http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/

"As supporters of this Program we endorse the incorporation of the following into the ALP Platform for 2018:

c) Reform Tax to Extend Social Investment and Expenditure: We have as a medium term objective the goal of meeting the OECD average regarding our Tax to GDP Ratio. That means an increase in the Tax to GDP ratio by 5% ideally over as long as three terms of Labor Government. Specifically this translates to an increase of $80 billion/year in today’s terms."

No-one wants their tax increased to pay for more of your weird progressive bs.
Political Correctness is cancer, and the 'cultural left' can't debate, because none of their arguments actually hold any merit.

Politics tends to be class-Oriented. The traditional Left claimed to champion the working class and other exploited, oppressed and/or subordinated groupings, even though the major Left organisations, even the Communist Party, tended not to be workers or the oppressed - but of course, they were people, mostly professionals, who purported to speak for them. Sooner or later though, their own class interests had to come to the fore.

The Greens now, for instance, are not working-class or all that oppressed: maybe $ 22 for smashed avocado is a bit exploitative, but the professionals who form the backbone of the Greens have the forbearance not to mount demonstrations about it.

But clearly the Greens are a class, of professionals, relatively well-paid, mainly in public employment, divorced from actual physical work on the whole - perhaps some generations away from their forefathers' and foremothers' hard, physical slog to make ends meet in a harsh and very exploitative world. As well, and in accordance with that social-evolutionary trend, they tend to be Anglo-Australian and perhaps carry over the perception of that group's right to rule. But of course, many non-Anglo Australians are now catching up socially and professionally, and so are moving into the Greens. Class matters :)

As suburbs in the major cities become gentrified, lo and behold, the Greens' vote increases there. But conversely, those classes in Australian society which do not rely on professional skills, but on commerce, production, entrepreneurship, and plain physical labour, tend not to support Greens' policies. Very likely, they see such policies as at least slightly irrelevant to human existence, and the policies of the affluent, secure self-indulgent.

So perhaps there is a class-oriented limit to the growth in Greens' numbers: 10 - 11 % in Victoria, and much less in some other states. So how can they increase their numbers ? Perhaps by demanding increases in the numbers of publicly-funded positions such as bureaucrats, teachers, social workers and nurses. Conversely,

[TBC]

[continued]

Conversely, by demanding the extinction of some occupations such as those in mining, and the diminution of employment in manufacturing and farming. There would not be many votes from those 'classes' for the Greens, so they are superfluous in the political game, so their concerns are irrelevant or downright reactionary - 'hard Right'.

Perhaps we all do live in a class society, after all, as Marx would have observed.

Joe

Off Topic *NEWSFLASH*

In a last minute (morning December 6, 2018) political move which will have OLO's

Legions of Latte Loony Leftist Leaning commenters go Loopy, Labor

the Greens and Independent Crossbenchers in Parliament

have moved a motion:

"...to pressure Government to remove refugee children from Nauru and Manus Island"

"The Prime Minister has ramped up his attack on Labor, as he faces the prospect of DEFEAT on a bill to get more refugees off Nauru and Manus Island.

The Government is strongly opposed to it but there is a chance the bill has enough support to pass the Lower House.

"This is about Australia's safety," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

"And Bill Shorten is a clear and present threat to Australia's safety. Because he is so obsessed with politics, that he cannot see the national interest."

MORE AT THE ABC THAT ALL IN OLO LOVE http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/crossbench-mps-push-federal-government-refugees-on-nauru/10588374

ENJOY

Real people, not OLO avatars, the ABC etc. don't believe in PC. They don't say anything because they don't realise that most people agree with them. They wait for the chance to vote. These days, however, they need to ignore both major parties an look for someone different. There are good opportunities for candidates who want to cut through the bulldust. Australian Conservatives are the best bet in the Senate. In SA, we have the chance to get rid of SHY by voting for Rikki Lambert.

Armchair Critic ; As you recognise that $80 billion would be in the context of $1.6 trillion economy - or 5% or the Australian economy. The fact of the matter is that certain kinds of 'collective consumption' - in this instance through tax - deliver a better deal to citizens as taxpayers than as isolated consumers. Take the example of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So despite paying more in tax ; taxpayers would have more free cash at the end of the day. A fair degree of redistribution is acceptable also ; as 'supply and demand in the labour market' don't necessarily deliver justice. And certain social goods - eg: Health and Education - should be non-negotiable - part and package of an enlightened and caring civilisation.

On Education, the whole 'PC Debate' is damaging ; preventing the realisation of a curriculum that promotes critical thinking and active citizenship - and hence a stronger democracy. That does not equal 'brainwashing' as Kevin Donnelly would argue for instance. It should mean a curriculum whose topic matter is both critical AND pluralistic.

Hi Tristan Evans,
Firstly, I respect your willingness to engage with people who comment in response to your article, I wish more content authors would.

I believe that in order to get to the truth of things we need to separate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.

If content authors don't engage with those who disagree, then we really don't move any closer to the truth of things.

Whereas a debate might seek to use grandstanding to win, I'm only interested in the truth based on its own merits.

I honestly think all of your arguments are deeply flawed, and your ideas will only end with horrific outcomes for all concerned.

"As you recognise that $80 billion would be in the context of $1.6 trillion economy - or 5% or the Australian economy."

New OECD data in the annual Revenue Statistics 2018 publication show that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (i.e. the tax-to-GDP ratio) have continued to increase since the low-point experienced in almost all countries in 2008 and 2009 as a result of the financial and economic crisis. The average tax-to-GDP ratio in OECD countries was 34.2% in 2017 compared with 34.0% in 2016 and 33.7% in 2015. The 2017 figure is the highest recorded OECD average tax-to-GDP ratio since records began in 1965. Country tax-to-GDP ratios in 2017 varied considerably, both across countries and since 2016.
Key observations include:
France had the highest tax-to-GDP ratio in 2017 (46.2%)..."

http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

So you want us to burn like France?
You think this is the way to build a future?

[Cont.]
I think you deliberately want to destroy the nation from the inside out for your Marxist socialist revolution beliefs - am I right?
I challenge that you're not actually trying to find ways that benefit people and society as a whole, but rather find ways to undermine society and crash the system in order to bring about your own socialist / communist rule over the people.

I think society works best with a mixture of capitalist and socialist foundations in social policy, but I believe that it should be done in a way that strengthens capitalism, rather than undermining it to force socialism.

I'd be happy to argue the merits of all of your beliefs;
- But I think you'd probably run away as soon as your arguments were proven flawed, like all leftists do.

"So despite paying more in tax ; taxpayers would have more free cash at the end of the day."

No they won't they'll be dead.
I've got a friend right now in Palliative care who will be lucky to last the week, let alone till Christmas.
They wouldn't give him the $7000 CBD treatment that may have saved his life, no.
But they will pay $42,000 for a screwed up junkie with Hep C from sharing needles to treat their illness, and whats to stop a junkie going back out and sharing needles in relation to their addiction again?

How do you think the struggling battler feels about his taxes spent on that, or foreigners and their 10 kids, while you destroy the existing middle class, whinge about the environment, energy prices skyrocketing and no-one can even afford to run their fridges?

The whole system is Cloward and Piven, at a micromanaged level.

"A fair degree of redistribution is acceptable also; as 'supply and demand in the labour market' don't necessarily deliver justice."

- Well that's because the system we use as a labour market is fundamentally built wrong.
We give welfare as cash instead of giving a job.
I believe their should be a socialist base-level employment that makes use of the 5% pool of unemployed workers capitalism needs to prevent wage growth.

- The job you have when you don't have a job. -
Double dole for full-time work doing things for the nation.

It's not that democracy and capitalism doesn't work, it's just that the system is flawed, hasn't been properly refined or built correctly.

"And certain social goods - eg: Health and Education - should be non-negotiable - part and package of an enlightened and caring civilisation"

How are you going to provide free health and free education if you cannot even provide a free job?

Lets look at this:
http://www.billmitchell.org/White_Paper_1945/index.html

It's all bullcrap, you need real policies, not fairytales.
- And you don't care about making things better, you just want to justify tearing everything down.

Armchair Critic,
Well, Tristan did not hide the fact that he's a teacher & surprise, surprise a member of the ALP.
If he ever stumbled over a block of reality he'd be lost. These idealist indoctrinated are not capable of seeing fact, only day dreams. Were he to be taken of the public service payroll he'd be incapable of earning enough to buy himself a vegie burger. The disillusioning side is that there are so many like him kept by our tax dollars.

There's way too much she said he said stuff happening here. And an entire legal and political profession able to ignore that which would illuminate the facts! And for self evident reasons!

That is modern space age high tech unbeatable lie detection.

Almost guaranteed among other things to put many legal-eagles out of business and many an expensive courtroom emptied out as the unvarnished facts replace adversarial "JUSTICE" and pollies are seen for what and who they really are as covertly deployed unbeatable space age lie detection exposes them to full transparency.

Not even the most gifted compulsive pork pie teller or psycho can fool or beat this technology! And with that overdue change, gone is the presumption of innocence for the PROVEN guilty and with the end of the stitch up of the convenient innocent!

And simply left unused and undeployed because the high profile individuals and or cases, it would expose to the light of day!?

And a legal profession whose antiquated crafts and adversarial theatre would no longer earn the big bucks! Whereupon, most trials would never ever get as far a the courtroom save for sentencing.

And a situation where six and seven figure salaries would plummet to four and five? Mortgages would be unpaid/properties forfeited and many a bankruptcy would ensue! And a nightmare scenario for all those whose lifestyles are dependant on creating false positives/gilding the lily and mendacious disingenuousness.

These same folk are the new 21st century Luddites, And like modern-day Luddites, resisting feared change!?

Moreover, for purely self-serving reasons.

Better an innocent man rot half his life in a high-security prison than the incomes of Silks, Judges and willfully blind pollies be risked at the altar of the mighty irrefutable truth!
Alan B.

Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 6 December 2018 9:36:54 AM

Answer- I always tend to agree with you Armchair Critic. Kudos. Dialog over dogma. Parents should be teaching about sexuality not teachers. Pluralism equals affirmative action equals undemocratic. Possibility is not probability.

Despite assertions to the contrary, Political Correctness did not come from the "touchy-feely Greeny Lefty" side of politics.

It had origins from the Conservatives during the Reagan era who feared that US moral standards were in decline and was just another way of controlling social behaviour.

It's a self-inflicted vague concept that is ultimately powerless. Nobody has ever been imprisoned, let alone charged for saying something that is not deemed threatening or obscene under existing law.

Armchair Critic ; A strong welfare state and social wage, as well as a democratic mixed economy - does not mean "the end of civilisation". There are many economic and social models the world over. Australia has been drawing closer to the US model. A receding social safety net and high levels of inequality. If anything that is worse for social stability. A strong democracy has to support the right to dissent. To deny peoples' rights to fight for their interests - and for justice - is in the end harmful to democracy. At the end of the day there is more than one model of democracy ; People have the right to choose ; and that does not mean "the end of civilisation".

I am so buoyed right now, at reading the comments on this topic.
Those who know of me, know this is a pet topic of mine.
It is so good to see so many people come out in rejection of PC, it is quite heartening.
At first I was not going to comment, as it seemed a little self serving, but I was convinced to do so because not commenting may have sent the wrong message to the similarly minded commentors.
So, here I am, and kudos to you all, with these kind of numbers backing this kind of sentiment it is clear that it should not be too much longer before PC is dead and buried and anyone caught speaking in PC will be immediately dealt with.

Hi Tristan Ewins,
(Sorry for previously misspelling your name)

Once again, thanks for having the courage to respond to commenters criticism.
I didn't think you would and I wish more content authors would be prepared to back up their arguments.
- Progress cannot occur until we seperate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't. -

QUOTE>>A strong welfare state and social wage, as well as a democratic mixed economy - does not mean "the end of civilisation".<<

That's a vague kind of a statement, and you really need to elaborate on exactly what you mean.
In the case of 'a strong welfare state', well that certainly does have the potential to destroy the country.
I'm well aware that you can use this ideology as a means to forward your own socialist agenda, do not think I'm blind to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

As for social wage, I had to look that up to figure out what you were talking about.
http://keithrankin.co.nz/krnknsocw_wp.html

"...public expenditure on health, education, housing and social welfare. Raising the social wage is seen as a 'left-wing' alternative to tax cuts as a means of spending public sector surpluses."

So if we still owned Ports, Rail, Telecommunications and Energy infrastructure;
and if those public sector utilities generated a profit, we'd resdistribute that money to the benefit of all.
- We don't own any of that stuff anymore - who pays for it then - but I digress...

It's a self-inflicted vague concept that is ultimately powerless. Nobody has ever been imprisoned, let alone charged for saying something that is not deemed threatening or obscene under existing law
rache,
Those who lived through the national sozialist era of 1930's Germany would disagree.

Individual,

Why go back to 1930s Germany?

Look at 21st Century Australia.
Julia Banks - who has spoken out against
bullying, intimidation, and a broader culture
problem inside the government party was not
found to be "political correct" behaviour.
She's been accused of being a traitor and
a political rat. Although as Rache has pointed
out she at least was not jailed for it -
although the men left in droves during her speech.

//Those who lived through the national sozialist era of 1930's Germany would disagree.//

Sorry, are you trying to claim that the Nazis arrested people for not being PC?

So how come they put all those gypsies and gays and Jews and so on in concentration camps? That doesn't seem very PC. Wouldn't a PC concentration camp lock up the SS and have the Jews keep guard over them?

Toni, I think you mean, the Jews would connive and scam up some way of getting the SS to guard themselves, then the queers and the gypsies to do the menial jobs like cooking and cleaning and so on, all along the Jews would be charging them all under labour hire laws, as the Jews would explain it was a privilege to be working for them, because they were the 'chosen ones'.

Toni Lavis,
I deliberately didn't want to bring racism into this but you couldn't resist to twist the argument & did.
In National Sozialist Germany people were so hemmend-in by PC they could not even trust their own siblings or children because of this infringement on freedom of speech just like PC is now.
Only this morning I helped a mate move his boat when I had to correct him when he said 'just a poofteenth more". I told him that he should refrain from saying that as it was so totally un-PC.
I suggested he say "a gay bit more" instead.
Hopefully PC is on its way out but what will the pseudo-intellectuals dream up in place of it ?
Already some of these idiots are haggling about refraining from mentioning the sex of newborns & that we should refer to them as "Theybies".

Individual, I shouldn't worry about what the next lot of looneys are going to excrete on the world.
Whatever it will be, I am confident that there are enough of us out there to extinguish them.
I cannot emphasise enough the need for pro-active action in defeating these mentally, delusional looneys.
PC IS a disease with unprecedented power to destroy a populous through the very use of words during a seemingly innocuous act of discussion or communication.
It is a fact that PC is a medium that, if adopted and employed in the manner it is promoted, is an untruthful language and therefore will convey an untrue message.
When used in a discussion or debate, it will pervert and alter the end result or conclusion.
The title itself contains the basis of it's own downfall.
'POLITICAL' Correctness; this means it is something 'other' than correct.
There can only be one interpretation of CORRECT.
So it is that by introducing a 'type' of correctness it is trending away from correct, and therefore towards in-correct.
Once you start down the path of incorrect, your end game is in fact a LIE at it's most extreme.
And so it is that Political Correctness is actually a lie.
Or at least, it is promoting lies.

//I deliberately didn't want to bring racism into this but you couldn't resist to twist the argument//

Gosh, I'm so sorry for pointing out that Nazis imprisoned people on the basis of race, what an awful person that apparently makes me.

//In National Sozialist Germany people were so hemmend-in by PC//

Again, this seems to be entirely at odds with any source I've ever come across that gives information on the Nazis.

Do you have a link or something we could look at? Or is this one of those things you've made up all by yourself?

Do you have a link or something we could look at?
Toni Lavis,
Unfortunately those links have passed on. They were people who lived through this elitist nonsense, my fokls included. Just like the young of now now will in 60 years tell of the insipids of the Left.

When people complain about political correctness
it's usually because they associate political
correctness with being able to act and behave as
they please. Oftentimes people who practice
political correctness are accused of denying other
people the right to free speech.

So, what is political correctness?
In a nutshell political correctness means avoiding
language and actions that insult, exclude, or harm
people who are already experiencing disadvantage or
discrimination.

The argument that political correctness prevents
freedom of speech is flawed.

Freedom of speech gives a person the right to say what
they feel, but it also gives other people the right to
point out if they are being offensive. Freedom of speech
does not mean your words can't be criticised.

Some people also ignore political correctness for the
sake of having a laugh, trying to demean people they
don't approve of, or have a limited vocabulary and
using derogatory language is part and parcel of their
everyday speech. They simply don't know any better.

When someone says something derogatory about a group
they're not a part of, those words can contribute to
discrimination against that group. The person who's
making those comments does not have a lot to lose.
But the people who are the butt of those comments
often do.

//Unfortunately those links have passed on.//

Yes, sadly most of those who lived through Nazism have passed away, but there still remains a great deal of archival footage, historical records, regular reprintings of books like 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Diary of Anne Frank', etc.... really quite a lot of evidence detailing the Nazi regime. Surely you can find some scrap in amongst all that information showing that the Nazis were in favour of political correctness?

I have, in the past said I am a realist, cynic, pessimist and all the categories that make up an informed, aware human being.
I do not shy away from anything, for whatever reason.
I will not promote an untruth.
I abhor those who hide behind PC, for whatever reason.
They are not being honest, either with themselves or anyone else.
If someone says something which someone else finds offensive or hurtful, it is not relevant to the speaker.
If the person intended to offend or upset, then that is also their right to do so.
NO-ONE must ever dictate to others, HOW they should conduct themselves.
If someone feels the need to intentionally attack or abuse someone, there is obviously a damn good reason to, in the mind of the attacker/abuser.
To expect someone to do otherwise is discriminating against the attackers/abusers right to a free and frank delivery of his/her freedom of expression and tantamount to censorship.
To not see that the PC mantra is oppressive and restrictive, thereby forcing the change of narrative, is selfish or petulant, in that the listener is attempting to direct the conversation and not allow the truth, to be uttered.
In doing so the listener is attempting to hi-jack the conversation, by the introduction of emotions, which are irrelevant in a debate or conversation, unless the narrative requires it so.
To those who fear free speach and being insulted or abused by what someone says, it is you who needs to change your attitude, because you are attempting to empower the weak and the mild, and dis-empower the more self assured and confident people in society.
Instead of pushing the moronic and gutless stance of bringing a strong and confident person down to your level, how about you promote the betterment of these Nannies to grow up and be productive, confident members of society, with mature outlooks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a
duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others -
for example their right to maintain their good
reputation and their right to privacy.

All societies put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit
certain types of speech they believe might harm
the governments or the people.

Most democratic countries have major restrictions
on free expression. We have things like:

Laws covering libel and slander.
Laws covering public decency.
Laws against urging violence.
Laws against urging hatred.

There are however countries (and people) who believe that
they alone hold the "truth." Therefore, they
say that any opposition must be based on falsehoods
and regarded as dangerous.

The rulers of China
and Iran for example, severely limit freedom of speech. It's
either their way or the highway. They simply ignore
or have taken away constitutional guarantees of
freedom of speech. These people do not tolerate
any opposing opinions.
Their own are what matter to them.
History has shown us that the world has been full of
those kind of people. Luckily for us - in this country,
we do have laws that still protect us.

but there still remains a great deal of archival footage, historical records,
Toni lavis,
Yes, but you left out the words 'selective' & 'sanitised'.

Individual,

That's where historians come in.

Historians who can look at primary sources
and critically examine motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations. Of course this often becomes
unacceptable for one or another group -
especially those who are more interested in
condemnation rather than explanation.

People generally do not have the wherewithall or the experience, knowledge, maturity and so on and so forth, I think you get my drift, people are not capable of making fully informed decisions, about, ANYTHING.
And we need look no further than our own 'up em'selves' govt.
Govt's are not in the business of 'grooming' people.
They have no place in controlling people's thinking and attitudes.
If it does not involve physical harm, it's nobody's business.
The word, hypocrite, comes to mind if someone says you must have limitations on what you say and if it may harm someone?
I don't care if what I say 'harms' someone, if they feel harm, they have only themselves to blame for being such wimps, if I said it, it must be true, or I would not say it.
If I am wrong, show me where I have erred and I will change my rhetoric accordingly.
I will NOT, nor do I expect an opponent to hold back from 'speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God', because that IS the 'real' law, and not this crap the 'non-people' keep rabbiting on about.
It is a pathetic agenda, pushed by pathetic and lesser people who refuse to engage in the real world for reasons known only to them, but in doing so expect the rest of the viable and progressive people to succumb to their unrealistic, weaker and regressive views so as to accommodate them, at our expense.
It's a shame that we don't have people with broader views on life, instead of this narrow, convenient, comfortable one that is simply not true or realistic, and is infecting so many younger people.
I'll bet the loony left will NEVER admit to being the cause of all these self harm and suicides, no, of course not.
Well you've all got blood on your hands, there is no erasing the record.
So live with that stat before you go conjuring up any more of your bourgeois, regressive, straw man, weak and dangerous, mis-guided and un-realistic views and comments.

//but there still remains a great deal of archival footage, historical records,
Toni lavis,
Yes, but you left out the words 'selective' & 'sanitised'.//

Wow, the censors really dropped the ball on that one, didn't they? I mean, if you wanted to present a sanitised and selective version of Nazi history in order to paint them as being pro-PC, surely you'd redact all the stuff about their distinctly non-PC behaviour, like the Nuremberg laws and the death camps and so forth? Right?

Sometimes what people call 'PC' is just social pressure to treat other human beings decently. That's what's implied in the article ; Hence usually talk of 'PC' is a 'Beat Up' ; But at times there are effective restrictions on debate because of the fear of ostracism. For instance, in an article a long way back I argued that while the term 'mansplaining' could refer to a condescending and sexist argument by a man ; at some times the term may potentially be used inappropriately - and may be used to silence a man who has a different viewpoint. I said that in the context of supporting feminism strongly ; And I made that very clear. I have strong opinions on achieving equality in the labour market, the home , public life , sport and culture. But I was publicly crucified and misrepresented on Facebook for several days ; taken out of context ; accused of 'misogyny'. For me that was an example of there being a limit even on sympathetic debate for fear of ostracism. That's the 'grain of truth' ; amidst the reality otherwise that 'Political Correctness' is beaten up by the monopoly mass media using examples that bear little relation to reality.

Tristan, I really am curious as to what you said that could get such a reaction as you describe.
Maybe you mixed a couple of words up and it twisted what you were intending to say.
Tristan, what PC means is, it is a language which stops people from telling the truth.
It has been hi-jacked by the left to help them feel good about themselves and silence the progressive right.
Unlike you, I do not subscribe to equality between the sexes, for anything.
I do not get how anyone cannot see that we are not equal.
The men have been going about their business since time began, without the need for equality.
Some petulant spoilt halfwit of a female, suddenly decides she is as good as any man and starts pushing this childish agenda.
Given that the females fall way short of the line in nearly all male sporting codes, the arrogance of these females is beyond stupid.
I won't waste anyone's time in explaining why.
I heard some idiot female on a panel, ask why the female footballers were not being paid as much as the males?
The answer was rammed down her stupid throat, and it was; when they can generate the same income and attendances as the males, we will talk then, but right now we have a bunch of headless chooks running around aimlessly just making fools of themselves.
The 'fear' you speak of is unfounded.
If the speaker speaks aggressively, he must be allowed to convey his message, even if the listener finds it offensive or abrasive in his delivery.
There is no room for emotions, as emotions do not add or offer any 'real substance to a debate or conversation.
such people need to suck it up and move on, or remove themselves from the conversation or debate, and not return until they have had a reality check.

I'll repeat what I've written on another discussion.

Only very limited minds can declare their opinions to
be a certainty or a truth.

Therefore to argue with someone like ALTRAV, who has
renounced the use and authority of reason and whose
philosophy consists in holding the opinions of others
in contempt (especially females), is like administering
medicine to the dead, or endeavouring to convert an
atheist by scripture.

There's no point to it.

Foxy, your wasting your time.
Whilst I am entertained and amused at how some people react to certain things, you persist with your narrow, closed minded agenda.
I have already explained some of my life's effort's and successes, and I'm pretty happy with myself.
What I am not happy about, and never have been, is the lack of effort and failures of people in this country, and since getting on forums, I now know the reasons.
Even though you are a nice person and you mean well, you refuse to, at least consider, that I might have a point, for fear of being seen as suddenly coming across.
It's ironic that you should be criticising me, based on your very fettered 'opinions' when you are guilty of the very things you accuse me of.
Please carry on, I find it immensely entertaining, and quite honestly truly engaging.
Foxy, I love our, sometimes heated and aggressive intercourse, (verbal that is).

ALTRAV,

At least you've admitted that I am wasting my time
in trying to have a dialogue with you. That's
something. Perhaps something will sink in and
you'll stop being so predaceous.

Foxy, I feel quite good about being called predaceous.
I accept the title, as if a badge of honour.
It asserts me as a man.
Where the modern 'man' of today would be better described as effeminate, amongst other things, you have in fact finally confirmed just one account of why men and women are NOT equal.
And why I am proud to be a MAN!
Thank you Foxy

ALTRAV,

I could tell you that -

Acting like a dick
won't make yours any bigger.

But that would be inappropriate, so I won't.

However -
I'm a female
FE = Iron
Male = Man

Therefore,
I am Iron Man!

Touche', not bad, now let me see, give me a sec' while I conjure up a come-back.............................................................
Ah, got it, Ok Fe, I'll accept as iron, but hmmm, not sure about 'male'.
I'd have to challenge that one on the basis that 'male' is still 'male' unless, like Fe being short for Ferrous or iron, where-as male could be argued is still male, which would therefore make it 'Iron-male'.
Maybe? Yes? No?
Ahh it was worth a try.

ALTRAV,

Good try.

Which proves my belief that most of us don't
really have closed or open minds - I like
to think that most of us - have minds with
openable windows.

Hi Tristan Ewins,
I'm going to say it again, I think all your agruments are flawed.

I also think you lack the ability to even argue based on merit the reasons why you support socialism and the left.

I think this shows a greater problem in universities; - that because you lack the ability to argue on merit what it is that you stand for;

- That you've never really faced having your beliefs challenged and tested on their own merits.

And that make me think that Universities therefere are not a place where you go to learn things and expand your mind;

- But are instead a sick cancerous echo chamber of like-minded lunatics.

And honestly I'm offended.
Many people here are older Australians, and many did not have the opportunity to have a University education in air-con paid for as part of the 'social wage'.
And these people contributed the taxes towards your education despite the fact that they could never enjoy that same benefit for themselves.

You got a benefit many here didn't;
I want you to explain to all of us, how the taxes WE paid to fund your education;
effectively HOW OUR INVESTMENT IN YOU IS PAYING A RETURN.

I mean after all you're proposing a completely different political ideology than what currently exists;
- It's right there on your blog - COMRADE

Our investment in you;
Can you not explain why you think your beliefs are better than what currently exists?

If you can't, then our investment in you was wasted.
Is that not logical and reasonable?

You made a logical argument about 'mansplaining' so I'm assuming you do have the ability to reason.

And by the way, Guy Standing is a proponent of UBI - the same as Richard Cloward and Francis Piven.

- I'm saying there's better ways than your socialist ideology and that your arguments are flawed, - and you need to answer these flaws to prove your ideology is superior to other ideologies.

That's how real progress works.

[Cont.]
You sing the praises of socialism. Why?
Why do you think socialism is better than capitalism?
If you really want to pick the arguments apart the place we will end up is one where we see both ideologies flaws.
The place you really want to go isn't one or the other outright, it's been done before with horrific consequences.
It's in fine tuning a mixture of the two in a way where the benefits's of each ideology compliment the flaws of the other.

I'll tell you why I praise capitalism.
It's the idea that the person most suited or skilled for a particular task be given the responsibility of doing that task.
Its the idea that you choose the life you want, but you must accept the consequences of your choices.
It's the idea that if you only want to work 2 hrs a day and be rewarded for 2 hrs work you can do that.
But if you wish to get ahead and work 12 hrs a day and be rewarded for 12 hrs work you can do that too.

But capitalism IS flawed.
2 people go for the 1 job, and there can only be one winner which should always be issued on the basis of merit.
Someone always loses, and the loser gets nothing.
No job, no opportunity to take part in society.

What you need to do is fix that flaw.
Use the 5% unemployed pool of workers capitalism requires to prevent wage growth and create a socialist base-level employment system that ends the 'I can't get a job excuse'.
Double dole for full time work doing things to help the nation.
- And right there you'll have made a fairer and more efficient system.
And you'll remove many of the causes of these social programs you say we need but really don't, if you just help people to help themselves.

How do you provide free health and education if you don't provide a free job in order to pay for it?

UBI is like this:
'We'll give everyone a $300 weekly paycheck before we even think about work.'
It's a system based around a free handout, when it should be based around a free hand-up.
Your paying the money out before it's even been earned.
ITS A FLAWED CONCEPT.

- Not to mention the actual numbers involved make it ridiculous.
- And most people don't any pay more in tax on full time wages than what they'd get on unemployment benefits, so how would it work - realistically?

And how is your system one that promotes and rewards participation?
And how does progress occur if we don't make decisions based on merit?

The only way you can make it work is if the UBI is about equal to the price of a bag of rice...

There was something I almost missed when I addressed your earlier response -
"A fair degree of redistribution is acceptable also; as 'supply and demand in the labour market' don't necessarily deliver justice."

This is insane thinking.
Anything that moves away from the idea that 'the best person qualified person for the job (male or female) should get the job' is ridiculous.
I don't even know how you could be so brainwashed as to entertain this line of thinking.
I don't understand how its possible a uni educated persons mind is devoid of logic.

So you're saying 'supply and demand in the labour market don't necessarily deliver justice' and that 'redistribution is acceptable'.
What you're talking about is creating artificial demand for women and minorities employment based on social justice rather than actual ability.

That's not the worst part - What you're saying is that it's ok to discriminate against whites (being the nations traditional inhabitants) and males (being the traditional working class) and non-gays, non conservatives etc. in order to pursue this ideological agenda.

All of your ideas are flawed, sorry.

//Many people here are older Australians, and many did not have the opportunity to have a University education in air-con paid for as part of the 'social wage'.//

The rest of them are young enough to have enjoyed the benefits of free university or HECS, so if they missed out on university it's because they didn't study hard enough to earn a place, not because they were too poor.

No wonder they have such bad case of sour grapes and green-eyed resentment of those who did go to uni; the folks who were too poor can blame the system, but the dim kids have nobody to blame but themselves for playing silly buggers in class when they should have been listening.

- Before someone else points out my error -
"What you're saying is that it's ok to discriminate against whites (being the nations traditional inhabitants)..."

Yes, I messed that one up.
- Obviously indigenous are the nations traditional inhabitants;
I suppose traditional 'culture', (or something) might've been better.

Armchair Critic ; Ideally I would like socialism ; genuine socialism ; what I would call a democratic mixed economy. But to be clear - most countries you would call socialist in fact have capitalist economies. Economies based o the profit motive, the exploitation of labour, private and concentrated ownership of the means of production. What you are talking about in part is 'meritocracy' ; which could have a place in both socialism and capitalism. The social wage and welfare state can in part be motivated my meritocracy. That is: there is redistribution in recognition that 'supply and demand in the labour market' doesn't fully relate to merit. On the other hand there's Marx's 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. The social wage and welfare state can also be about providing for the needs of human beings regardless. The reality is that we live under capitalism, though - and the social wage and welfare state only moderate capitalism's extremes. But it means a great deal to those who may otherwise face ruin, destitution etc. Capitalism also involves inefficiencies in some cases compared with a socialist economy. Hence many economies compromised and allowed natural public monopolies for instance. On the other hand competition can drive quality and responsiveness. War Communism under the Bolsheviks showed the danger of taking change too far too quickly. Hence my preference is a 'democratic mixed economy'. ie: you don't abolish the market - you democratise it. Inc collective capital formation, co-operative enterprise etc.

@Foxy, Sunday, 9 December 2018 2:16:26 PM

What charming language Foxy. And from a PC-addict too.

That's what's wrong with PC-speak. It gives some people privilege to snipe at others whilst denying others an equal right of reply.

And what's with this stupid equation? "I am Iron Man!"? I'm thinking you must be a blonde Foxy. Are you a blonde?

For correct interpretation of "male" and "man" refer to the following:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Male
Adjective - Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/man
Man
Noun - An adult human male.

There is a difference. Of course, under the new PC-dictionary "male" has now become a noun to describe the gender of men, boys and trans men, and is in broad usage. That's another thing wrong with PC; it corrupts language.

So, in the spirit of non-PC and in accordance with your inappropriate precedent I'm going to tell you that-

Acting like a c--t
won't make yours any tighter.

voxUnius, OUCH! WHOA! Big gotcha there.
Well, I am in shock, where have you been hiding?
Foxy's OK, we just don't agree on,.................well, everything.
But that's OK, she doesn't know it, so don't tell tell her, but I just might have a crush on her.
You see, I am told apparently, opposites attract, so you never know.
Anyway good to have some fresh blood on board, oh and a word of warning, some of the topics can be as boring as batsh!t or as interesting as some contributors, after all that's where the topics come from.
Look forward to more of your strong and direct comments and approach.

Hello there ALTRAV, thanks for the encouragement mate.

To tell you the truth I'm surprised that the comment hasn't been taken down yet by a moderator. It in no way is filthier or more sexist than the comment made by Foxy, but that's PC for you. PC only goes one way and that's why it was invented. It is used to silence the voices of people who are not enrolled within the PC victim tribes.

Thanks for the welcome, but I'm a long time visitor and commenter here on OLO. I just don't comment much these days, mostly because of what you correctly identified, that "topics can be as boring as batsh!t". In fact I go back here for about 15 years. In those days I had a different moniker but my content hasn't changed.

I'm sorry if I cast aspersions upon what might be the possible future Mrs ALTRAV (joke). It's nothing personal. I just like to fire back, in like, to fems who enjoy sexist put-downs. And lately there's been quite a few getting cheeky and sticking their heads above the parapet. So I've become active again. They [fems] get lulled into a false sense of security about getting away with what they think are smart sexist quips. They get a surprise when one comes back whistling past their ears. They're not used to it these days. As you have pointed out "the modern 'man' of today would be better described as effeminate, amongst other things..." Correct!

For women to be respected, they must first be respect-able. Good manners seem to be in short supply amongst fems and the PC crowd.

It will be interesting to see how long my previous comment stays up. It will also be interesting to see if the post by Foxy stays up too. They are both equally trash. Nothing I particularly feel proud of.

Anyway, cheers ALTRAV, I'll look out for you in the future.

voxUnius, if past performance is anything to go by, I think you will find OLO seems to keep itself to itself.
We do more often than not have stouches between commentors, but I have to thank the moderators, they seem to let us get on with it.
Unlike the absolute garbage of the most extreme PC pundits in the world, I would not mind if they got wiped out completely.
I speak of a disgusting self serving up em'selves forum called, 'QUORA'. They are the most sanctimonious mob I have ever had the mis-fortune of trying to reason with.
To describe how irrelevant the forum is, their mantra is 'Be Nice-Be respectful'. In other words don't tell the truth, lie, because otherwise you might upset some poor sensitive little Nancy.
I won;t go on, suffice to say that so far OLO has been a stellar forum.
Let's hope it keeps on being so.