Tristan,

I think that we should at least agree that the terms "offend" and "insult" which are entirely subjective in 18c should be removed to prevent rent seekers like Cathy Prior abusing the system to coerce money from victims.

Those who sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts forfeit the right to disclose information obtained due to these contracts. e.g. Lawyers and doctors get into trouble disclosing information on clients. Similarly, I would get fired from my job if I disclosed confidential information.

Secondly, the libs aren't trying to smash the unions, only prevent their thuggery and wanton breaking of laws.

Thirdly, I fail to see any point in a treaty. Aboriginals already get vastly preferential treatment.

Fourthly, having spent much time in Finland and Sweden, and having experienced the vast cost living and having seen the consequences of their inability to react to the GFC, I would disagree with you.

Looking at Soviet proxies in South America, Europe and elsewhere, the outcome was vastly better for those in the western sphere of influence. Taiwan and South Korea vs china and North Korea make my argument.

Private debt is just that, are you proposing that the government limit each person's borrowing?

Are you trying to excuse Lenin's genocide?

Lenin did not commit genocide ; what he did do was to behave utterly ruthlessly when confronted with intervention, destabilisation, starvation, civil war, the prospect of people freezing to death without heating materials... Trotsky was like-minded. Hence 'militarisation of labour' for example. What would have been better would be an ongoing 'dual power' policy - with power shared by the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets ; With the Red Army as the ultimate 'insurance policy'.

That said I think Lenin went down the wrong path. The "21 conditions" for membership of the Comintern attempted to impose Bolshevist Party Organisation - and accountability to the USSR - on every member Party. The Left was split of course as a consequence. The best tendencies attempted to form a "Two and a Half" international - which wanted 'a democratic revolution' and did not sell out their values; but in the end they were swallowed by what became 'The Socialist International' which deteriorated so much over time (especially after they were crushed with the rise of fascism) that it no longer had much practical or substantial political relevance.

re: Confidentiality agreements - would you hold your tongue if you WERE confronted with genocide? The crimes against refugees are not that: but there are gross breaches of human rights. I don't believe in 'the open door' - but I don't agree with torturing people for years on end as a 'deterrence' either.

re: Unions - we know the sentiment and the language deployed by the Conservatives in this country. Because we've always had 'a Labor party' there has been that extra incentive to 'smash the unions' - because they are the social base of the Labor Party. ie: The Conservatives electoral rival... Not to mention many Conservatives see smashing trade unions as a way of 'letting market forces go free' - where collective bargaining is viewed as a 'distortion'.

The Treaty is about the good relations and good will that flow from a just and final settlement. Indigenous peoples enjoy positive discrimination exactly because their social position is SO bad.

re: Cost of Living - giving the working poor a fairer deal will result in a higher cost of living for the middle class - because of high labour costs. But the working poor themselves would view that situation somewhat differently. Yes the working poor would be improving their position relative to what most view as 'the middle class'.

re: Private Debt - Yes the banks should face regulations to stop them sucking people into Debt Traps. If a person has insufficient means to pay back a loan ; and the loan is for private consumption and not to start up a business for example - then banks shouldn't be handing out credit cards to everyone without any care for the consequences.

Perhaps genocide is not the correct definition, I'll settle for Lenin committed large scale mass murder to put down a largely internal rebellion.

As Sovereign Borders has not required the incarceration of anyone I gather that you prefer this solution, and since no one has brought up any evidence of gross human rights violations in detention, I fail to see what you are complaining about.

As for the unions, especially the more corrupt and brutish such as the CFMEU, I gather that you support their criminal activities?

As there are no working poor in Aus, the wages are much higher than in Nordic states and the cost of living is lower, I don't see much benefit.

Who is going to judge whether Joe Smith is a credit risk? The banks generally lose out when someone defaults.

Without going into details I don't support 'criminal activities' in the usual sense of the word ; I do support unions enjoying industrial liberties which enable them to use their industrial leverage to secure better wages and conditions for their members. If legitimate liberties are criminalised I support civil disobedience. The CFMEU does have a massive 'warchest'. I'd like to see them use that to support industrially weaker unions in securing better deals for their members. If there are criminal activities that go beyond legitimate civil disobedience I don't support that.

But I do think there is a double standard that we've hard a Trade Union Royal Commission but nothing of the sort for the banks... Or white collar crime more generally... Some claim the Mafia has links to parts of the Liberal Party.

re: Lenin Yes millions died in the Civil War. Largely because millions had ALREADY died in the First World War ; and the West responded to the Revolution (whose aim was to end WWI) with military intervention and other destabilisation. A lot of the deaths were civilians - exactly because the infrastructure of Russia was collapsing. There was starvation ; and people dying from exposure to the elements. At the end of it all you have to blame both the Western powers who intervened, and Lenin... Lenin might have been able to ameliorate the situation if he had come to an agreement with the other socialist parties - and maintained a situation of dual power - again with the Red Army as the 'insurance policy'. Maybe in a less dire situation we would not have had military conscription, militarisation of labour and so on.

But you can't view the Revolution in context unless you also consider the history of WWI and Western Intervention.

Lenin's strategies led to Stalinism, though. Arguably it would have been better for the socialist revolution to fail, but the bourgeois revolution to succeed - when you consider that the experience of Stalinism discredited socialism in the eyes of millions for generations.

Tristan,

I think that the measures put in place with the ABCC etc don't interfere with the unions ability to organize and operate within reasonable limits. The TURC and a string of other scandals and prosecutions have shown that the physical assaults and intimidation, the illegal blockades, extortion, pilfering of union funds etc were essentially going unpunished.

Perhaps you could elucidate exactly which laws that the rest of us are subject to that you think the unions should be exempt from?

As for the plethora of atrocities committed under Lenin, while some can be excused in the fog of war, but most cannot, especially those that occurred post the revolution that involved forcing compliance in fact "Lenin killed 4 million people - men, women and little children. He is the 5th greatest murderer of the 20th century (after Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Chiang Kai-shek)."