The poor in Australia hide behind the destitute.
To add to the list, the poor are now the subject of the "shrill" call to have them thrown into prison as domestic violence perpetrators. 30k police call outs for DV in Logan Qld last year is proof.

The poor are actually excluded from medication at all by pricing mechanisms, this is the US system at work. Two thousand people died waiting for elective surgery last year, a wait which can be usurped with available personal resources. No public housing for them, since immigrants and refugees are now seen as priority tenants. (Unless you happen to be Aboriginal, and given special poor privileges under "Closing the gap" scheme).

And when their poor arses hit the homeless street, special laws are becoming the norm to criminalise street dwelling. No escape from rent gouging merciless private land lords, with upward ever upward rents, and no hope of ever owning a home for them and their poor families as an alternative.
Virtually no defence in criminal cases in court, as the most inept lawyers swallow up meagre resources from legal aid. There is definitely only justice in the court system, for the wealthy self funded defenders, rendering the poor to unnecessary prison terms!

If you are among the poor, this country is totally F* for you on every level !

Although my PC indoctrinated brain baulks at many of his arguments, he makes a lot of sense. The poorer you are, the more you engage in behaviour that the comfortable middle class finds distasteful. Being grindingly poor is deeply distressful and leads to self-destructive and destructive behaviour. This is by no means a new phenomenon. These are the throw-away people in a throw-away society that prides itself on recycling its waste. We can no longer transport them to faraway colonies, so just keep telling them their poverty is their own fault. Punish them appropriately and all's well with the middle class world

The government should be helping the poor, both through the benefits system and by running expansionary economic policy.

But last time I checked, ISTR Senator Leyonhjelm opposed both these things.

Try not to be poor! Absolutely no effort required, new found champion for the underdog! And given your status and record, breathtaking hypocrisy?

I could change my mind, but only and when, your unmistakeable actions speak louder than you pious parsimonious pollywaffle!
Alan B.

diver dan, Aidan
Until you have understood and taken account of what government interventions are doing to cause or exacerbate the problem, your opinions in favour of any government interventions to fix or improve the problem are not valid.

diver dan
Your assumption that everything belongs to the government, and then people receive unequal distributions out of that, is not correct. People die waiting for elective surgery because government makes people pay in time instead of in money. However it's true that that doesn't mean that they would necessarily be able to afford elective surgery in a fully-privatised dispensation.

What you both need to understand is that government cannot magically conjure away the problem of poverty. The assumption that it can is wrong. Government can make society poorer, but it cannot, by forced redistributions, make society richer.

Aidan has already lost this argument over and over again. He equivocates whether any aggressive force is involved in policy, alternatively arguing when it suits him
- that it is,
- that it isn't,
- that it is but it's not aggressive, and
- that it is aggressive but it's okay.

Complete gibberish.

He also cannot defend his beliefs in the welfare state, or that printing money makes society or the poor richer, except by the simple expedient of assuming he's right without reason, and then answering any challenge by merely repeating the assumption. It's superstition.

Of course if it were were true that government has this magical power to conjure away poverty by forced redistributions, or by running the printing presses, then why not just make the tax rate 100%, or print so much that everyone in society is so rich that they don't have to work for a living?

Leyonhjelm is right. The anti-freedom freaks are wrong in fact, logic and ethics

The logic of David's article is inescapable. The poor, the underemployed, the disabled, the marginalised need their own political party. One Nation comes closest to being a political voice of the disenfranchised, but its ideological suite of policy interests is so loopy as to render it a cul-de-sac for anyone seeking change. Labor and the Greens represent the affluent inner-cities, and the Libs represent the Big End of Town. But 50% of Australians have an income of less than the median of $67,000, and that is more than enough to seep the electoral stakes - if we can get ourselves organised.

Yes vern, but what should we call this party? The the Australian Egalitarian small L libs? And stand on a platform of truth, justice and the Australian way.

With every aspiring candidate able to swear on a bible while wired to a polygraph and again as their policy platform agenda is rolled out? Want real people, who say what they mean and mean what they say!

Big ideas. how we are going to fund them, cooperative endevour and projects earning enough income not to need indefinite support.

We need ideas that resuscitate manufacturing and once again make basic housing cost just 3-4 years of an average adult male income. And against a howling gale of entrenched opposition!

Mostly by working on the supply side/removing all the front end fees, charges and tax to force down prices. Assisting that outcome by requiring a minimum 25% deposit and by getting the government back in the banking, energy and assured water supply business!

Even where that required embracing weapons free nuclear power!? Getting people back to work, with retraining and mentored cadetships useful. And with conscription for dole bludging by the able bodied!

Until and unless we embrace fair dinkum egalitarian equality, end endemic tax avoidance, what we confront is a future where flipping burgers etc/etc, will be done by university graduates.

People mustn't be penalized for being poor, but helped climb out of the holes, post code poverty traps, what have you! And as the first consequence, enrich us all!

We need decentralisation, rapid rail and a modern NBN. And people willing to put their own careers on the line; and control in both houses, to ensure we get them!

Enough with the endless prevarication, the blame shifting finger pointing and divide and rule tactics, that do little more than divide one people against themselves! Think, a divided house cannot stand!

Moreover, entrenched endemic poverty has nothing whatsoever going for it, us or the nation! Even so, expect class and race warfare/power struggle, by folks and pretenders, with a vested interest in anything else!
Alan B.

socialism has always led to poverty and more well paid Government employees.

As 1 of 6 kids who were raised by their mother under constant threat of being taken away from their mother by the Child Welfare Department because she "had no visible means of support," I completely identify with the author.

I have worked since I was 15-16 years old and spent the best years of my live working in iron more mines and I now have my own home. However, I now cannot get work due to the fact that I have turned that magical age of 60+ years that exiles one out of the labour market.

We have enough super to last 3-4 years thereafter I am on the slippery slope of returning to my child hood situation.

I have a morbid and consuming fear of being poor because I cannot forget my childhood.

I have PTS due to poverty induced events that occurred when I was a child.

Despite the simplistic claims made, that the poor deserve their poverty and the rich deserve their wealth, one day people will realise, that we are all controlled by the elite who make laws that are intended to redirect the Common Wealth of Australia to themselves.

Remember, we are many they are few.

David Leyonhjelm, champion of the little poor battlers.

Christ, what an effing joke.

Whatever you do, try not to be a cock.

Jardine,

Your accusations about me are a pack of lies. No doubt you believe them to be true, though, because you have trouble comprehending stuff that contradicts your assumptions. How many years did it take before you finally understood that I oppose rape in all circumstances (including in prison)?

You seem particularly addicted to the fallacy fallacy: as soon as you spot an apparent flaw in your opponent's argument, you wrongly assume that proves you to be right. Worse still, many of what appear to be flaws or contradictions are nothing of the sort.

Regarding aggressive force, I (like almost all the population) believe the state should be able to enforce its laws, so of course it should have the power of arrest. However I believe the police (and indeed the rest of the government) should not resort to actual violence (action that is intended or likely to cause injury) except in self defence or the defence of others. It may seem like complete gibberish to you, but any thinking person should be able to comprehend it easily.

I have previously defended my beliefs, yet you ignore what I say when I do, as you're such a bigoted ignoramus that you assume anyone you disagree with must be resorting to superstition or assumptions of "magical power".

If you'd actually bothered to understand my position, you'd know that printing money is never an alternative to work, but it can make society richer by enabling more work to get done. And that money is a good incentive to work, but society is better off when we're not so dependent on it for everything, especially when we're affected by circumstances beyond our control. And of course the same amount of money has a much greater effect on the standard of living of the poor than that of the rich.

(tbc)

JKJ (continued)

Getting back on topic, I do have a pretty good understanding of what government interventions are doing to cause or exacerbate the problem, but I totally reject your claim that such understanding is a prerequisite for valid opinions in favour of any government interventions to fix or improve the problem. Knowing that the government is capable of intervening to solve the problem is sufficient for a valid opinion.

Gawd, what a lot of waffle !
The basic problem is the industrial age is just now coming to its peak.
The problems with our electrical supply is just one symptom of it.
We now have just about 50% of the population receiving government largess.
The other 50% are paying to support the first 50% !
Does that not raise any worries with you all ?
We have very little time to correct this because the 2nd 50% will
soon not be able to support the first 50%.

Bazz,

If the industrial age is at its peak, that's just an artefact o categorisation, for industrial development is accelerating, with automation now so advanced that driverless vehicles are now on the road.

The problem of our electrical supply is the result not of that but of the 1980s/90s mindset of trying to cut government spending regardless of the long term consequences.

The payments that people receive from the government are mostly quite meagre; I certainly wouldn't regard them as largess.

And have you got any evidence at all that "We have very little time to correct this because the 2nd 50% will soon not be able to support the first 50%"?

Yes Aiden, your own post about the increasing magic that we are
applying.
I suggest you read Joseph Trainter's book the collapse of Complex Societies.