Kenny, from your post, you appear to be another religious blank drowning in reality. I never express hate, just disgust at religious lies and despotic applications. Hate is the realm of those who are inadequate and rely on force to enforce their beleifs, eg religion.

Your statement, “All the world problems are caused by people believing that their ideas are worth killing for.” Is very apt, considering it is the religious that are doing the killing, not people of my beliefs. I just feel sorrow for all the millions killed in the name of god over the centuries. But you''ll find an excuse for that.

You are more than welcome to bring forward the short comings of my opinions. It is mostly the religious that hold their opinions above others, I just point out fact in a semantically forceful way.

I can only learn from other opinions and hold them in high regard, as long as they are evolutionary and non destructive. When it comes to religion, people are only moderate when they are trying to convert, when faced with reality, they react like you, confused and vengeful.

Robert, thats a very interesting question you pose. I used to believe that right wing, were those that wanted power and control via whatever means. Left wing were those that had only every been to school (tertiary and academics) and had no real understanding of living life, so approached life from a PC approach full of feely good illusions.

But in all facets of life, you can find both sides. Like you I would be interested on other posters views on this, as throughout history we have had both left and right rulers and bureaucracies. I swing according to the effect it may have on others, sometimes conservative, sometimes left wing. When it comes to politics, I see only right wing power brokers and the bureaucracy as the left wing of government.

Well said Cribbo

Alchemist, things in Switzerland and Scandinavia are not perfect. They have their fair share of problems. But the issues that you talk about are not a product of their political systems; they are a product of unfortunate decisions. As you say, the same trend is occurring across Europe, and elsewhere. This is happening regardless of steady state or continuous growth factors.

My point is; we don’t have to have continuous growth (expansion) in population and/or economy. Similar societies with similar standards of living and similar political systems have proven this over long periods. And yet Australia continues to be profoundly based on unending continuous growth.

Surely the essence of positive politics should be all about preparation for the most immediate large-scale threat to our society and the somewhat longer-term threat generated by the ever-increasing demand on our resource base along with a dwindling supply capability. The immediate threat is peak oil and the slightly longer term but intimately connected threat is our insane continuous growth mentality.

Putting it more broadly; negative politics should be seen simply as politics that directs us against sustainability and longer-term protection of a high quality of life. Obviously then, positive politics is fundamentally based on real sustainability and long-term protection of a decent quality of life. Simple indeed

Humble Hack, regarding my very strong complaint over ‘compulsory preferential’ voting (which you inadvertently attributed to Alchemist):

Yes, Albert Langer brought it to our attention, but despite that publicity very few people really understood what he was on about. He was made out to be a total looper, and a criminal, for simply saying it. That episode has got to go down as one of the most extraordinary things in the history of Australian ‘democracy’.

I agree with Piers Ackerman; reporters and editors are often intimidated, or feel that they cannot report stuff that is clearly against the interests of their employers. It is immediately obvious that this is such a case.

However, that does not explain why the Democrats, Greens, One Nation and every independent candidate have been so incredibly quiet about this extraordinary part of our political system.

For a long time I questioned whether I was interpreting it correctly; whether it was indeed true that your vote could end up counting where you specifically did not want it to. I thought that I must surely be missing or completely misinterpreting something. But it was all confirmed after correspondence with the electoral office (I was a candidate for the Qld Greens in 1995).

Clearly, one very significant aspect of positive politics would be to reform this absurdity, and simply implement at federal level the same optional preferential system that we have had in Queensland (and ?every other state) for some years now.

Humble, you wrote; “His (Albert Langer’s) jailing was widely publicised but how many know what has happened since? It is considerable…..”
What has happened since?

lucid article. wd

Hello to you too Scout

You see here is my problem. I am a right brain thinker and I struggle to memorize other peoples thoughts and ideas, and I just can’t bring myself to read another article on intelligence. I also tend to go off track a bit, as you may have noticed. I have always struggled to stay exactly on topic and do as I am told, much to the despair of some. I mean, how can one be so sure that the person who wrote the article is right! One week the experts say one thing, the next week it is another.

My views and opinions at this point in my life are based on my own research and experiences and I have had first hand experience in dealing with the extremes of intelligence in members of my family and dealing with different styles of learning and thinking. I am also the type who seems to have a knack of finding patterns and even inconsistencies in things.

Maybe it is a generalization, maybe it is not. But my experience tells me that we have different learning styles and ways of thinking and whilst it might not necessarily be the major influence to determine who you vote for, money holding that title, our way of thinking certainly influences how our Country acts and the manner and style that education is presented to our children.

I think the use of Left and Right to describe parties in politics is just a distraction. It’s the focus used to confuse and whitewash what is really a distinction between the richer and poorer.

After reviewing some statements in the article, I believe it is erroneous to some extent...

"All through history, progress has come from individuals looking at the world a little bit differently, and using that vision to make a difference. My parents could tell you that without ever having stepped into a university lecture theatre. The Left and Right are concepts that do not come into the mix when building a business and working towards a better life."

This is flat out wrong. The Left has a generally more progressive attitude toward change. Women's rights and slavery would have been opposed by the Right. So this is simply untrue. Conservatism holds back progress, such as stem cell research and cloning. Economic rationalism of the Right imposes restrictions on science research that is not profiting (eg, tectonic plate theory and Einstein's theories never had the promise of a tangible economic benefit, yet would be opposed by economic rationalists...again, they take change brought by leftward thinking for granted). The spirit of the article in that the flags of Left/Right is a fine point, however.