Col Rouge and Pericles,I'm in total agreement.I know a public servant who earns $90,000 p.a.Privately he admits that he does next to nothing for his money and workers under him do even less.He is embarrased by taking the money but also admits he has no skills that private enterprise would want for anywhere near this money.He is locked in ,and who could blame him.Holidays ,sick pay,long service,generious super,and stress leave {workers comp]whenever you want it;and you can't be sacked unless you commit a crime.
If all people in private enterprise realised this,they would all go an strike tomorrow and demand that things be changed.They are too busy however ,just surviving,and paying the taxes for all this BS.
The more efficient private enterprise becomes,the more the bureauracy grows.

Arjay, it is difficult to reconcile the claim you make that "they are too busy however ,just surviving,and paying the taxes for all this BS." Who are these people who are doing it so tough? Not the Australians who spent millions last year on food they didn't eat and things they didn't want.
Just in case you are interested in increasing your knowledge, check out
"Wasteful Consumption in Australia by Clive Hamilton at
http://www.tai.org.au/

Poor maggie eh Col. She seems as confused as you about the relationship between Society and Individuals. First she claim there is no such thing as Society and then apparently tells us what sort of Society she wants.

Oh Mollydukes - neither Maggie nor I are under any delusions or confusions (as was discovered by the Argentinians back in 1980). We see what is before us and respond to it.

Our Individual action is a function of our "vision" -

And NOT

A collective Action being the enforced function of unproven and untestable theories (which leads to greater waste of personal energy, resources and opportunity - you know - "the socialist ideal").

Maybe a couple of more Maggie quotes might enhance your comprehension -

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

or maybe this one (I like it particularly)

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib."

The great thing about Maggie was she was an individual, not subtle, quite the opposite, particularly awkward and direct. But far better a prime-minister than some mealy mouthed faux-compassionate emotionalist - the sort of person who would glibly pronounce "No Australian Child will live in poverty" - because it makes a good sound-bite.

And when it came to the collapse of Communism - a player who can be regarded as a giant (up their with the recently departed Pope) in seeing to the demise of the "Empire of Evil".

We are all individuals with freewill. Socialist ideals require suppressing the exercise of freewill because the discreditted goal of "enforced equality" is the rotten lie which lies at the heart of the theory.

The author writes about choice and civility (IE. “Are we moving towards being less civil societies, in part at least, because civility requires some as yet uncalculated levels of basic collective security”) but of course “choice” and “civility” can mean different things to different people, and this appears to be the case with the author and her past comments about men and suicide.

" Maybe men's competence in this area (suicide) should make them feel better". (Eva Cox, Good Weekend, August 26, 2000, p. 23).

Such deplorable comments from a self declared feminist, and it is little wonder that many men regard feminists with the greatest suspicion, particularly when they are being paid out of the tax payer’s pocket to write articles on “choice” and “civility”. What were the author’s qualifications to stay in a university after her comments regards men and suicide would be a major issue in itself.

However a welfare state is necessary, and most people will call on government for support at some time in their lives. How much is the relevant question, and the decimation of families (much supported by feminists in the past) does mean that people have to call on government for support more often (see http://www.iwf.org/specialreports/specrpt_detail.asp?ArticleID=464 NB this article was written by a female so it is safe for other females to read)

"NB this article was written by a female so it is safe for other females to read)"

This comment appears regularly in Timkins' posts. It is offensive, sarcastic and unnecessary.

It is an interesting point that Eva has raised. Male suicide is not the fault of feminists it is indicative of a cold "rationalist" market place that places the dollar above human interests. Many men feel as alienated from it as do many women. Woman (generally speaking) have assisted each other emotionally for a long time - men are only just now learning to do this and it is a painful process. Coupled with the frenetic pace of our modern economy in which 'user pays' our society could very well 'sink'.

Humans are social animals - we are at our best working in a cooperative manner. Current market place trends of 'overchoice' divides us and makes us easier for the market place to manipulate. The old 'divided we fall' adage is still very true.