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 > Democracy or bureaucracy > Comments

Democracy or bureaucracy : Comments

By Susan Wight, published 29/5/2017

Bureaucrats are gradually writing themselves more power even though they represent no one and can never be voted out. They are eroding democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It has been said that, in a non-democracy, you have a president for life; in a democracy, you have a bureaucracy for life. Unqualified for anything politicians rely too heavily on unelected public servants who appear to be running the show.

The best example of this is the shadowy AAT, which is continually overturning decisions made by the Minister for Immigration.

Why do Australian voters tolerate this nonsense? Public servants are actually running Australia, which is why the country is rooted.

Even if you write directly to a politician, it is highly unlikely the politician will sight your letter, preferring to allow a public servant to answer you with a standard, party-approved response.

While this writer might be interested mainly her own hobby horse, this article is most vital to all aspects of mis-governance in Australia, and it should be heeded.

Australia is rooted.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 29 May 2017 11:32:51 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
Susan, good (Victorian) links, but helpful for dealing with bureaucracy how ? We all know they are "adept" at dodging questions and they learn this at an early age, when representing their constituencies as local councillors and such on their way up the Cherry Tree and off to Malfunction Junction in Canberra. After all a camel is only a horse designed by a committee.

I have a treasured copy of the Hunters Hill Council Centenary (1961) and et voila inside is a lovely photo of the bespectacled Councillor Herr Howard, later to become Fuhrer Howard.

Are you familiar with Arthur Chresby ? Each and every Australian has a powerful weapon within their grasp, it's called the 'Australian Constitution' and for a while as a law student I quite despised it & considered it anachronistic and out of touch with modern day Australia. Once I had unpacked what Chresby advises ( to exercise 'Your Will') - in the written form by letter or email, this becomes a potent device and it is unique to Australia...no other Westminster System country has anything quite like it. If only it could be utilised to its fullest potential, most pollies would be in fear of it. Alas, it is not even mentioned, or taught in law faculties around Australia, let alone at schools. Sad to say most children today know more about the US Constitution than our own.

Here's some links to Chresby's article.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Chresby

http://www.peoplesmandate.iinet.net.au/your_will_be_done.pdf
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Monday, 29 May 2017 12:01:37 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
Agree, and a good enough reason for a complete clean out or responsible senior staff with every change of government! If only to make these folk accountable for their advice or what they write as law?

And yet another reason for a bill of irrevocable rights, one of which must has to be, a citizens initiated referendum.

Argue about the number of necessary signatures? Not whether we should or should have one, which would/should be a cornerstone of any genuine democracy!

Nonetheless these bureaucratic instruments ought to have a time limit of say, three months, unless ratified by debated legislation? Otherwise, why bother with elections?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 29 May 2017 1:31:45 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
The recently elected Labor government in WA has a mandate to go through the WA bureaucracy like a packet of salts. First cab off the rank will be pink slips for the bloated mandarins in CEO positions created by Barnett's Libs, to be followed closely by a mega-merger drastically reducing the number of government departments. The expense saved will fill some of the zillion-dollar black hole left by the Libs and make possible some modest infrastructure spending with the emphasis on WA jobs rather than outsourcing work to foreign companies as the Libs did.

Barnett's replacement by business speculator Mike Mahan will help guarantee Labor's Mark McGowan a long period in office to repair the massive budgetary damage done by the Libs and get WA back on track with (wait for it!) jobs-n-growth.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 29 May 2017 2:37:19 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
{
At a dinner party Churchill says to his dinner companion, "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
The woman responds, "My goodness, Mr. Churchill. I suppose I would."
Churchill replies, "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
She answers, "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?"
Churchill answers, "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."
}
(from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/we_simply_haggling_over_the_pr.html)

Once you accepted democracy, you have already established your agreement that other people (i.e. a "majority") have a right to control your life.

The rest, such as whether they may do it by legislation or by regulation, is just haggling over the price!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 29 May 2017 3:29:29 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
My thoughts on this subject always come down on the off side to home schooling.
One could be totally negative and draw an inference from the article which says homeschoolers are elitist in their view of the school system, and wish simply to be non conformists.
Implying as this article seems to, that scrutiny by the State into the non conformist element in society which they are, is an attack on the Democratic rights of the citizen generally, is a long bow.

But to take the bait, and conclude the world is becoming more painted into a corner by bureaucratic regulation, does state the obvious.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 29 May 2017 10:46:23 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
Already there Susan. Have been for some time.
Most only find out about a new rule after it's in place and never question how it came to be. Typically the sports pages raise more chatter.
It's the same everywhere.
Our current government down here in Van Diemen's Land has proven no less captured by the public service than the ones that preceded it. They perhaps get more excited over different things but just as spendthrift and just as inclined to defer to departments to draft new regulations and just as inclined to rubber stamp them without question.
Looking at the elected members they're all career public servants themselves. I suspect that's the problem. They know nothing else.
So long as the punters keep voting for the devil they know because it feels safer this trend's going to continue. Well until everything grinds to a halt as history's proven it always does.
Only light on the hill, and there is one starting to show, is the move away from major parties we're seeing in the poles. More and more are feeling burned with their plans shredded by the monolith and they're realising their representatives really aren't.
Posted by jamo, Monday, 29 May 2017 11:42:17 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
"Home schooling" is about protecting one's children from being indoctrinated and brainwashed by the state and its values.

Having accepted democracy, the author already affirms the "right" of states to control our lives, which includes what values we teach our children and what bad values we shield them from.

Trying to get the state to behave a bit more nicely and orderly, is tinkering around the edges.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 29 May 2017 11:55:44 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
Jamo, with the current rates that laws, by-laws, regulations and such gets rammed through the various state/territory & Federal parliaments, Australia has become the most (over) regulated/legislated country amongst the common law, Westminster System governments in the world.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/welcome-to-australia-the-worlds-most-overregulated-nanny-state/news-story/49aa0a414ae87b9ef54e85b40af36b47

We apparently now rate as No 2 in being litigious, not bad for a small country.

http://www.abc2c.com.au/australia-comes-second-in-being-litigious
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 11:12:17 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
Yuyutsu, children are human beings and nobody - not parents, not the state, not this or that religious body, has a God-given right to deprive them of access to whatever ideas they choose to explore and consider. Taxpayers should never have been dunned to provide aid to private religious schools which are geared to theocratic indoctrination.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 3:10:01 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
with the complete dumbing down of state schools one would almost have to consider it child abuse to send their kids there. So glad my wife homeschooled our children for a few years before having to face the barrage of indoctrination by the 'elite'. Whether it be the absolute evolution fantasy, gw fraud or being told babies born with a penis might be a girl, I and am very glad these twits have not managed to brainwash my kids.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 3:44:09 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 Julian,

So long as a child is unable to express their wishes clearly, nobody can better represent and be a mouth for the child's own wishes than their parents.
Once the child has grown sufficiently to express their wishes themselves, then it's only up to the child herself, including which influences they wish to be exposed to and which influences they rather be shielded from.

Regarding taxpayers' money, I could not agree more.
However, no taxpayers' money should anyway be given toward ANY form of indoctrination, including in public schools.
And in any case, it is shameful and irreligious to touch such tainted stolen money that was taken from others by force.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 3:46:57 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
Yuyutsu:"it is shameful and irreligious to touch such tainted stolen money that was taken from others by force"

If you are referring to taxpayers' money, I would say "by mutual consent", not simply "by force". In a representative system it's the elected parliament that decides on taxation. The representative system is in accord with majority consent (not mine but the majority must prevail).

An actual democracy (to which we must aspire) would include Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda (BCIR) - for example the Theft Tax stolen from all people whenever they buy goods and services would never have been imposed.

There is no place in the world where an individual can maintain life while being in sole control of what happens to his or her property. Nor could there be as there would be no property, and nobody to protect him/her from the first predator to come with a gun. It's all a pointless dream of an individual who depends on what organised society offers while disavowing organised society.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 4:34:44 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 Julian,

I don't mind taking money that was paid by mutual consent, but so long as that money includes the tax of even one (1) person who did not consent to have their tax taken, no matter what their reason(s) happen to be, touching this tainted money that is taken from them is a theft.

Now since you mentioned "the majority", the question arises - majority of what?

Why, you could count the chooks in your backyard, perhaps the mice too, you could even get a power-of-attorney to represent them and vote in what you consider their best-interests. What difference is it to me whether I am being included, without being asked, in a majority-system that includes your chooks; or in a majority-system that includes strangers who live 1000's of kilometres away, whom I never met and probably never will, and whom I probably have little values in common with?

Your argument of an individual's inability to survive on their own and have sole-control of their environment is misleading on the following grounds:
1. While it seems that physical survival rates high on your list of values, whether I survive or not is none of your business.
2. We are all affected by nature, the weather, animals, plants, the earth, the sun, etc. While they all can affect what happens on my property, these are not conscious and deliberate attempts to control my life.
3. There are many other options besides living alone and taking part in your continent-scale society of humans. Yours is not the only possible organised society!

Once I get to choose my society, based on our own criteria rather than arbitrarily on having human-bodies that are parked in this continent, once I and all other members of my society voluntarily agree on its constitution, then of course we can elect to have a democracy (or any other management-system that we may agree on), then only a "majority" gets a meaning, then only we can decide on secondary questions such as having BCIR or raising taxes - but not before.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 11:48:36 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
Yuyutsu: "Yours is not the only possible organised society!"

So outline an alternative that would better support your personal existence, and that of all the other persons.

Otherwise all you are suggesting is the totally unsustainable and essentially irrelevant ultimate me-me-me.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 1:45:35 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 Julian,

If your top value is indeed to support human personal existence (yours and others'), then indeed I am not the expert and, though it may require more research, you could be correct that the best way to do it is through the monolithic mega-state.

In the long term, personal existence is unsustainable regardless. Sooner or later we will all lose our bodies. Not only that, but humanity as a whole will become extinct, it's only a matter of time.

Now if you care for other values beyond mere existence, such as non-violence, freedom of choice, ethics, morality and religion, that changes the picture and then the primary rule becomes "first do no harm". Counting people as part of a society which they are not interested in and forcing them to obey that society's rules, is clearly harmful.

While the forced monolithic and involuntary mega-society could indeed be (subject to further research) more effective in terms of personal survival than smaller and voluntary, self-governing societies, I find mere survival where life lasts longer but its purpose is thwarted and unfulfilled, to be useless, immoral, stupid and unappealing.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 1 June 2017 2:27:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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