be run. As I can’t agree with him on most things, to give him my unquestioning loyalty would make me a traitor to myself.
Your observations about Islam have little relevance to this discussion. While I reckon religions should only be practiced by consenting adults in private, I can’t see how wearing a hijab is any more divisive than wearing an ostentatious cross or carrying a carry-bag advertising Woolworths.
The wars you mention are only partly due to sectarian differences. Non-religious international interference has an equal responsibility. Despite being ruled by a cruel dictator, Iraq was a peaceful, functioning, secular state with excellent public education, health and welfare, in which religion played no part in public life, until the U.S.A and it’s clingers on decided to destabilise it in the hope of gaining control of resources. This is what unleashed sectarian violence and civil war.
I imagine you are loyal to Australia because Abbot embodies your prejudices. Would you feel so loyal if the government was in the hands of secular humanists who thought the function of government was to treat all citizens fairly and equally?
Wearing the Hijab on hot days seems stupid, but they have the right to be stupid, as do you. It is no more divisive than wearing too much perfume, or showing too much cleavage. What makes it divisive is public intolerance.
Continued...
Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 4 December 2014 11:41:59 AM
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
Continued...
If you doubt my take on Iraq, you might be interested in what General Smedley Butler told us in 1933, and his words are still with us, http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm
“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912…I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”
As you can see, nothing’s changed.
Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 4 December 2014 11:44:42 AM
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
The brilliance of ybgirp - "There’s no such thing as “being loyal to the people of Australia as a whole.” we have a population of individuals with as many different ideas, thoughts and preferences as there are people."

This poor girl doesn't even know what's wrong with her statement.

Statements like that reflect the thinking that is undermining this country and western democracies; it's political correctness gone mad; it's even dishonest because the author is knowingly misrepresenting the intention of the phrase 'loyal to Australia.'

It's the do-gooder minds like this that pose as much threat to our way of life as the radical Muslims.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Thursday, 4 December 2014 5:17:45 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
Dear Conservativehippie.[Hippies were the opposite of conservative when I was one...what caused your conversion?]
Please inform the poor girl [who happens to be a 74 year old male] what is wrong with the statement.
If loyalty to Australia doesn't mean loyalty to the notions of a "fair go" and equality for all, what does it mean? Allowing multinational religious corporations to pay no tax on their billion dollar profits while reducing the incomes of working poor, seems not worthy of my loyalty, nor the government's refusal to enforce the payment of taxes by other multinationals...but perhaps I'm old fashioned to think there should be a level playing field, also fo the banking system. Laissez fair capitalism, which is the religion of our present political masters, is not something I can subscribe to. So my loyalties will remain with abstract notions rather than concrete realities.
Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 5 December 2014 7:02:04 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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