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 > The blame game has gone too far when governments become guardians > Comments

The blame game has gone too far when governments become guardians : Comments

By Caspar Conde, published 16/2/2005

Caspar Conde argues that we are living in a risk-averse 'Nanny State'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Caspar Conde is from the Centre for Independent Studies, another Australian right-wing think-tank (along with the Institute of Public Affairs featured regularly on OLO), which is also a sponsor of this OLO website. Caspar is concerned about the "nanny-state" interfering with our personal freedoms by attempting to regulate business (thereby interfering with profits).

The Centre for Independent Studies has an interest in "tort reform" and "contract compensation" in Australia, in our "increasingly litigious society" as Howard recently intoned in refusing to apologise to Cornelia Rau. Tort reform is now all the rage in Bush's america, where people injured through industrial or professional negligence are increasingly unable to sue for compensation. Who benefits from this? Anyone interested in an alternative point of view might have a look at http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/10/30-0002.html.

The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) has been described as "Australia's most prolific think tank source of conservative 'family values', loosely tied to Christian theology." (Marion Maddox, "God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right under Howard", Allen & Unwin, 2005, p 212). Maddox goes on to describe its origins as follows: "The CIS was formed in 1976 in the garage of a high school maths teacher Greg Lindsay, still its director. Its rags-to-riches origin myth tells of its founding conference, reported in Paddy McGuiness's appreciative newspaper column headlined "Where Friedman is a Pinko". That led to a wave of supporters, notably Western Mining Corporation's CEO Hugh Morgan in 1980. His largesse rescued Lindsay from among the 'lawnmowers and the odd spider'...."
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 2:07:42 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
Grace,

Neither the CIS, nor the IPA, is a "sponsor of this website". They are both welcome to be, but they aren't. The sponsors are a diverse crowd including Sydney Uni and QUT, Oxfam/Community Aid Abroad, the AMWU and a variety of others. But even if they were sponsors, what's your point? Are you saying that because you disagree with what you see as their philosophies their arguments have no merit?
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 2:22:28 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
Graham - I took this assumption from your sidebar on your main page, which says, "we need to thank the following organisations for their generosity" that CIS is a sponsor of OLO. (I made no mention of IPA in similar terms.) I did not intend to misrepresent your website by saying this, so perhaps you could explain to me what your sidebar note actually means.

With respect to your question, "Even if they were sponsors, what's your point? Are you saying that because you disagree with what you see as their philosophies their arguments have no merit?", I have made it clear in my postings here and previously in other forums that sometimes I think the arguments put forward by employees of IPA and CIS have little merit, given the revealed sources of their funding, and the coincidence of these funding sources with the vested interests of particular sectors of the business community and the electoral interests of the Howard government. That is my opinion.

I remain of the view that it is important to consider the motivations of the writers on this website (and other websites). In return, my motivations are frequently questioned (if not subjected to abusive criticism) by your other contributors on OLO, and I make no complaint about this.

In any case, I would have thought that my questioning the motivations behind certain political, social and scientific arguments on this website is well in line with an intervention you made yesterday in another forum, where you said you welcomed "critical thinking". We have no disagreement on the importance of critical thinking, and this sometimes involves having a hard look at where opinions arise and whose interests they serve
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 3:00:06 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 you love how Grace blasts everyone for being biased then trots out the old chestnuts straight from the mouths of the fellow travellers.

Good on you Grace! In these times of hopelessness, fear, unhappiness, ruthless right wing dictators, evil big business, rabid fascist commentators, gulag-like detention centres, our saunaish atmosphere and an unbelievably ignorant, zombie-like population it's great that we have people like you pushing for more government control of our lives. If we're really lucky government will take over everything and we won't have to think at all! Wouldn't that be marvellous! No more worrying about what to wear in the morning. No more worrying about our dinner menu, no more worrying about what to think or say or do - it's all centrally planned for us by our loving leader. Maybe the government could pick our partners for us? We're obviously not doing a good job; look at the divorce rates. And if we're real lucky maybe the government could kick in with free lobotomies for all.

Grace just because you've already surrendered your mind and reason to political ideology doesn't mean the rest of us want to.
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 3:16:25 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
Another hysterical posting from bozzie, making wild assumptions about my "ideology". What do you think about tort reform bozzie, or don't you have an opinion. Too hard? Much easier to just blast away like a silly bag of wind, isn't it?
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 3:32:51 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
Actually Grace tort reform happens to be a little pet subject of mine. (NOT!) But since you mention it if greedy self-serving lawyers hadn't flogged the cash cows for all they were worth, or if "progressive" judges had exercised some common sense to begin with there wouldn't be the need for any reforms now.

My first point Grace was simply that it's a bit much to question ones motives or whose interests those motives might serve and then trot out little tid-bits to back you up written by people who also have motives and interests to serve. It cuts both ways and I really can't understand your need to try and deny this.

My second point was that if you launched an attack relating to this article, then you obviously don't agree with the views expressed. Logically then you are in favour of the government legislating for control over the miniature of our everyday lives. If that's the case then good on ya! But I still prefer to think for myself.

By the way if I'm "hysterical" then you're "shrill".:)
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 4:21:22 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
Grace, you won't find the IPA mentioned anywhere on the home page of the site, or anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge, other than attached to the biogs of a few of the contributors. The CIS is listed under "Collaborative Editors" along with Oxfam, QUT and ACM. We've never received any money from them, but at one stage the editor of their journal was providing suggestions of potential contributors and articles.

The issue isn't with questioning people's motivations, it is with relying on your a priori assessment of those motivations to judge the truth of their arguments. That is not critical thinking it's having a closed mind. The truth of an argument doesn't depend on the character of the person advancing it, it depends on the facts and the evidence. One of the key planks in the philosophy of this site is that no-one has a monopoly on the truth.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 5:16:10 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
Graham, you say, "you won't find the IPA mentioned anywhere on the home page of the site, or anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge..."

Please read again the first sentence of my first post and note the brackets. I did not say that the IPA is a sponsor of yours like CIS, I said the IPA is another Australian right-wing think tank like CIS. But thanks for the further clarification anyway, both on CIS and IPA and your relationships (or not) with them.

You also claim that I make judgments on the truth of arguments based on "the character of the person advancing it". Not so, Graham, I can hardly make assessments on the character of people I do not know. On the other hand, I can make judgments on the value of their opinions by noting who employs them and pays them to publish those opinions.

Of course facts and evidence matter. But sometimes those facts and evidence can be given a spin to suit a particular position, or opposing facts and evidence are not given appropriate weight, or facts and evidence can be wrongly reported. This happens all the time in public life, as I am sure you are aware.

As to your final words, "no-one has a monopoly on the truth", amen to that. It actually surprises me a little, because I got the impression that the relativity of truth was not your ball-game
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:09:52 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
Just as the IPCC misuses facts about hurricanes, which was the reaosn for Dr Chris Landsea resigning as an author for their upcoming report.

Why is there an assumption that people who work for "right-wing think tanks" have barrows to push and people who work for "left-wing NGOs" (think Greenpeace) don't.
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 7:40:27 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
WEll, now that we've got that covered, lets talk about government control over freedom of choice. Personally, I like the idea of government intervention. It should be the elected government's responsibility to take precautionary measures. They have a responisbilty to the community to try and structure a safe enviornment.

I'm not going to try and intellctualise the issue because I dont know that much but from a layman's point of view, people from whatever strata, whether it be the housewife, the entrepreneur or the young teen need to be guided. I guess an example could be the introduction of product disclosure statements so that people can make informed decisions.

I wish government took more initiative in the controlling of our society, especially of industry, why aren't they preventing company layoffs?!
Posted by chav, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 8:59:52 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
Grace ,I don't have time right now,but you haven't a clue about the topic upon which you are pontificating.Just open a small business in NSW at the moment,and the roles will quickly be reversed.
When I have the time,I will pluck your indulgences one by one.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 10:07:37 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
Grace, you essentially say that the people from these institutions are guns for hire who will say anything that suits their paymasters and then you claim you are not commenting on their character! Of course you are.

If the facts have been spun then it is up to you to prove it, not just to assume it on the basis of your assumptions about the people allegedly spinning.

And just for the record I don't believe that truth is "relative". In this case your assumption was correct, I'm no postmodernist. In saying that no-one has a monopoly on the truth I am saying that no-one is right 100% of the time, and that we are often not in a position to be in command of the whole of the facts necessary to make an informed decision.

Why don't you get onto arguing about the article, and if you're not sufficiently across the subject, find an article to comment on where you don't need to cast aspersions on the author to enter into the conversation? You must have some area of expertise apart from the vast right wing conspiracy out there!
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 10:41:41 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 can see how this article, which I agree with, would upset the old-guard of the socialist intelligesia and rent a mob equally.

I vote anti-socialist for one reason - the stiffling oppression of my early life from the incompetent and useless policies of smallminded socialist thinkers who believed we should all be the same in their world of mediocracy. Like some reincarnation of the Cromwellian Levellers, no one allowed to express and shine in their individuality incase they cast a shadow on those of lesser ability.

We need less government not more,

My first object of incompetence which needs crushing - just as the Russians crushed all those statues of Stalin and Lenin would be

Commission for Equal Opportunity (aka - the college of toss-pots)

We could take the one or two "bright ones" from that outfit (ie those who can spell their own names and identify the odd flower or wild bird) and put them into the family law court - that is an organisation that needs a bit of "levelling".

Then we could look at Ministry for the Arts .......... and the wallies who spend money on employing unentertaining entertainers to bore the pants off the intellectually constipated. We would be better off if they just spent their time hanging up pictures of hemarroids painted purple (or do they come in purple anyway?).
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 February 2005 9:24:46 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
Graham, your comments about the character issue, and "casting aspersions on the author" are again misconceived and misdirected. Anyone who works for any organisation, in public service or in private enterprise, is supposed to adopt the values of that organisation, and if that person has "character" they do it with an honest belief that they are doing the right thing. Hence I am making no personal comment on Caspar's "character" when I query the motivations of his employer, as I assume that he is parlaying the views of his employer in good faith.

Similarly, for example, I do not question the "character" of public servants for administering the laws made by the parliament under the Howard government, which in some cases appear not to be in the national interest, but more in the interests of those who fund the party coffers. This is not an unusual or particularly "left-wing" proposition surely. Perhaps you would argue that the unions who fund the ALP have an influence over policy direction that is not always in the national interest. I would probably agree with you.

You say that it is always up to me to "prove" that the facts have been "spun". I don't think that is entirely my personal responsibility Graham, but the fact that we are talking about the possibility of "spinning" here is a healthy sign that at least the door to this conversation is open. The first step is to acknowledge that all major organisations, including government, will attempt to "spin" unpopular ideas, and it is up to all of us to be alert to the possibility, and be sceptical about where these ideas are coming from and whose interests they serve.

That is where I began in this forum, by pointing out that the debate on tort reform is coming from certain quarters with vested interests in removing compensation liability so that those who are injured in industrial accidents or through professional negligence have no recourse in law. This point of view does not serve the interests of those who are injured and powerless in our society. This is not really a surprising observation and has been well-rehearsed elsewhere in the media in past months. But I do note that that your editorial intervention has occurred in this forum and not when the motivations of say, Greenpeace, are criticised elsewhere on your website.

I am disappointed that you believe that any of us who disagree with some of the opinions published on this website are running a line about some "vast right-wing conspiracy out there". But I suppose we provide some modicum of balance for the majority of your contributors who seem to believe that there is a "vast left-wing conspiracy out there", as evidenced by the forums where the perceived problems with gay rights and feminism are raised and debated ad nauseum.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 17 February 2005 10:18:14 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
Two lines struck me in the article.

“True, the main focus in Australia so far has been on children, but isn't it the parents' or guardians' role to raise their children so that they learn about self-control and a good diet?”

“The philosopher David Hume wrote, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once". Instead, governments - often with the best of intentions - just chip away at our freedoms.”

Now I think it obvious that if a government gets hold of the young, and begins to indoctrinate and control those young, then they have a least one generation of people who will support that government in the future (and it will be almost unquestionable or complete support).

This raises the issue of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights”. This has become a big issue in places such as the US and in Canada, where parents can be litigated against if their children break the law, as in shoplifting, vandalism, or more serious crimes. See “Parental Liability Laws”… http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C11.htm

The issue of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights” has of course cropped up within Family Law matters, particularly relating to child contact, where fathers have said that they are not being allowed to see their children enough, and they should have some parental rights to have more contact with them. However others have said that the fathers have no real “rights”, just “responsibilities” (IE payment of child support), and references relating to this were basically contained in the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into child custody, held many moons ago. Those recommendations were titled “Every picture tells a story”. At… www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ fca/childcustody/report/fullreport.pdf

So if the parents have limited or no “parental rights”, but only “parental responsibilities”, then the parents do not own the child, government does. The parents must do what the government dictates to meet their "responsibilities", and the parents can also become liable. It is a part of the process of “chipping away at our freedoms”, and it is happening.

“Parental responsibility” is in operation in other countries, and is being talked about here. Other things such as government programs for “mentoring” of young children are being carried out, or being proposed, where in the past this type of “mentoring” was done by parents, as a part of their job.

All seems like “Big Government” trying to establish control of consecutive generations. No “Big Nanny” in it, as it is no game.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 17 February 2005 11:11:37 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
Hello Everyone

Chav said "Personally, I like the idea of government intervention. It should be the elected government's responsibility to take precautionary measures. They have a responsibility to the community to try and structure a safe environment. "
How far should these precautionary measures go? Should we all have implants so that the government can always know where we are, all for safety’s sake, you understand. How about a Total Surveillance State with cameras in ALL public spaces, so The Authorities can see if anything bad is happening, all part of “structure(ing) a safe environment”, you understand. Once the view espoused by Chav is accepted, then in principle can be no limit, and we insensibly segue into an authoritarian / totalitarian state. Living in a free society means accepting that bad things many happen to you, sometimes it is someone’s fault, so when that happens you may have recourse to the courts. Oftentimes it is no one’s fault, and you have to accept it. If the choice is between a “dangerous” free society or a “safe” nanny state, I choose freedom.

Best Regards
Geoffrey
Posted by Geoffrey, Thursday, 17 February 2005 12:51:09 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
I have long been saying that we are a society trapped inside a forest of perceptions that are fairly unique to ourselves. Many of those perceptions are delusional and not grounded in reality.

Conde's piece, and some of the comments that follow, are a good example of how we blindly thrash round in the bushes with no clue regarding trees.

The connection between the issue he raises and the loss of moral values in our society may be too subtle for most to recognise. Which is why I recommend a read of http://www.oz-aware.com/morality1.htm
Posted by ozaware, Thursday, 17 February 2005 6:34:02 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
Timkins, Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:11:37 AM

Well put - I totally agree -

May I be allowed to make my mistakes with dignity and learn from them so I may grow as an individual. This rather than some disinterested bureaucrat cosseting my path through life, protecting me from the lows by eliminating the highs - leaving just "mediocracy" as a substitute for "real life".
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 18 February 2005 9:42:12 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
Dependency upon the state is something that the state constantly fosters. That is the point of their existence... to control, er l mean serve and protect. By constantly formenting fear, division and discontent they create a feeling of need for protection. And who should we turn to for protection? Bingo... The State. Orwell had it right.

By advocating an almost total abdication of personal responsibility, the state disempowers the individual. Apart from the dependency upon the state that this fosters it also makes us servile. Easy to manipulate and easy to control.

l think we live in a social welfare state, notwithstanding the ideological rhetoric of party politics. The sizeable majority of earnt income goes to supporting the state, the system, its drones, large segments of the private sector that would not exist but for the masses of red tape, the needy, the under-priveledged and the entitlement junkies. The state looks after our 'welfare.' It knows best.

Get ready for the Bubble Wrap Generation... servile, docile, conservative, reactionary, scared, fatalistic, resigned, homogenous, vapid, banal, easily lead and did l say, scared of their own shadows. We the sheeple.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 18 February 2005 2:29:41 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
A suggestion for those who want a 'safe and protected society' is build and relocate to gated communities. Indeed, build an entire protected metropolis where you can escape the pesky and unnecessary dangers of life. Everything can be screened, controlled and monitored to your heart's content. You can keep out the nasty folks like me who don't expect nanny to protect me from raindrops falling on my head. People like me who don't mind a bit of pain on the way to pleasure. Who do not deny that life itself is a risk.

And nature can let the fittest survive.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 18 February 2005 2:44:11 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
Grace ,I don't know where to start.You must be a rusted on lefty like the religious fundamentalists who won't even consider the theory of evolution for fear their cosy fantacy may end.The human race is geared for survival.The environment changes and we respond.You must know by now that the socialist's utopia is not attainable with feel good intentions.The reality takes sweat, hard work and courage.Your arrows of "outrageous fortune"should be levelled at improving the free market capitalist's system,since it has a lot of imperfections.The left seems to think that money is the source of power and wealth.Money is the medium of exchange.It represent's human endeavour and potential.You should be argueing the morality of money being turned into a commodity by our financial institutions,not appealing to the weakness in human nature seeking reasons not to achieve.Let's see some comments on how to improve the free market,not this negative diatribe that paints all private enterprise as being evil pariahs of the worst kind.It is the efficiency of the free market that creates a surplus that can be taxed, and thus allows us to have socialism.All we are advocating is that individuals be more responsible for their own survival.Big Govt.is sucking the very essence of motivation in our society.There is a better way.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 18 February 2005 10:42:30 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
Trade 215 - you sound too much like me

In a world of safety nets, baby bonuses and equal opportunity commissioners, you make a refreshing trade wind.

If you think this is bad under the libs - just think how much worse it would be under the left - with the levellers in control devoting taxes to alot of inert bureaucracy to administer reduced productivity and stifle inventiveness and innovation (exclusively individual characteristics).
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 19 February 2005 6:06:30 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
Trade and Arjay,

You two fellows sound an awful lot like myself when---fifteen years and a lot less experience ago---I answered a question.

Questioner: "What scares you?" Me: "Oh, nothing much. I'm, positive and optimistic and look out for myself."

I don't think quite like that anymore. Experience is an amazing educator.....

When we theorise on such subjects as the government protecting us, we need to be very careful, especially when doing so from inside the easy, comfortable "gated community" of a place called Australia.

Try living in a state where the government is too busy fattening itself to worry about you---e.g.Zimbabwe---and perhaps you might start singing a different tune.

Because the mega corporations would ultimately make slaves of us--and they are doing a fine job of that already---the extreme of untrammeled capitalism and freedom is as bad as its extreme opposite. Although, if forced to choose, of the two I would prefer the former.

Many will find it hard to believe that there are dangerously many 'extremes' in Australia, only one of which is the incidence of our crime and violence.

The wise social pathway is along a road called balance. We need to be careful to not throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater....
Posted by ozaware, Saturday, 19 February 2005 7:00:21 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
Apologies ArJay ---in my post I meant to say "Col Rouge" not Arjay...
Posted by ozaware, Saturday, 19 February 2005 7:05:11 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
Trade 215,you summmed it so succinctly.It has crept on us and no one noticed until it was too late .You are so right about a lot of private entertrise now existing because of Govt legislation.The lastest one is electrical tagging.A whole new industry now runs around tagging all electrical cords and tools.At $5.00 each every month for the building industry,it is just another cost impost for small contractors to bear.This was the states way of reducing workers comp claims.The insanity is that a tool can be tagged and the cord damaged but it can be legally used because it is tagged.
The NSW govt through the debacle of home warranty insurances, have removed many small builders from the market thus increased substantly the cost of building houses, a basic necessity.The more efficent private enterprise becomes ,the more the bloated bureauracies grow.Are we just chasing our tails?
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 19 February 2005 8:21:00 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
Hmmm... Graham protesteth too much, methinks. I note that his recent editorial 'interventions' (thanks Grace for the term) have been directed at those of us who dared suggest that some kind of bias might be evident in this website. I also note that those correspondents who express views consistent with 'neo-conservatism' or Christian fundamentalism do not seem to attract the same level of editorial attention - no matter how rabid or disrespectful their comments and ideas are.

If I suggested that this site is becoming a haven for supporters of neo-conservatism and Christian fundamentalists, I guess in Graham's terms I'm not engaging in 'critical thought', right?

I await the inevitable barrage of bulldust from the half dozen or so regular correspondents from what used to be called the far right.

Debate? Critical thought? Give us a break, mate.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 20 February 2005 11:01:41 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
Morganzola,we are not the far right.The changes posed by the Howard Govt and many responsible hard working Australians are not exteme views.The Howard Govt is still very socialist.The left just refuses to face up to economic realities.Money is not the source of wealth.It is human endeavour we need to keep you in the manner to which you are accustomed.Productivity does not emminate from Govt of feel good left wing intentions.I hear it so often,"Why can't the Govt. do something?"Well I say,"You are the Govt"
We are headed for some every tough times with possible climate change,world pop. pressures,the retiring of the baby boomers,too many welfare dependant and the lack of moral fibre.We do not have the courage and integrety of the depression and WW2 generations.We have lost our sence of perspective because we haven't faced real survival situations for along time.When times get really tough the left will become as relevant as the Democrats are today.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 20 February 2005 8:56:04 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
Morgan, I've noted the editor having a chip at a right wing poster on this site. so your first contention is out the door straight away.

Then you label anyone who may disagree with you as "the far right", as if this should disqualify any likely rebuffs to your post. It's just so typical. It must be difficult being so enlightened when all around is darkness. You should have thrown in rascist and oppressor as well, although I suppose this goes without saying.

"Debate? Critical thought? Give us a break, mate". These are your words Morgan. Go and have a read of your grand total of three posts to this site. High and mightly examples of great debate and critical thought. You use your 3 posts to accuse this site of bias!! Not a sentence of debate on the topics in question and as examples of critical thought, well, you shouldn't have bothered.

Debate and critical thought?!!! You wouldn't know 'em if they bit you on the bum, mate.
Posted by Cranky, Sunday, 20 February 2005 10:24:33 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
Morgonzola, you'd be surprised who accuses me of bias. I respond when I'm attacked, and don't as a rule get involved in these forum discussions. Grace made the accusation of bias because she supposed the site to be sponsored by an organisation that she regards as right wing. So I responded.

Anyone who frequents this site would be well aware of the breadth of material, and of the views, on it, which is answer enough to any charge of bias you might want to make.

I'm disappointed that the forum should so quickly have divided into a battleground of "right" and "left" - it's not a helpful way to have debate, and not quite what I was hoping when I started the site.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 21 February 2005 12:27:58 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
ozaware - the challenge is to preserve the rights of the individual from every quarter.

Less government does not mean no government -

Zimbabwe is an interesting example to use - when under Ian Smith's white minority rule and vigorously policed trade sanctions, the lot of the whites and africans alike and the state of the general economy was far better than under 25 years of Mugabes despotism without sanction and with foreign aid.

As for Multi-nationals etc - they are as aggressive as any other predator. Fortunately we do have some institutions like ACCC just as USA has the FTC - which work as watchdogs to "curb the excesses".
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 February 2005 9:46:05 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
Col,

at the risk of being seen as having an answer to everything (which I don't) consider these points:

>>>>>>>the challenge is to preserve the rights of the individual from every quarter.

(To quote myself from http://www.peterforde.com/aquarius.htm)

"The concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inflexibly determined by that which is either beneficial (good) for or harmful (bad) for any given human group—society—NOT the individual. If it is good or bad for society then it is automatically good or bad for the individual within that society. If there is any conflict, then the society's wellness must be placed first, no matter what the cost to the individual—even if his/her life—for without the survival and well-being of the society, the individual cannot survive."

In other words, Col, the individual's rights are not the most important thing, even though they are currently seen as 'the big thing'. Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville will better persuade you than a mere ozaware:

"Individualism, in the long-run, attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness." (end quote)

>>>>>Less government does not mean no government

And your point is....?

>>>>>>>>Fortunately we do have some institutions like ACCC just as USA has the FTC - which work as watchdogs to "curb the excesses (of the multi-nationals)".

Is that right? Hmmm. How about this (quote):

(Headline)
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (That's your "ACCC" Col) says its laws don’t stop big business.

On 20th June 2004, the Herald Sun newspaper reported that.........

Australia's consumer watchdog has said that its most powerful laws were virtually useless in its fight against big business' market power.

Mr. Graeme Samuel, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, speaking on Seven network's Sunday Sunrise said "To be honest, we've had a number of failures." (end quote)

Sorry Col, things just ain't what they may appear to be on the surface...
Posted by ozaware, Monday, 21 February 2005 7:42:30 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
Ozaware ,I think you miss the point.The individual is being crushed between big business and big Govt.Which is the lesser of two evils?
Big business and big Govt make deals that disadvantage the hard working and productive.Govt spends it's largesse on paying people not to work and also expanding bureauracy,while big business pay shareholders who may also be non productive.There are parisites on both sides of the fence.If big business paid people in 3rd world countries enough to become consumers,they would be expanding their own markets and hence their profits.When we pay people enough money to buy time to be educated and motivated,we have economic take off.When we do the reverse ,we have recession and poverty. The trick is in keeping the balance.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 February 2005 9:31:06 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
ozaware "Mr. Graeme Samuel, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, speaking on Seven network's Sunday Sunrise said "To be honest, we've had a number of failures." (end quote)"

Such modesty in a public official was heartwarming - but the point is they have had successes and yes the reason they have had "failures" is because they are there - the way to avoid failure would be to disband the commission - and avoid the risk of their failure - the FTC likewise has had failures (Microsoft thus far) yet has had remarkable successes (Standard Oil, American Music, breaking the funeral homes monopoly etc)
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 8:32:32 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
Hello, where are Grace and Morgan?Have they surrendered so easily?I feel cheated because no one has proven me wrong!Gee I like a good debate.Don't do a Mark and take your bat and ball home.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 9:53:50 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've been off line for a week. Back in the saddle now....

Arjay,

>>>"The trick is in keeping the balance"

True, Arjay. And how exactly do we do that?

Allow me to answer the question only because I doubt anyone has a better answer---if any at all.

Surprise! It's a li'l old thing called....morals. As in (Christian) morality.

When (Christian) morals go out the window, as has already happened, then greed in the form of abuse of power takes over. If we had a truly moral govt., then it would protect us little people from big bad business by clipping biz's wings when necessary. But we have neither a truly moral govt (whether Liberal or labour- se http://www.oz-aware.com/latham1.htm)and certainly not a moral big business (Hi, there, Rodney Adler...).

So we, as you say Arjay, get squeezed.

But wait! There's worse news. At present our (Liberal) government is 'somewhat' moral. Wait another ten/twenty years, when this generation of 'somewhat' moral pollies is replaced by the 'me first and f... everyone else' generation of pollies and this generation of 'ever-so-slightly-moral' big business moguls is replaced by a 'me first...ditto f...' generation of business powerbrokers.

Arjay, we the little people will not just be "squeezed", we will be stomped.

Remember, you heard it here first....
Posted by ozaware, Monday, 28 February 2005 7:52:17 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
(This 350 word rule is idiotic, Graham, unless you only want frivolous frivolity. Serious subjects sometimes need more wordspace....)

Anyway, Arjay....

>>>>>(and) "which is the lesser of the two evils"?
It does not matter because either of them, given untrammelled power, would be the end of us. What we as a society have to do is create a situation in which the question simply does not arise. Meaning that we as a society should devise systems that prevent either from being either the lesser or the bigger of the two evils.

Ah-um......we can riot in the streets and guillotine them when they step out of line or we can develop social management systems which prevent the problem from arising in the first place.

A no-brainer choice, of course.

Which actually proves that we, as a society, almost literally are brainless because we are headed down a roads that will probably end with the former option.....

Unless we start seriously trying to stop the social degradation and re-instill morality and decency (same thing) back into our society.

Which ball, as you may know, I have just started rolling at http://www.decency.org.au

And Grace and Morgan, you too are welcome---as long as you are willing to learn old realities that will be very new to you.
Posted by ozaware, Monday, 28 February 2005 7:55:09 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
ozaware,

Re: the 350 word limit being idiotic, I'd like you to consider the following.

According to the OLO contributors' guide, articles are to be generally between 800 and 1000 words long (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=guide). Why is it you think that comments on the articles should be longer than 350 words? I consider 350 to be quite generous.

I draw your attention to one of your posts at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2959#1398, coming in at 3520 words. It seems a little obscene to me that the length of one of your article comment needs to be 466% the length of the original article.

I personally think that the changes are excellent. The word limit keeps posts readable (I don't have time to read anything that looks like an essay), and the daily post limits prevent certain verbose idiots hi-jacking every discussion they come across.

"Frivolous frivolity"? Please. How about "concise, to-the-point, and on topic."
Posted by Joe, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:43:21 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
Joe ,I agree.350 words is plenty.We will learn the art of word economy.It will just mean a bit more thinking and creativity.The same old long winded bloggers is a turn off for pensive newcomers who fear ridicule.Anyway,if you want to write more,approach Graham Young for your own official article.Judging by the standard of some articles,there are many who would qualify.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:54:03 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
Joe,

>>>>>>>>>> Why is it you think that comments on the articles should be longer than 350 words?

Because sometimes they have to be. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/jungleman.htm That’s---present company obviously included---why!

>>>>>>>>>> The word limit keeps posts readable (I don't have time to read anything that looks like an essay)

Do I infer that you read merely for the sake of reading or to pass time? If you “don’t have time” how come you spent so much time researching for your carefully-prepared attempt to wipe the floor with me?

Hmmm….what was that you said about “on topic”?

I would hope that there are people out there who, like myself, still read for the sake of educating themselves. As I say in the essay referred to below (kooky):

“Unfortunately—thanks primarily to television and also high-speed communication—‘modern’ society has largely lost its ability to concentrate on ‘serious’ reading material for any appreciable length of time. Forget twelve pages, the average educated younger person today has difficulty in quickly and easily comprehending the contents of just one sentence that contains more than about twelve words, which means even just this simple sentence might be a real problem for them!
It's the real reason why many label my essays as ‘too long'….
How superficial have we become! One hundred and fifty years ago an audience sat—concentrating—through seven hours of one debate between Abraham Lincoln and an opponent. Today people are yawning after a half hour! “ (end excerpt)

Et tu Brute?

>>>>>>> certain verbose idiots

Thanks (Yawn). In return, there’s a non-ad-hominen answer for you, prepared many months ago, at: http://www.oz-aware.com/kooky.htm

Now it’s my turn, Joe.

Perhaps you could demonstrate both your superior intelligence and the validity of your viewpoint by condensing my previous two posts into less than 350 words, but still retaining the information, rationale and perspective. Go ahead, please do make a fool of me.

Why have I replied in this way and included the hyperlinks? Because I live in hope that you’ll learn something meaningful, Joe….

Hope this reply was short enough for you….(350 words)
Posted by ozaware, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 12:11:39 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
Anyone interested in the subject of tort reform, and what is ahead of us if we are stupid enough to go down the path advocated by the Centre for Independent Studies and others should have a look at the following:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=19976&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

And anyone who lives in Melbourne and wants a "nice night's entertainment" should go and see Max Gillies in "The Big Con".
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 9:30:39 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
ozaware,

Your "challenge" - simply put - was to demonstrate my superior intelligence and the validity of my viewpoint by condensing your previous posts into less than 350 words. So here we go...

"My name is ozaware, and I'm not particularly interested in reasonable, rational debate. Instead, I am primarily interested in posting hyperlinks to my own poorly designed website(s), and threatening anyone who holds an opinion contrary to my own with legal action."

There. And it only took 41 words.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Posted by Joe, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:56:05 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
Ozaware,the trick of keeping the balance is as complex as our own eco-systems.Firstly everyone must to some degree be subjected to the rules of survival of the fittest.This should include share holders,fat rich bastards,public servants,[ie.The public privledged]
private slaves,dole bludgers,single mothers/fathers,the pretend disabled,real disabled,criminals and the genetically deficient.
In our society ,there are just too many riding on the backs of the hard working and really productive.I don't for example include litigation lawyers amongst the productive.They, in the main, are parisites.
Yes I agree that we need the morals of ouer religions that have evolved over the centuries,however we need also more credible factual framework than The Bible or Koran to connect us to the real universe of science and mathematics.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 7:07:20 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
Improved patient access to health care and lower insurance costs for doctors, hospitals and nursing homes is becoming a reality in Texas due to tort reform. Texas tort reforms have strengthened the state’s economy in a variety of ways and are improving the quality of life for every Texan.
A fair and predictable civil justice system is key to our state’s strong economic competitiveness. Texas reforms have already started to bring about lower prices, higher job creation, better wages, and more product innovation throughout the state.
Texas ranked highest (best) in categories of the study that measured declining financial losses linked to non-meritorious lawsuits
Non-meritorious health care lawsuits have been cut in half and hospital savings are being plowed into a variety of health care service enhancements ranging from the development of electronic medical records systems to the recruitment of more specialist physicians.
Read more at this site from where I could get some information on Tort Reform . Ull also love to read it.
http://www.dickweekley.com
Posted by henrykwool, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 4:41:09 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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