I do hope the ALP pick these suggestions up. That would keep the coalition in power for ever.

What about freedom? If a man is willing and able to work more than 35 hours per week to provide a better life for his family, the government has no place telling him he may not. If a parent feels their child is being failed by the local public school, they should be free to send their child to a school that better serves them. (Interestingly, most parents who do exercise this choice do so because of the way the school teaches and the values it instils rather that the resources at its disposal. No service has ever been improved through the removal of competition.) If I decide not to spend money on total health care coverage, the government has no right to compel me to do so.

Even if the idea of individual freedom is dismissed, the inescapable reality is that social democracy has failed. The author insists that following the French model could cure what ails our society. However, in recent months, France has been rocked by the discontent and anger of long-term unemployed, migrants who are locked out of the labour market by overregulation and denied an opportunity to improve their lot. Now France is in the midst of rioting in response to moderate labour market liberalisation. In spite of 20%+ youth unemployment, the young of France insist that their first job be a job for life. This is the inevitable consequence of social democracy: it ingrains a sense of entitlement and this in turn leads to death of personal responsbility.

The suggestion that this abstract condition of "alienation" can be alleviated by robbing people of their freedom and subjecting them to the same bureacracy is absurd. Fortunately, it is also politically unaplatable in this country and, if persisted with, will be the death of the Labor left-faction.

Bring on the "Third Way" the ALP began it's life as a party representing the working class. These days if a couple have a microvave, and a car under five years old, some consider themselves to be middle class, what a bloody joke. Do they still have to get out of bed to go to "work" like the rest of the "working class" the answer is yes.

It is about time the average person woke up to themselves, these current benefits have come to them via the union movement, fronting Industrial Courts for generations. That has temporarily disappeared, thanks to the eh..supposed middle class, let's see how they do now, as they can be sacked at the drop of a hat, will they become even more {is it possible} subservient {crawlers} to their bosses?

Ah it's a tangled web we weave, good luck suckers, you're going to need it....

SHONGA,
The increased prosperity of all Australians (including the working class) is a result of economic growth - not the union movement. This economic growth can only be sustained with increased liberalisation of the labour market. As superficially appealing as a regulated labour market is, it does not deliver prosperity or security - see the experience of continental Europe.

On the issue of unfair dismisal, you have overlooked three key points:
1. The revocation of these laws is expected to generate 50,000+ jobs in small and medium size business. (Interesting that you should make no mention of the unemployed in your post.)
2. Most employers are good and decent people - they dont fire people on a whim. Even if the employer is driven strictly by profit, there is no incentive for them to sack good employees only to have to hire and retrain a new, untested employee.
3. Employees can leave a business any time they receive a better offer. Given employers have businesses that need to be maintained and contractual obligations to fulfil, this can be quite burdensome upon them. Yet there is no great push for unfair resignation laws.

Fundamentally, the fanatical opposition to the government's reforms are driven by a warped view of the world. Employers are seen as rich, callous fat cats that exploit their employees at every opportunity. Employees are seen as powerless and entirely dependent upon union bureaucrats. The reality is quite different. Most business owners are ordinary people trying to make a go of it like anyone else. Quite often their homes and entire livelihoods are tied up with the fate of their business. They do not see their employees as a simple resource to be exploited but rather as the key to the success of their business. Most employees enjoy an amicable relationship with their bosses and will be more than capable of negotiating just conditions of employment.

The opposition of the ACTU and AWU to the reforms is more related to their desire to maintain power and political sway than the welfare of ordinary people.

Unions are out, as is unskilled labour in this country.

Unions cost you a fortune, you might get a BBQ every now and then, but we dont need them as they are hardline and effect the prosperity of all.

Society has changed but unions have not, thats why they are a dying breed. In 20 years a union will be simply a tool for the not so savvy to protect themselves.....glorified insurance.

Were it not for the union movements we never would have had a 40 hour week, let alone the prospect of a 35 hour week. Anyone is better off with the strength collective bargaining offers as opposed to the isolation and vulnerability that results from individual contracts. Those worst affected will be casual workers and contract labour - without the strength of organisation or stability of employment. If anything, we need to ammend the law to make it easier for unions to take industrial action. Issues are raised, such as the sacking of shop stewards, in between enterprise agreements. Unions need to be able to respond to changing circumstances. So much for 'flexibility'.

Anyway, though, I'd be interested in knowing how readers feel about any expansion of the social wage via increased education and Medicare funding. At the moment the ALP is attacking the government for failing to embrace 'real tax reform'. And yet any substantial tax cuts will bite into the surplus and take away desperately needed funds the ALP needs to restore services in health, tertiary education, secondary education and infrastructure. It's about time someone questioned the logic of infinite tax cuts - especially tax cuts so obviously directed towards the 'top end of town'.

Tristan

Tristan,

At a time when France is ripping itself apart and has 10% unemployment, and Germany more than 12% unemployment - I tend to think the tide of history is against following this path of the 35 hour week and state pension for life.

I also note that most of Western Europe has the highest levels of retirement per capita after Japan!

It seems to me that the dynamism of long term education for more and more people, markets driving growth, and interest rates set by independent central banks is a third way worth striving for.

Australia has done very well - save that it is under-investing massively in education. Even more than the IR changes - this will be the real divide in income across the community.

Australia has an obligation - even a mandate - to resist the excessive individualism and underinvestment in people that America's poor face and another obligation to be a trading nation first and resist the rigidity and sluggishness of Europe.

My friend you are on the wrong tide of history! So is Hamilton!

You guys have lost along with the other socialists in history. Real social democracy has a market basis and an investment in people - talk of heavy rigidities, big limits on productivity and worker freedom, oposition to private initiative, and to global investment - sounds like a lecture from the disposessed SOCIALISTS wing of the ALP. You keep that Red Flag close to your chest but it gets less and less relevant to most people.

Cheers, good article by the way,
Corin

What France and Germany are experiencing, is the logical conclusion to rampant capitalism. The economic growth which fueled their economies (like Britain) was initially kick started by colonial exploitation. Their current wealth is based on injustice against others and the momentum of the Industrial revolution. (Treaty of Nanking, Opium wars etc)

Once a man realizes that he can catch a fish to feed him for a day, but if he catches 3 he can sell them to the village further interior, he will then catch more and more, sell more and build a bigger humpy/lean-to, and voila....no more fish. This is followed by the "glazed eye/Furrowed brough" syndrome.. "What the heck will I do now"?

Capitalism without environmental/social conscience is doomed. Couple this with basic human greed,.... hmmm yep, I think that confirms it.

A 4TH WAY.

The article said

[“shopping has become the dominant response to meaninglessness in modern life”. Alienation, rather than injustice, is seen as the core social problem confronting affluent societies.]

The hyper individualism and 'me me me' of modern Western society can have only one outcome "alienation" Once all the froth and bubble of the shallow, empty, selfish grasping after meaning has subsided into a depressing puddle of stagnant philosophical ooze, we are faced with the ultimate questions "Why am I really here ?" "Where am I going" ? "Whats it all about" ?

I believe the alienation we experience is fundamentally found in our alienation from our Creator. Rudderless ships in the sea of life. Aimless, lacking a framework other than 'eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die' yes.. hedonism is probably the only honest response to this alienation, or... perhaps we can resolve the fundamental problem by becoming reconciled to God, through Jesus Christ ?

Alienation=>Depression=>grasping for validation=>hedonism, mysticism, nihilism, humanism,spurious religions, existentialism (hedonism in a new suit)

11Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.
14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all" (from 2Corinthians5)

Hence, we share the word of repentance, forgiveness, Renewal and reconciliation.

Monash Libiterian.
You are of course quite wrong mate, the rich would have been much richer if not for the union movement making and sustaining a case fot the producers of wealth {the workers} to have a tiny share in the prosperity.

Are you another educated idiot? Who can see theories, but is unable to apply them in practise, unless it is to a set of figures. Life is a lot more "real" to some of us, especially those who have found themselves through no fault of their own in the bottom 20% of poverty stricken Australians, for whom it would seem you have no feelings, or compassion, sell, sell, sell, greed, greed, greed.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Corin

I don't think you're in a position to say what 'real' social democracy is. Social democracy was originally indistinguishable from socialism and only was seen as a separate movement after the First World War split. (in which the communists had the moral upper hand) In so far as socialism is the movement that responds the 'the social problem' on the basis of egalitarian politics, it is probably better to reunify the socialist and social democratic streams rather than 'widening the divide' by liquidating social democracy into neoliberalism.

Also - all this talk a 'rigidities', 'worker freedom', 'flexibility' - you sound a bit like Kevin Andrews. Workplace 'flexibility' means nothing when it's the 'flexibility' for the boss to impose upon you a 60 hour week with little or no time for family or personal space. A 60 hour week achieves productivity but at what cost? With your politics it seems we never would have achieved the 8 hour day. We have to get our priorities right - is productivity and end to itself - or is it but one of many means of trying to achieve 'the good life'.

On the other hand, I agree that we need to invest in people. Howard has slashed some $4-$5 billion from higher education. But what do we get from the ALP? Instead of policies restoring funding to the sector we get calls for 'real' tax cuts for 'middle Australia'. A far better move wouild be to encourage moves from welfare to work with a tax credits scheme aimed at lower income earners - paid for by restructuring the PAYE income tax scale.

As for social democracy having a 'market basis' - I agree that the market has a big role to play. But why not enhance the market, democratising it by giving support for co-operative enterprises?

Tristan

Shonga/Ewins

Here is a little live, on the ground reality; a reality mostly reserved for the lower 20% discussed in the above article.
ACTU Media Release 05 April 2006

ACTU Secretary Greg Combet said the Federal Government's new work laws were to blame for the terrible situation that the workers at the Cowra Abbatoir had been put through.

Mr Combet said it was good news that the workers would get their jobs back but the fact remained that it was legal to act as the company had done.

"The Government has created the laws used by the Cowra Abbatoir to sack their workers and put them through this terrible ordeal," he said.

"Now they have obviously agreed after pressure from the public, unions and the government that they should not have done this.

"But the fact remains that the Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews has not said that the behaviour of this company was illegal.

"Kevin Andrews knows what this company did was not illegal under his new laws but it was unfair and unpopular.

"My concern is that there will be cases like this all over Australia now and if they don't attract a great deal of publicity and there is not a union involved then the workers and their families will suffer.

"These laws allow people to be sacked for no reason. They allow people to have their wages and conditions reduced. They are unfair and un-Australian.

"This Cowra solution does not mean that a single other worker in Australia is protected from this type of action by an employer.

"If the Government wants to protect people from being sacked and rehired on lower pay and conditions then it should change its workplace laws," Mr Combet said.

This is OK in your brave new world is it MonashLibertarian?

Too tired at the moment to read the comments and debate seriously, I'll just say that fortunately neither Hamilton nor Ewins will ever have much influence on policy.

SHONGA,

It's a shame you aren't able to engage in a debate without resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks. You failed to address any of the substantive points made in my original post. Instead you have claimed the massive benefits of unionism are self-evident. I disagree, there is a stronger correlation between growth of the economy as a whole and the real wages of Australians than there is with union strength. In fact, in the last 15 years, union memberships have fallen yet real wages have increased. In continental Europe, unions are incredibly strong yet real wages are stagnant.

diver dan,

Kevin Andrews suggested that whether the actions of the company were or were not illegal is matter for the courts. It would be inappropriate for him to say otherwise as this would compromise any judicial proceeding.

However, you do raise a legitimate point. In the short term, some workers will be worse off under the new IR regime and there are some bad employers out there (although I maintain most are not). But the loss to these workers needs to be weighed against the gain to the long-term unemployed who are more likely to get a chance at a job under the new regime and the gains to the economy as a whole which eventually trickle down to all Australians. On balance, the new regime will be positive for Australians, especially in the long run. Surveys of workers in France and Germany (both heavily regulated labour markets) show that they have greater job insecurity than workers in Australia and even the United States. This demonstrates that regulation is not the key to job security but rather a strong economy and laws that encourage recruitment of employees.

Monash,
I react to pomposity that way, nothing personal, you really haven't got a clue have you. Reality to some is more than surveys and theories. The A.C.T.U. has fronted the A.I.R.C for 100 years putting a case for the increase in the minimum wage for we low income souls, bumping along on the bottom of society. Employers don't actually give workers a pay increase just for the fun of it, without unions putting a case on behalf of employees. In other words if unions had not done so the minimum wage would be a lot less than it is now.

Perhaps you are one of those who believe we should go back down the mines with a canary on the shoulder, you make me sick, don't take it personally all pompus, bombastic, arogant, conceited people do.

SHONGA
>Monash Libiterian.
>You are of course quite wrong mate, the rich would have been much richer if not for the union
>movement making and sustaining a case fot the producers of wealth {the workers} to have a tiny
>share in the prosperity.

What a load of garbage. The union movement has done nothing but cause unemployment. They have never increased the workers' share. Value is subjective, and this includes the value of labour. Nobody can change this - either an employer can get workers at a maximum cost of X or he doesn't employ them at all.

The only employment that can guarantee high pay is a job with high value.

>Are you another educated idiot? Who can see theories, but is unable to apply them in practise,
>unless it is to a set of figures. Life is a lot more "real" to some of us, especially those who have
>found themselves through no fault of their own in the bottom 20% of poverty stricken Australians,
>for whom it would seem you have no feelings, or compassion, sell, sell, sell, greed, greed, greed.

Are you going to dispute actual theory, or just discard all theories as academic and not "real"? Believe it or not, there is a logical reason for everything that can be explained with a theory.

Your argument is empty and emotional.

>You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, you should be ashamed of yourself for having the audacity to tell someone they should be ashamed of themselves simply because they disagree with your selfish entitlement philosophy. To suggest that others should be ashamed of themselves for not providing YOU with wealth and employment on YOUR terms, or for keeping their wealth, is a despicble and blatantly spoiled attitude.

Nobody has the right to be paid, to be employed by someone else, or to anyone else's wealth. These things must be earned through the provision and free trade of valuable products or services.

But Monash. You’re exhausting. You miss so much of the point as to be unbelievable. I mean , your name gives it away . Out here is a desperate world. The IR legislation is a "dogs breakfast" for lawyers. Don’t you think this may be the point of the exercise. To me, its about fornication of the bottom end by the top end. But, I would really love you to know, people on the bottom end suffer the real pain of abuse and depravation, and very quickly at any minor change to conditions. So do their families.Their women, children , all of them part of it. Why do they have a need for more persecution through such instruments as Howard’s new IR legislation that will bring less, not more. That is Monash, less money, less security, less chance for them and their families to (and here is a word you would be well acquainted with, I feel sure) “prosper”. So Monash, as elements of Australia prosper, a larger element of the workforce will not. The example of the Abattoir workers(nearly) sacking makes my point. Obviously your fine with this. Am I correct, the John Howard QC way .

diver dan,

With respect, I believe it is you who have missed the point. In my earlier post I conceded that there would be some short term losers out of the government's IR "reforms". (I also concede the point that the legislation is very poorly drafted and has added complexity in some areas). However, I also believe (and overseas experience tells us) that IR reform is the most effective way to decrease unemployment and facilitate social mobility.

Opponents of IR reform make much of the apparent suffering of the low paid yet say nothing of the actual suffering of the long-term unemployed. Nor do opponents of reform suggest any alternative stategies to lower unemployment and grow the economy beyond resurrecting discredited policies. I dont consider the double-digit unemployment of continental Europe to be just or fair. Overregulation of the labour market creates the greatest kind of inequity: between insiders (those currently employed under awards) and outsiders (the unemployed). Yet the stories of unemployed people locked out of the workforce didn't feature in any ACTU ads. Nor did any include small business owners unable to take a chance on a long-term unemployed candiadate because of the threat of a spurious unfair dismissal claim if it doesn't work out.

This reality isn't changed by the fact that I come from a middle-class family (who worked their way up the ladder from humble beginnings) nor by the fact that I am a university student whose only "real" knowledge is a degree in economics. So rather than distort my argument and call me names, challenge the logic of what I am saying.

SHONGA
>Employers don't actually give workers a pay increase just for the fun of it, without unions putting a
>case on behalf of employees. In other words if unions had not done so the minimum wage would
>be a lot less than it is now.

No amount of pressure from labour unions and no amount of legislation can change wages. Wages are set according to the market. Minimum wage, minimum conditions and so on do not increase wages, they just cause unemployment.

Wages go up because of this little thing called "competition". When wages are below the value of their productivity, businesses see this as an oppourtunity to make extra profit, and so COMPETE for workers, bidding up their wages. If you are an employer who wants to take advantage of cheap labour, would it not be in your best interest to offer a higher wage (but no so high as to cost more than the productivity you gain from them) than competing employers, in order to attract workers? This is exactly what happens, and it's not the work of unions.

When wages drop, it is because there is an excessive supply of labour or because it is in low demand. Implementing minimum conditions will simply cause unemployment as less employers are willing to pay the costs. Unfair dismissal is also a cost that employers have to weigh up before they employ workers. Such factors effectively price labour out of the market.

Tristan,

I agree that "earned" tax credits are appropriate, but so is broadening the tax base as well as keeping it progressive.

I tend to think the tax credits model - matched to a higher threshhold $10K, and a 15, 30 (up to 100 or 125K), 45 (after 100 or 125K) model - would provide the grestest incentives for the lower and middle income earners.

Clearly to do this though you need to broaden the tax base. This is where it gets tough - but I'm not against tough decisions.

I do however think the statist model is tired tart than ran its course. I have just written a piece on differntial Vouchers for education - now that's a great idea - competition and choice and more investment at the low end!

Mate - I just give you a hard time! You'll come around to the side of economic markets driving growth. I have 20 years to pursuade you, like primaries it will be the only gig in town some day.

Corin

Corin,

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'broadening the base'. I don't want to see a flat tax, although I wouldn't mind some action on negative gearing and the introduction of a wealth tax. I also think that credits should only be offered up to a $26,000-$30,000 threshold on a sliding scale. Any further than that and it will just cost too much. Wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, abolishing dividend imputation - can all help fill the gap - but at the end of the day this won't be enough to fix the damage done by significant tax cuts to middle income earners. Tax credits ought be paid for through restructuring PAYE - and ultimately this means higher taxes at the upper end of the scale.

As for 'statism' - aversion to the state is nothing new - but what is it actually based on? What's wrong with the principle of free education anyway? And what's wrong with the principle of expanding Medicare? (apart from evoking the state as the proverbial 'boogeyman')

Tristan

G.T. please join Monash in not having a clue. diver dan, these people don't care about our situation, they just see it as CD. Money is their God, they have no understanding, or want any. They are greedy, selfish individuals, for whom compassion for their fellow man does not exist.

They are brilliant at theories, and maths, but real life as we know it, they have never, and will never experience it. Strangely it is the only life I have ever known, struggling to survive, producing wealth for the already rich men. It is a much more fulfilling life than to be burning the midnight oil like Scrouge, worried whether or not the price of their shares will fall, or how to further exploit the working class.

A recent Bill Leak cartoon depicting three big business men watching JWH on TV telling us the new IR was good for workers and sreaming out ib the background, "go you good thing" is pretty close to the truth.

G.T and Monash, you two sad buggars, wake up to yourselves, smell the roses.

No SHONGA, it is you who is selfish, as is evidenced by your utter disdain for anyone who isn't part of the lower working class, including even the unemployed, who would be much better off under an unregulated labour market.

Once again, rather than refute any points, you simply lash out with emotion and play the victim card. You believe only your type has it hard, and you believe everyone owes you something.

Don't you think the unemployed, who are priced out of the market with strict IR regulations, are much worse off than you? Don't you think it's unfair that the system has been biased towards lower workers for so long, or are you just spoilt?

The notion that employers are all evil people who get a thrill out of firing and abusing workers is an infantile lie propagated by unions. If you believe this, answer a couple of questions:
1) Why in their right mind would an employer want to fire or mistreat a productive worker?
2) If a worker is NOT productive, why should an employer be forced to keep them, assuming they are not contractually obliged to?

Employment is not a right. Wages come out of someone ELSE'S pockets, just like payment for any other good or service - money that OTHERS earned. You are not entitled to that, you must work for it, by providing a valuable good or service.

Tristan,

Perhaps: A broadening of the tax base is best done by reducing tax exemptions (including the rebates for car use, etc, etc), or raising CGT to 30% (this would mean that property would be less favourable as a vehicle to evade tax as well - but possibly an electoral loser - so I'd be cautious).

Did I mention the GST and Food - ideally this being covered too. It was wrong-headed exemption in the first place. People at the bottom get compensation by the lift in the Tax Free Threshhold.

Cheers,
Corin

"At a time when France is ripping itself apart and has 10% unemployment, and Germany more than 12% unemployment - I tend to think the tide of history is against following this path of the 35 hour week and state pension for life." - Corin

Leaving aside France, I find it somewhat disingenuous to compare Australia with Germany. In Australia you are deemed to be employed if you work a mere one hour in the survey week, whilst in Germany you are considered unemployed if you work less than 15. If Australia used the German benchmark, our unemployment rate would be higher. Additionally, Germany is still suffering from the economic effects of reunification. Despite attempts at redevelopment, unemployment in the former communist East remains at around 18%.

Like Mr. Howard, it seems you're trying to compare apples and oranges, but all you're getting is fruit salad.

"As superficially appealing as a regulated labour market is, it does not deliver prosperity or security - see the experience of continental Europe." - MonashLibertarian

In that case, please explain how the Scandinavian countries can maintain higher regulation of IR than Australia, but yet are better at creating jobs, are more productive and are wealthier than we are.

For example, Australia is ranked 10th most competitive country in the world compared to Finland (No 1), Sweden (No 3), Denmark (No 4), Iceland (No 7), and Norway (No 9).

Furthermore, Australia's unemployment rate is 5%, while Norway's is 4.6%, Sweden's 6.3%, Denmark's 4.8% and Iceland's 3.0%. Norway, Iceland and Sweden all have lower long-term unemployment rates than Australia.

It seems social democracy is alive and well in some countries at least.

Dresdener - fair arguments may be - but it helps being in the biggest richest trade block on earth! Australia as far as I'm aware has no such benefit to protect us from the cheap producing/manufacturing states to our north.

Scandanavian nations are also in some peril in the long run with competitive centres growing in Eastern Europe in Poland, Estonia, Czech R et al.

First there was one, now there are two, who should be ashamed of themselves, when money becomes your GOD, there is only one thing you know, that is you have nothing left. "Forgive them, they know not what they do"

Dresdener,

On the issue of global competitiveness you neglect to mention that the United States is 2nd and Singapore 6th - neither of which are social democracies. It also noteworthy that France sits at 30th. This seems to suggest that a countries competitiveness is more than a function of its system of government.

According to the OECD's standardised unemployment rates, the French unemployment rate is 9.1%,Finland's is 8.1% and Sweden's is 6.5%. By way of comparison, the unemployment rates the United States and Australia are 4.8% and 5.2% respectively. Therefore, its not accurate to suggest that all social democracies are better at managing unemployment than liberal democracies. However, your point re Germany is well taken and I must concede that certain social democracies have successfully coupled low unemployment with high productivity.

On the issue of prosperity, the best measure is purchasing-power-partiy which measures to real wealth per capita in countries. Whilst Norway and Denmark have relatively hight PPP per capita, Sweden and Finland are both lower than Australia and all are lower than the United States. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that all Scandanvian countries have greater wealth than Australia - some do and some do not.

I believe there are certain misconceptions about the nature of social democracy in Scandanavia. Peter Saunders (of the CIS) has noted that the welfare-to-work regimes in some Scandanavian countries are more agressive than are our own. Most of the Scandanavian countries underwent radical reform and liberalisation of their welfare model in the early '90s. Sweden and Denmark both have well-developed school voucher programs which increase the quality of education.

In short, the Scandanavian model is not as socialist as many believe nor is it as effective as many believe. To the extent that it has been tried out of Scandanavia it has failed - particularly in multicultural societies.

Monash,
What a schocking thought, some countries actually value "life" above money, France for example. They choose to live, not compete so hard, what naughty people they are, when will they learn to get into the rat race and be all consumed with money, like you. I wonder if they enjoy their lives more than you and G.T. ?

Need better politics than Clive Hamilton's proposals

Tristan Ewins was far too kind. Clive Hamilton’s “What’s Left: The Death of Social Democracy” was a crude exercise in upper-class utopianism and self interest. Hamilton crudely characterised the Left as:

- bereft of ideas
- wandering in the wilderness
- mouthing same old dogmas
- impotent and irrelevant

and the ALP as withering and dieing. But this just exposes his own political incompentancy. His project is nothing but yet another theory of managing capitalism.

Hamilton and his fellow middle-class recipients of capitalist pelf want their wealth but dream of sharing such fortune with everybody. This dream makes them happy. In the event, Hamilton produced a basic rehash of Giddens ‘Third Way’ with variations. His ‘politics of wellbeing’ and ‘politics of meaning’ does not assist the unemployed into jobs, workers out of debt, nor does it respond to Australia’s ballooning Current Account deficit and falling wages share of GDP. In general, Hamilton ignores economic structural issues.

Hamilton (and others eg David McKnight) suggest we should develop ideas, values and philosophy first, then create organisation to fit [Quarterly Essay 21, pg 52]. They misdiagnose society’s ills as being due to affluence, consumerism, and commercialism and imply if new idealistic politics is crafted, that the masses will suddenly wake up from their mistakes and come running. Hamilton believes that painting a picture of a new society will forge new politics [Quarterly Essay 21, pg 65]. This is not so.

Chris Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com

Responding to Clive Hamilton, continued

In essence Hamilton retraces the path of 60’s Western philosophers such as Marcuse who were disturbed by the contradictions between liberty in the West, aggression against others, freedom for WASP’s (white Angl-Saxon Protestants) vs oppression for minorities, huge production with massive destruction. They felt discomfort and dreamt of ways to “subvert this sort of progress” [H Marcuse, Eros and Civilisation, Abacas, pg 12]. Marcuse’s tactic was based on “intellectual refusal” supported by a younger generation because “it is their lives which are at stake”. Marcuse replaced class conflict (as the solution to the problems of affluence) with intellectual ‘refusal’ allied with new generational struggle and political fight [Eros and Civilisation, pg 19].

Hamilton replaced class conflict with recycled theory, crude slander and mere political poetry. His new political party represents many miles of backward steps. The real question should be; why has every attempt to create new political parties and movements to counter the ills of Westernisation (ie capitalism), failed?

We need concrete means of meeting the new challenges of globalised capitalism; debt, unemployment, wage cuts, current account deficit, exposure to unfair international competition, spreading nuclear waste and etc. There is no point congregating in cute little dreaming circles on the sidelines.

Humanity needs more consumerism and affluence. In the next 100 years any number of new products will be developed, produced and marketed. The real issue is equity and sustainability. The gap between the rich and poor is horrendous and getting larger. It is capitalism that manufactures and markets consumer goods irrespective of the harm caused to the environment and humanity. Many products of growth such as cities and farms have now reached the limits of water supply and the limits imposed by salination.

Isn’t it time we learnt that you cannot abolish such problems with “new politics”, and platitudes. You cannot abolish capitalism by shouting at it. If you try to regulate capitalism it will respond by regulating you.

As ever, the problem is a ten-letter word - Capitalism.

Chris Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com

>As ever, the problem is a ten-letter word - Capitalism.

Sorry, but capitalism is the natural outcome of a free society. Capitalism is the result of voluntary production and trade between humans. The will to compete, progress, and succeed is part of human nature, and you cannot change it. Forcing humans to use anything other than capitalism is like attempting to make a submarine fly.

>Monash,
>What a schocking thought, some countries actually value "life" above money, France for example.
>They choose to live, not compete so hard, what naughty people they are, when will they learn to
>get into the rat race and be all consumed with money, like you. I wonder if they enjoy their lives
>more than you and G.T. ?

There is something you're misunderstanding - money is merely a commonly accepted unit of account, used to quantify and standardise value. The alternative is a barter economy where there is no common currency. Nobody is forcing you to accept money.

If you hate money, and all you want to do is survive, feel free to visit the outback, hunt kangaroos, and create whatever you want out of sticks and stones. Nobody is stopping you. If you want more than that, though, like a share in the creations of others, then you need to earn it by trading something that is of value to them for it. You must earn this; you are not entitled to this.

Huh? “capitalism is the natural outcome of a free society.”!!

Excuse me but G T must be living in comfortable niche in a Western economy.

Sorry but capitalism is the exact opposite of a free society. Monopoly, oligopoly and cartels destroy voluntary production and free trade between humans.

Voluntary production and trade will be more voluntary and free after capitalism and will link more of the world’s people.

The will to live as human beings is part of human nature and you cannot capitalise that. Forcing humans to live under capitalism is like attempting to build a submarine out of marshmellows.

Mark Z

I suppose it all depends on whether or not you think there is, any longer, any prospect of a negation of capitalism as imagined by Marx.
I would argue that our experience of Stalinism shows conclusively that communism is at best a futile dream. That said, as socialists, do we prefer a command economy or a mixed economy with a significant role for the market? True, monopoly, oliogopoly, collusion are all facets of the system, but this can be addressed with regulation and state intervention. (eg: public enterprises, competition watchdogs, anti-monopolist laws) That's not to say however that we shouldn't encourage democratic capital formation through wage earner funds and similar methods. Encouraging co-operatives is another way that socialist and market-oriented objectives can be reconciled. Capital formation can be democratised, and when it is democratised it actually enhanced rather than detracts from liberty. The problem we have today is the power of a burgeoning finance sector to destabilise economies whenever governments diverge from the prefered neo-liberal norm. That said, we need to re-regulate the finance sector, co-operating through the socialist internation and other international bodies to introduce Tobin taxes, reintroduce deposit requirements etc. Rather than negating capitalism we need to democratise it and imagine socialism as civilising rather than negating the overall economic system.

Tristan

G T's response was very poor. Judging by his tone I assume he does not want to discuss anything and is here for other reasons.

How can capitalism be the outcome of a free society. Capitalism only exists if one class is not as free as another. This distinction is the basis of capitalist profit which is based on exploitation.

Capitalism is not just "a market economy with voluntary choices". This is more like "market socialism".

I agree with those who point out that, in practice, capitalism tends towards monopoly. If this is true, and I think it is, then this is the opposite of freedom.

Maybe G T is dreaming of capitalism without exploitation. Where does this exist?

Christopher Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com

Tristan is obviously closer to Clive Hamilton than one would have thought:

By asserting …

“Rather than negating capitalism we need to democratise it and imagine socialism as civilising rather than negating the overall economic system” he devalues his own critique of Hamilton.

If this is the keystone of his social democracy, then as such, this is political suicide. You cannot democratise capitalism. Maybe Tristan doesn’t even know what capitalism is. His use of words like “Stalinism” etc indicate nothing but a Western journalist with an itch to write, but no understanding.

Tristan’s degeneration of social democracy into ‘better managed capitalism’ is the same project as Clive Hamilton. This is a well known phenonema in the West and is occasioned (substantially) by Western exploitation of the Third World.

In the West we have not had to experience the true reality of capitalism. Much capitalist oppression has been exported into the Third World. The computer I sit at and the car that you drive and which make up your feeling of wealth were made by workers earning around one tenth of your income and who work in generally beastly conditions. As the Third World develops, Western workers will start to loose their wages, jobs, conditions, public services, and faith in Tristan’s ‘democratising capitalism’. Competition from the other pole of world capitalism will soon knock some sense into those who want to restrict themselves to ‘democratising capitalism’. You can see some of this unfolding in Holland, eg:

http://international.sp.nl/publications/enough/chapter2.stm

Christopher Warren
Chris.canberra@gmail.com

old¨zygote
>Sorry¨but¨capitalism¨is¨the¨exact¨opposite¨of¨a¨free¨society.

It's¨clear¨you¨have¨no¨idea¨what¨capitalism¨or¨freedom¨actually¨is.

Capitalism¨is¨private,¨voluntary¨production¨and¨trade¨in¨a¨free¨market¨(ie.¨one¨which¨is¨not¨being¨controlled¨by¨any¨central¨authority).

A¨free¨society¨is¨one¨in¨which¨nobody¨forces¨anyone¨else¨to¨do¨anything.¨Freedom¨does¨NOT
mean¨everyone¨giving¨you¨everything.¨How¨can¨a¨person¨be¨free¨if¨they're¨being¨forced¨to
provide¨for¨you?

>Monopoly,¨oligopoly¨and¨cartels¨destroy¨voluntary¨production¨and¨free¨trade¨between¨humans.

Perhaps¨you'd¨like¨to¨explain¨how?

When¨was¨the¨last¨time¨a¨monopoly,¨oligopoly,¨or¨a¨cartel¨forcefully¨intervened¨to¨stop¨the
production¨or¨trade¨between¨two¨unrelated¨individuals?

>Voluntary¨production¨and¨trade¨will¨be¨more¨voluntary¨and¨free¨after¨capitalism¨and¨will¨link¨more
>of¨the¨world’s¨people.

How¨can¨something¨be¨MORE¨voluntary?¨Either¨something¨is¨voluntary¨or¨it¨isn't.

It¨doesn't¨matter¨what¨system¨you're¨living¨under,¨people¨will¨be¨forced¨to¨do¨something¨to¨feed
themselves¨unless¨someone¨else¨provides¨that¨voluntarily.¨To¨force¨them¨to¨provide¨that¨is
unethical.

>The¨will¨to¨live¨as¨human¨beings¨is¨part¨of¨human¨nature¨and¨you¨cannot¨capitalise¨that.¨Forcing
>humans¨to¨live¨under¨capitalism¨is¨like¨attempting¨to¨build¨a¨submarine¨out¨of¨marshmellows.

Once¨again,¨there¨is¨no¨such¨thing¨as¨"forcing¨humans¨to¨live¨under¨capitalism".¨Capitalism,¨by
definition,¨involves¨no¨force¨from¨others.

Christopher¨Warren
>How¨can¨capitalism¨be¨the¨outcome¨of¨a¨free¨society.¨Capitalism¨only¨exists¨if¨one¨class¨is¨not¨as
>free¨as¨another.¨This¨distinction¨is¨the¨basis¨of¨capitalist¨profit¨which¨is¨based¨on¨exploitation.

Perhaps¨you¨should¨check¨the¨definition¨of¨freedom,¨as¨well¨as¨the¨definition¨of¨capitalism.¨It's
clear¨that¨you¨don't¨know¨what¨either¨of¨these¨concepts¨are.

Freedom¨does¨not¨entail¨entitlement¨to¨anything¨that¨someone¨ELSE¨must¨provide;¨it¨simply
means¨being¨free¨from¨the¨will¨or¨coercion¨of¨others.¨Capitalism¨is¨exactly¨this;¨as¨opposed¨to
socialism,¨where¨the¨government¨sets¨the¨conditions¨in¨which¨individuals¨may¨trade,¨how¨they
may¨produce,¨and¨how¨much¨of¨what¨they¨produce¨they're¨allowed¨to¨keep.¨Socialism¨therefore
requires¨the¨use¨of¨coercion¨via¨a¨central¨government,¨and¨coercion¨undermines¨freedom.

Since¨no¨coercion¨is¨used¨by¨anyone¨under¨capitalism,¨and¨people¨are¨free¨to¨create¨their¨own
wealth¨or¨live¨off¨the¨land¨without¨"owing"¨anything¨to¨anyone,¨capitalism¨can¨be¨considered¨a
"free"¨system.

Your¨basis¨for¨the¨argument¨that¨profit¨occurs¨due¨to¨exploitation¨is¨also¨incorrect.¨In¨reality,
profit¨is¨indistinguishable¨from¨wages¨because¨both¨are¨payments¨for¨a¨valued¨product.¨In¨the
case¨of¨a¨business¨profiting¨from¨employees,¨the¨valued¨product¨is¨the¨coordination¨and¨putting
together¨of¨all¨the¨employees'¨labour,¨along¨with¨all¨the¨other¨factors¨of¨production,¨which¨would
be¨useless¨otherwise.¨A¨consumer¨would¨not¨bother¨employing¨a¨different¨person¨for¨each¨part
and¨buying¨all¨the¨machinery¨just¨to¨make¨a¨car,¨for¨example,¨even¨if¨these¨were¨only¨marginal
costs,¨because¨they'd¨still¨have¨to¨organise¨it¨all¨and¨put¨it¨all¨together.¨They¨would¨rather¨pay
for¨the¨finished¨product.¨In¨other¨words,¨the¨business¨is¨being¨paid¨a¨"profit"¨for¨making¨it¨happen.

On¨top¨of¨that,¨the¨beauty¨of¨capitalism¨is¨that¨you¨don't¨even¨HAVE¨to¨work¨for¨anyone¨else.
You¨can¨work¨for¨yourself¨by¨selling¨your¨products¨or¨services¨directly¨to¨the¨consumer,¨that
way¨the¨only¨person¨who¨profits¨from¨your¨work¨is¨yourself.

>Capitalism¨is¨not¨just¨"a¨market¨economy¨with¨voluntary¨choices".¨This¨is¨more¨like¨"market
>socialism".

Creating¨wealth,¨then¨being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨how¨much¨of¨that¨wealth¨you¨can¨keep¨is
not¨voluntary.

Being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨who¨you¨can¨employ¨and¨how¨much¨you¨must¨pay¨them¨is¨not
voluntary.

Being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨what¨price¨you¨are¨allowed¨to¨sell¨your¨own¨product¨for,
regardless¨of¨whether¨people¨will,¨out¨of¨their¨own¨free¨will,¨buy¨it,¨is¨not¨voluntary.

I¨could¨go¨on¨all¨day.

>I¨agree¨with¨those¨who¨point¨out¨that,¨in¨practice,¨capitalism¨tends¨towards¨monopoly.¨If¨this¨is
>true,¨and¨I¨think¨it¨is,¨then¨this¨is¨the¨opposite¨of¨freedom.

Think¨why¨"monopolies"¨exist:¨because¨consumers¨fuel¨them.¨That¨means¨they¨are¨satisfying¨a
certain¨demand.¨If¨they¨stop¨performing¨or¨start¨charging¨too¨much,¨they¨open¨the¨door¨to
competition.¨Either¨way,¨there¨is¨no¨problem.

>Maybe¨G¨T¨is¨dreaming¨of¨capitalism¨without¨exploitation.¨Where¨does¨this¨exist?

That¨depends¨what¨your¨definition¨of¨"exploitation"¨is.¨For¨all¨objective¨purposes,¨we¨cannot
say¨someone¨is¨being¨exploited¨when¨they¨voluntarily¨agree¨to¨something.

Christopher,

I'm afraid I don't agree with your characterisation of capitalism as a purely destructive force. You claim that global capitalism has forced workers in the developing world to work for low wages and in ghastly conditions; however, poverty in those countries has fallen dramatically as a result of trading with the developed world and the next generation will enjoy even greater prosperity and opportunity as a result.

The doom and gloom criticism of capitalism is as old as capitalism itself; yet, in countries that embrace capitalism is some shape or form, living standards continue to improve - even for the poorest in society. (In Australia, the Henderson poverty line has increased in real value by over 30% in last 25 years - the only way the left can continue to make the arguement that poverty is rife is by changing the definition of poverty.)

P.S. As I took the time to read your socialist web site, please take the time to read some Thomas Friedman or Johan Norberg.

Christopher,
At last someone {you} bring common sense to the discussion, obviously you know what you are talking about. G.T, Monash, please reread Christopher's posts and learn something while you are at it. G.T. so in your world McDonald's is a great place, in mine it is the exploitation of child labour, to feather the nest of the wealthy owner, who pay's them chocken feed to serve rubbish up to a U.S. mad society, which of course the public purse has to take care of later down the line, when obesity and heart attacks occur. That's Freedom!

Christopher:

Do you honestly believe that capital movements can be abolished on a national level without foregoing quality of life and economic growth as a consequence of lost investment?

Even writers and thinkers such as Stuart Holland (see: The Socialist Challenge) did not imagine a total abolition of capital and its associated functions. They imagined nationalisation of the 'commanding heights' while allowing the market to continue its role elsewhere. Today nationalisation of the 'commanding heights' is further away than ever. Nevertheless, we ought be arguing now for a return to public ownership in areas necessary to:

a) provide competition in oligopolies and counter collusion

b) provide for services on the basis of need, not profit (eg: banking)

c) return to public ownership in areas of natural monopoly and basic infrastructure

This might mean, for instance, re-establishment of public banking and insurance, public ownership of roads, rail, ports, airports etc, public ownership of postal services, water supply, energy, communications infrastructure, defence industries etc. Once the battle to restore a mixed economy is won there is also no reason for the public sector to stay out of more profitable areas such as pharmeceuticals research.

None of this entails the abolition of capital, although it might necessarily entail international co-operation that would curb the power of capital.

And there are prospects for democratising capital also. Sweden, at the height of its social democratic experiment, managed to implement wage earner funds which rose to include 10% of the Swedish stock exchange. Combine something like this with a co-operative incentive scheme embodying discount rates of taxation, management advice, and cheap loans, and you have the basis of a significantly altered economic system.

The problem is: how do you get rid of capitalism without creating a worse system in the process? You end up with 'socialism in one country' and all the contradictions that entails.

That said, I still consider myself a socialist: one who wishes to democratise the economy as much as possible. But state ownership is only one of many possible strategies, and international isolationism is not the answer.

Tristan

Christopher Warren
>In the West we have not had to experience the true reality of capitalism. Much capitalist
>oppression has been exported into the Third World. The computer I sit at and the car that you drive
>and which make up your feeling of wealth were made by workers earning around one tenth of your
>income and who work in generally beastly conditions.

Firstly, these third world workers don't have to take the job. They choose to work for a multinational company because it's the best job they are able to get. Would you rather they worked for half that for a local business, or even worse, unemployed with NO income?

Second, while the wage they earn may seem small in comparison to ours, it has a much larger purchasing power over there. Naturally you wouldn't survive on such a wage in Australia, let alone have such a wage, but that's only because things are comparatively more expensive. This evens out as the global economy frees up; wages in India and China are skyrocketing thanks to western demand for labour and economic liberalisation, and conditions will continue to improve as long as the economy is being freed up.

>As the Third World develops, Western workers will start to loose their wages, jobs, conditions,
>public services

Wages will increase in the developing world to meet those in the west. Any decrease in wages will mean a decrease in production cost and therefore the price of the product.

Jobs will only be lost when someone else can do it better - this is not a legitimate reason to complain. There are things Australia can do more efficiently than China or India for example, and things that China or India can do more efficiently than Australia. When everyone does what they do best, everyone saves. Jobs that can be done more efficiently in another country should not be done in Australia.

Movements¨that¨aim¨to¨stop¨foreign¨competition,¨force¨and¨preserve¨exorbitant¨workers
conditions¨and¨wages¨are¨selfish,¨anti-consumer,¨anti-freedom¨movements.

SHONGA
>Christopher,
>At¨last¨someone¨{you}¨bring¨common¨sense¨to¨the¨discussion,¨obviously¨you¨know¨what¨you
>are¨talking¨about.

What¨qualifies¨you¨to¨say¨that?¨As¨you¨have¨demonstrated,¨you¨know¨nothing¨about¨basic
economics¨and¨refuse¨to¨learn¨anything¨about¨it.¨It¨seems¨you're¨quite¨easily¨duped¨by
socialist/union¨propaganda.

>G.T.¨so¨in¨your¨world¨McDonald's¨is¨a¨great¨place,¨in¨mine¨it¨is¨the¨exploitation¨of¨child¨labour,
>to¨feather¨the¨nest¨of¨the¨wealthy¨owner,¨who¨pay's¨them¨chocken¨feed¨to¨serve¨rubbish¨up¨to¨a
>U.S.¨mad¨society,¨which¨of¨course¨the¨public¨purse¨has¨to¨take¨care¨of¨later¨down¨the¨line,¨when
>obesity¨and¨heart¨attacks¨occur.

I¨don't¨like¨McDonald's¨so¨I¨don't¨eat¨it.¨That's¨my¨choice¨which¨I'm¨allowed¨to¨exercise¨in¨a
free,¨capitalist¨country.¨You¨can¨do¨the¨same.¨Many¨people¨do¨choose¨to¨eat¨it¨and¨that's¨their
choice.¨Nobody¨is¨forcing¨anybody¨to¨eat¨McDonalds¨and¨nobody¨is¨forcing¨anybody¨to¨work
there.

>That's¨Freedom!

That's¨right.

G.T.
I know a great deal about economics, you only know theories, you should put some of your theories into practise. From the garbage in your posts, you are the last person who should be telling anyone that they don't know economics, it's funny how the smallest amount of knowledge, makes the loudest noise.

Christopher:

The Current Account Deficit and the loss of jobs to China and India is indeed a serious problem for Australia. We need a proactive industry policy which mobilises capital around competitive manufacturing industries, with extra incentives and credits for R&D and high wage industries. Utilising superannuation funds seems a viable idea in this context. It's true that the CAD is running at some 5% of GDP - and so the lack of any robust industry policy on either side of politics is of extreme concern.

Personally I see social democracy and socialism as being part of the same movement. I don't think that state socialism is the only kind of socialism either - although by the same token I don't like the stigmatisation of the necessarily robust role that must be taken by the state if we are to achieve social justice.

Also - in the West absolute emiseration of labour is a thing of the past. That's why the revolutionary dialectic supposed by Marx just doesn't figure any more in Western societies the way it used to. And even when it did - in the Great Depression - the fascist Right (eg: the so-called 'New Guard') was stronger than the Communists at that time and reaction was more likely than revolution. Like it or not any progress to socialism in the West will be based upon the power of free will.

GT:

- some 'freedom' - the 'freedom' to be a wage slave. Freedom to 'take it or leave it' is no freedom at all when one lives in poverty. Neo-liberal 'reform' in Africa has left African states in a condition of destitution with massive debt and most former public assets privatised. So much for 'freedom'. Also - your 'devil may care' attitude to the CAD is perplexing. 'The market' does not necessarily 'self correct' with everything co-existing in a perfect equilibrium. There is an urgent need right now for government to intervene in the interests of export and import replacement industries. Yet on both sides of politics you'll see nothing like a sufficient industry policy.

Tristan

Tristan

Of course capital movement can be abolished. This is the whole point of abolishing capitalism. But note - normal economic activity – investment of money, and movement of wealth and assets will still exist, but not with the extra impost that comes through capitalism.

Plain ‘little-c’ capital existed in Roman times, under feudalism, continues under capitalism (where it does untold damage in its new guise), and will continue (as “little-c” capital) under socialism.

You only have full-blown “Capital” when investment is used to expropriate value from others. Capital is not a synonym for money, value, wealth, investment or assets. According to Marx, (and here, he is my compass) Capital is “a social relation’.

The aim is to abolish capitalism – not economics.

I support public banking, insurance, public ownership of roads, rail, ports etc. However this MUST include the principle of eliminating capitalism, or else you just end up with some strange form of State-capitalism, restarted inflation and unemployment etc and then exactly the same crisis tendencies as under private capitalism.

Wage earner funds are excellent – but only provided capitalism is impossible.

You cannot possibly describe yourself as a socialist if you just “wish to democratise the economy as much as possible”.

What contradiction is there if there is “socialism in one country”? After all we all inhabit one world. You seem to have picked up some middle class anti-socialist quip, without understanding what it means.

I do not think state ownership or nationalism are necessary for socialism. Anyway and again, this is a middle-class anti-socialist provocation you have absorbed from your comfortable environment. In fact it is not possible to conceive of “capitalism in one country”.

As with Hamilton, you cannot make the world a nice or democratic or happy place, without abolishing capitalism. To the extent the post-war West has achieved this, this has only been sustained by massive exploitation of the Third World.

Capitalism is the problem.

Christopher Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com.au

G T

It's¨clear¨you¨have¨no¨idea¨what¨capitalism¨or¨freedom¨actually¨is.

Capitalism¨is¨not voluntary¨production¨and¨trade¨in¨a¨free¨market¨(ie.¨one¨which¨is¨not¨being¨controlled¨by¨any¨central¨authority).

>Monopoly,¨oligopoly¨and¨cartels¨destroy¨voluntary¨production¨and¨free¨trade¨between¨humans.

Perhaps¨you'd¨like¨to¨explain¨how?

Very simple. A monopoly tells an outlet the maximum and minimum price they can charge. If they dispute this they remove the franchise. There is no voluntary price setting under the thumb of monopoly capitalism

Another example…..
Before a monopoly a market price is $50 and serves 100 clients but profits are 10% on a revenue of $5000.

After monopoly the selling price is forced to $100 and this serves 70 clients but now profits (at 10%) have skyrocketted, and the people who wanted to freely trade are now excluded from accessing the goods and services they once were.

30 clients have lost their right to free trade.

When¨was¨the¨last¨time¨a¨monopoly,¨oligopoly,¨or¨a¨cartel¨forcefully¨intervened¨to¨stop¨the
production¨or¨trade¨between¨two¨unrelated¨individuals?

What a simple, simple task.

Peoples free use of Sydney’s roads has been curtailed by a monopolists desire to funnel traffic down its road. The curtailed road users were unrelated to the monopolist.

Similarly – many capitalist contracts have binding clauses stopping other entities from production and from trading.

How¨can¨something¨be¨MORE¨voluntary?¨Either¨something¨is¨voluntary¨or¨it¨isn't.

Don’t be stupid. If voluntary activity encompasses 1,000 people then trade will be more voluntary if voluntary activity encompasses 1,000,000. It is hardly voluntary if the only choice is to either be hit with a club, or a whip. It is not voluntary to choose between working as a wage slave and going hungry and loosing your house.

Since¨no¨coercion¨is¨used¨by¨anyone¨under¨capitalism,¨and¨people¨are¨free¨to¨create¨their¨own
wealth¨or¨live¨off¨the¨land¨without¨"owing"¨anything¨to¨anyone,¨capitalism¨can¨be¨considered¨a
"free"¨system.

By the same token, as there is so much coercion under capitalism, it cannot be termed ‘free’. We get more freedom, more suitable to the modern world, if we get rid of capitalism.

I could go on all day.

That¨depends¨what¨your¨definition¨of¨"exploitation"¨is.¨For¨all¨objective¨purposes,¨we¨cannot
say¨someone¨is¨being¨exploited¨when¨they¨voluntarily¨agree¨to¨something.

This is obviously extreme rightwing Ann Rand dogma of the worst kind.

There are others here who know about economics, or as I call it
eka-bloody-comics.

Mark Z

To Monash Liberterian.

From one who left school early in the Great Depression, and in his retirement from a farm gained a post-grad in a mixture of history, politics, sociology and economics, and now studying moral philosophy et al as a continual interest in his old age, it fills one with so much contempt to hear moral meaning terms such as liberty and freedom used in the rat racist wheeler-dealerism of modern capitalism.

The British philosopher, John Locke was the first to use freedom in relation to business, in which he meant freedom for the business man to get on for the good of the country, but it is understandable that in those days of slavery and even the paid worker was stuck in a social caste system.

To be sure, Adam Smith later improved the economic language a little when he declared that though his Laissez-faire market meant freedom for big business to get ahead without too much govenment interference, Smith also declared that because competitive need was also based on natural human greed, something had to be done about bettering the main means of production, the welfare of the worker.

Another social philosopher, John Stuart Mill said the same thing. But it is believed both Smith and Stuart Mill, and even John Locke would have been horrified to find their terms freedom and liberty used in such a loose manner as they are used in our economic language today. Such is also made much worse by even the best of our social scientists and moral economists, not even conscious of how they are allowing the English language to be abused by using liberty and freedom in very non-hallowed economic situations.

And indeed, also sending the wrong economic message to a possibly dumb, but more likely innocent public.

Tristan Ewins
>- some 'freedom' - the 'freedom' to be a wage slave. Freedom to 'take it or leave it' is no freedom at
>all when one lives in poverty.

Freedom does not mean unlimited choice, it simply means lack of coercion by others. What you're suggesting is to deprive others of freedom to increase the choice of some. This is indefensible.

>Neo-liberal 'reform' in Africa has left African states in a condition of destitution with massive debt
>and most former public assets privatised. So much for 'freedom'.

African economies are not free. For examples of freeer economies, look at Hong Kong or Dubai to name a couple.

>Also - your 'devil may care' attitude to the CAD is perplexing. 'The market' does not necessarily
>'self correct' with everything co-existing in a perfect equilibrium. There is an urgent need right now
>for government to intervene in the interests of export and import replacement industries. Yet on
>both sides of politics you'll see nothing like a sufficient industry policy.

I never mentioned the CAD, I was referring to comparative advantage. There is nothing inherently wrong with a trade deficit by the way. The only problem is when it is fuelled by too-loose monetary policy.

old¨zygote
>Very¨simple.¨A¨monopoly¨tells¨an¨outlet¨the¨maximum¨and¨minimum¨price¨they¨can¨charge.¨If¨they
>dispute¨this¨they¨remove¨the¨franchise.¨There¨is¨no¨voluntary¨price¨setting¨under¨the¨thumb¨of
>monopoly¨capitalism

>Another¨example…..
>Before¨a¨monopoly¨a¨market¨price¨is¨$50¨and¨serves¨100¨clients¨but¨profits¨are¨10%¨on¨a¨revenue
>of¨$5000.

>After¨monopoly¨the¨selling¨price¨is¨forced¨to¨$100¨and¨this¨serves¨70¨clients¨but¨now¨profits¨(at
>10%)¨have¨skyrocketted,¨and¨the¨people¨who¨wanted¨to¨freely¨trade¨are¨now¨excluded¨from
>accessing¨the¨goods¨and¨services¨they¨once¨were.

>30¨clients¨have¨lost¨their¨right¨to¨free¨trade.

You¨didn't¨explain¨HOW¨these¨"monopolies"¨came¨about¨and¨how¨they¨are¨infallible.¨A¨business
gets¨a¨"monopoly"¨because¨it¨is¨meeting¨a¨certain¨demand¨better¨than¨anyone¨else.¨How¨is¨this¨a
bad¨thing?

You're¨also¨neglecting¨the¨OWNER¨of¨these¨goods:¨the¨supposed¨"monopoly".¨Does¨an¨owner
not¨have¨the¨right¨to¨decide¨what¨he¨does¨with¨these¨goods?¨Free¨trade,¨and¨freedom,¨is¨not
entitlement.¨When¨will¨leftists¨understand¨this?¨Entitlement¨is¨unethical.

>What¨a¨simple,¨simple¨task.

>Peoples¨free¨use¨of¨Sydney’s¨roads¨has¨been¨curtailed¨by¨a¨monopolists¨desire¨to¨funnel¨traffic
>down¨its¨road.¨The¨curtailed¨road¨users¨were¨unrelated¨to¨the¨monopolist.

LOL¨how¨ironic¨that¨you'd¨mention¨a¨deal¨that¨was¨struck¨by¨the¨PUBLIC¨sector¨-¨NOT¨two
private¨organisations.¨It¨was¨the¨NSW¨government¨(ie.¨intervention,¨which¨socialists¨advocate)
that¨created¨this¨deal.¨If¨it¨was¨a¨private¨organisation,¨not¨the¨NSW¨government,¨that¨struck¨the
deal¨with¨the¨tunnel¨company,¨they¨would¨NOT¨have¨agreed¨to¨shut¨down¨their¨own¨roads,
because¨doing¨so¨would¨deprive¨them¨of¨income¨and¨be¨against¨their¨best¨interest.

Not¨to¨mention¨of¨course¨that¨this¨has¨nothing¨to¨do¨with¨preventing¨trade¨or¨production.

>It¨is¨hardly¨voluntary¨if¨the¨only¨choice¨is¨to¨either¨be¨hit¨with¨a¨club,¨or¨a¨whip.¨It¨is¨not¨voluntary
>to¨choose¨between¨working¨as¨a¨wage¨slave¨and¨going¨hungry¨and¨loosing¨your¨house.

It's¨also¨not¨voluntary¨to¨have¨your¨earnings¨taken¨from¨you,¨or¨to¨be¨regulated¨in¨who¨you¨may
employ¨and¨how,¨for¨example.¨The¨difference¨between¨this¨and¨someone¨being¨"forced"¨to¨work
or¨starve¨is¨that¨intervention¨involves¨one¨human¨coercing¨another,¨whereas¨starving¨is¨one's
own¨responsibility.¨Which¨is¨the¨lesser¨of¨the¨two¨evils?¨You're¨effectively¨saying¨that¨people
coercing¨each¨other¨is¨better¨than¨not.

What¨would¨you¨do¨if¨you¨were¨the¨last¨person¨in¨the¨world?¨According¨to¨you,¨you¨wouldn't¨be
"free"¨because¨you'd¨need¨to¨feed¨yourself,¨but¨how¨could¨you¨not¨be¨free¨if¨there¨was¨nobody
else¨in¨the¨world¨to¨restrict¨your¨freedom?

Well, that last lot (by G T) was just useless rightwing dogma, so probably is not worth replying to.

Notice how these rightwingers deliberately flout social conventions, and social rules to inflict their dogmas on the rest of us. For example;

A rule in OnlineOpinion is that contribs are kept to 350 words. So what does the rightwinger do - deliberately replaces the gaps between words wiht another character, so as to foil the normal regulations.

When they do this, they must be ignored as the profoundly unethical, unreasonable operators they in fact are.

We must judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. These disruptive rightist people infest the internet.

Mark

Mark,
For right wing extremeists there are no rules, they believe that they are above the rules, that the rules don't apply to them. They are in possesion of a blinkered view of the world, and think everyone else must conform to their view. Does this remind you of anyone in particular, current, and historicly? G.T. certainly does not stand for Grand Tourer, his post confirm he doesn't travel very far and sticks to his own limited dogma.

Poor chap, we all feel sorry for you G.T.

It's always great when some people play the man and not the ball, especially when they're lacking in any form of wit. Then again, wit usually requires intellect.

MonashLibertarian: I've always been curious how the roads could or would work under a privatised/free market system. What do I do if someone who owns the roads puts the cost of using them up to a level that I'm able to pay (since it's obviously pointless to charge someone more than he or she can pay), but which is extremely uncomfortable?

Unlike most other products or services, I can't go to a competitor since I would have to drive my car on the roads I don't want to drive on to do so.

How can this be resolved without resorting to fanciful explanations (building my own bridge over the road, installing a helipad on my roof, etc.)? A mind that could resolve this problem is a better one than mine!

shorbe: It wouldn't happen like that because not everyone values roads the same as you. What the road companies would try to do is get the most possible income from operating the roads, and this would usually mean charging less. While you may find $5 unbearable, somebody else may only find $4 unbearable, so lowering the toll to $4 would generate a total of $8 dollars from both of you, rather than $5 from just one of you.

Keep in mind that price signals can entice not only consumers, but also potential competitors. Charging exorbitant rates for a particular route is just BEGGING for a competitor, seeing the large potential profits to be made by offering a slightly lower rate (and so capturing the market), to build a road right next to it, or an alternate transport system (whether it be a tunnel, a monorail, a train, or an above ground road). The devaluation of the land surrounding an expensive road as a result of that expensiveness would make such a venture even more affordable and enticing.

And after all that, what is to stop a group of citizens starting their own collective to run and build roads (just like the government, but with voluntary participation) to ensure cheap prices?

If you ask me whether I'd pay a toll or be forced to pay taxes, I'd pay a toll.

G.T.,
Still banging on with your contorted view of the world I see. Unfortunately you fail to realise that workers are capitalists also, and seek to sell their labour for the highest possible price, to give them the best possible life for themselves and their families.

This is the reason workers need unions, much the same as employers need their unions sometimes called associations, but as they say a rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is what tories can't/won't see, however some of us live on Earth, some like you prefer to live on Zircon. We need a national poverty audit.

SHONGA, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Workers are no more special than anyone else, so why should they have any special rights above others, such as the right to force their employer to pay a certain wage, or the right to sue them for "unfair dismissal"? Employers can't sue for unfair resignation, so why should employees be able to sue for unfair dismissal? Even worse, people who AREN'T EVEN EMPLOYEES can sue because THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN FOR THE JOB! http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1478569.htm

Who owns these businesses? Certainly not the employees. Employees are lucky that someone went to the trouble of creating oppourtunity for employment to begin with. An employer didn't have to create that oppourtunity in Australia, they could have gone to another country. How dare people bite the hand that feeds them. If they want to have a say in how a business is run, they should make their own business.

A business owner should have every right to run their business however they want. After all, it is their business. If not providing employment for certain people is considered "harming" someone, then everyone who doesn't employ ANYONE (which is the majority of Australia) would causing "harm".

Employees demanding a minimum wage and forming unions is akin to a merchant demanding people buy his goods for a minimum price and setting up a cartel. After all, both are just selling their products, as you say. Only in reality, the merchants are slammed as exploitative. How is that fair?

By the way, I am not a "right winger", I am a libertarian. I believe in a free market and I don't believe any government has a right to forcefully alter the way people produce and trade. Believing such intervention works, and worse, believing oneself to have the ideal scheme of altering peoples' actions to make society better, is a dangerous way of thinking, similar to dictators who have a vision of a "perfect" society.

G.T.
I am embassesed for you, who owns the business indeed, who makes the money for the business? The worker of course. Give this subject a miss, and go on to something you "know" something about. A reread of Bushbred's last post may help you realise that your attitude is so unAustralian, that you are probably from German heritage.

Productive workers do create wealth, and they get paid for doing so. The employer gets paid his share for putting it all together in to a final product. So why is intervention needed, again?

Besides, none of this changes the fact that a business owner owns their business, and nobody else has a right to dictate how that may be run.

Great article, Tristan

Thanks, daggett - I appreciate that. It's nice to think that one's work means something to some people.

G.T.: Firstly, whilst I think I might know why you're still trying to debate this twit, I think you're hitting your head on a brick wall. More than anything, he seems to be trying to wind you up.

Anyhow, as to your response to my question...

Isn't this example a little different to most scenarios though? The problem with a road is that your driveway only connects to that one road, so there's no possible alternative (tunnels, overpasses, etc. could be I guess, but it would seem like they'd be quite difficult and expensive and I wonder if anyone would really go into such a venture). As such, the owner of that road sort of has you over a barrel. Of course, you could always sell your house and move, but who would want to buy into such a situation, so how would you sell without taking a massive loss?

In new suburbs or cities, it would be much easier to do, and people could perhaps set up collectives. However, I'm still a little dubious about whether these would really be entirely voluntary, or rather, if entirely vountary systems could or would function adequately (especially if a few people in key locations proved uncooperative).

Also, I think another objection might be that human nature being what it is (especially in this country!), a lot of people would probably get sick of a free market system and would actually want "government". That would be all well and good if they left everyone else alone, but unfortunately, just like religious zealots, it's never a case of leaving people alone.

I'm sympathetic to the libertarian cause, but I think there are still problems with aspects of it. I don't have any solutions or alternatives though, only more questions.