Tristan “My ideas have never been tested in this country - which has never had anything more than a threadbare welfare state.”

That admission on the heels of

Tristan ““Mind you - this is an ideal scenario - I see no prospect of implementing it - nor would I take this scenario to an election.””

Yes, well Tristan, if you want to test anything, I suggest you consider this, me and millions of other Australians have not given our permission for you to experiment with our national economy whilst treating us with the reverence a scientist holds for a lab rat. You being someone, who admits you do not have sufficient faith in your ideas or ideals as to wish to test them at an election, presumably, your omnipotent insight is sufficient for you to simply appoint yourself Reich Chancellor and the rest of us can suffer in submission.

I would suggest rhetoric like “threadbare welfare state” is sour grapes and not as “threadbare” as your commitment to ideals or authority to speak for anyone who is more distant from you than your own nose.

You have published an article which you have admitted you cannot would not stand behind the issues you espouse. That is, in a single word a “degenerate” perspective.

Most of us believe in what we write, I certainly do but you, in comparison, display your “faith” like your politics as having the “substance” of fairy floss.

Yabby, spot on.

Ultimately “co-dependence” (which Tristan is espousing) is a recognised disorder.

We all paddle our own canoe and in so doing society reaches further than if we are held back in the same boat by those who cannot handle a paddle.

Whilst there are some who are worthy of our compassion and support, there are alot more who prefer to have a free ride at the expense of the rest of us.

"You being someone, who admits you do not have sufficient faith in your ideas or ideals as to wish to test them at an election, presumably, your omnipotent insight is sufficient for you to simply appoint yourself Reich Chancellor and the rest of us can suffer in submission."

I have much faith in my ideas - but I am aware that the existing social forces are not sufficient to mount a successful front on challenge to the neo-liberal paradigm. Neo-liberalism dominates Treasury and the media. There is hysteria about public debt and the prospect of public borrowing. This limits the prospects for resocialisation. Apart from this, we face the fact that the ALP itself is a party dominated by the neo-liberal Right. It will take a long battle to reclaim the ALP, as well as to mobilise sufficient social forces outside the ALP, before social democracy holds any hope of revival.

Part of that process, however, is people having the guts to put their ideas 'out there' in the first place. Admittedly it's a bit like throwing bottles into the ocean - but there are other signs of resistance. Online publications like New Matilda and others offer forums for dissent, while On Line Opinion is welcomed for its pluralism. There are also a swathe of progressive journals that provide a forum for dissent.

But until social democracy again breaks into the mainstream, these alone are not sufficient. The task at hand is that of mobilising within the ALP and the labour movement, while also drawing community and welfare groups into the struggle. (what Antonio Gramsci would have called building a 'counter-hegemonic historic bloc) I think, here, that the Now We the People movement has a lot of potential - and ought be a lot more active and highly profiled than it is.

As for your suggestion that I am a Nazi - well, I find your attitude repulsive. I am a democratic socialist and an internationalist. I believe in international socialism, not fascism. If we had a sufficiently internationalist social-democratic movements, the diffuculties-posed-by-so-called-'globalisation'-and-the-increasing dominance-of-the-finance-capital-sector,-could-be-tackled-through international-capital-and-solidarity.

"Whilst there are some who are worthy of our compassion and support, there are alot more who prefer to have a free ride at the expense of the rest of us."

And who are these people? With 'work for the dole' and 'mutual obligation' there is little prospect of so-called 'dole bludging' - which really was never more than a reactionary myth in the first place. Australia is one of the most highly stratified countries in the world. But wealth should not be the determinant of access to life-saving health care. Nor should equal opportunity through education be denied through the imposition of exorbitant fees, or the neglect of public schooling. As I said earlier in this thread, the market does not magically create socially just outcomes. It is based on demand and supply - and has little to do with justice - and nothing to do with compassion. I doubt you'd know what compassion is.

Tristan,

Not surprisingly, you don't address the point but resort to personal attacks and meaningless generalisations. In fact you didn't even make a single rebuttal to the points made.

Free market advocates don't desire a selfish society. An absence of forceful charity does not mean an absence of charity. I'm not trying to convince you that some people should suffer - quite the opposite; in fact I'm trying to explain to you why everyone would be better off in a free market, and why socialism doesn't work.

Despite playing the only card you supposedly have - compassion - you still haven't explained how it is more ethical to force one person to give up their earned wealth to others than to not. Is one person's problem everyone's problem? Is a person entitled to the favours of society just for being born?

When you take wealth from "the rich" to redistribute it, you're taking them for granted, and when you take something for granted and continue to abuse it, it becomes no more.

Know that there wouldn't BE a "rich" to take from for long if you had your way.

That free market advocates enjoy seeing people suffer is a complete and utter lie that you should be ashamed to propagate.

This isn't a matter of whether or not we want to acheive a just society where everyone is well off, it is a matter of how. I'm just explaining to you why socialism cannot possibly acheive that.

Your¨bleating¨about¨"compassion" is¨an¨irrelevant¨glittering¨generality¨-¨a¨utopic fantasy¨contradictory¨to¨even the¨best¨outcome¨of¨socialism.¨Indeed,¨such a¨fantasy¨may¨be¨more¨humane than¨a¨free¨market,¨but whether¨it¨is actually¨anything¨more than¨that¨(a¨fantasy)¨is¨another story¨all¨together, one¨which¨you¨have¨failed¨to¨convince us¨of,¨and¨one which¨there¨is¨no¨reason¨to¨believe judging¨from¨the¨nature¨of humans and our experiences in¨history¨itself.¨You're proposing¨to change¨human nature.¨Don't¨worry though,¨you're not¨alone; nine¨out of¨ten¨dictators agree¨with¨you.

If¨you¨wish¨to further¨your¨cause,¨it¨would¨be¨in your¨interest¨to¨address¨the¨points made¨about¨the¨flaws¨in¨your¨ideas¨and explain¨how¨your system¨would¨actually acheive¨its¨intended¨goals.¨You¨made¨no attempt¨to¨address the issue¨of the¨tragedy¨of¨the commons¨that I raised.¨You¨can whine¨all¨you¨like¨about the¨"injustices",¨but¨until¨you¨explain how¨and¨why your¨ideas¨would¨actually¨work¨you¨have¨zero¨crediblitiy.

Then¨again,¨perhaps¨you're¨just¨in¨denial.

Tristan” There is hysteria about public debt and the prospect of public borrowing.”

That is because governments squandering resources on pointless or negative returning indulgences has been proved to diminish the wealth of the nation.

“As for your suggestion that I am a Nazi”

I did not suggest you were anything of the sort, I merely used a term which personified your attitude and desire for power without consideration for the will of the electorate.

Government is “by the people, for the people”.

It is not “of the people, for a minority of socialist intelligentsia” to experiment with.

To be honest, I cannot fathom how anyone can pretend to pen an article and then admit they have no faith in pursuing their ideals as outlined in same article, it sounds like the over-indulged whining of a spoiled brat and someone who has never known real hardship (eg chardonnay swilling socialist) who should be kept well away from the offices of real power and authority.

Well said GT
- "compassion", by definition is a "human attribute" which can only be dispensed by individuals on a one to one basis.

It is not possible for the "state" or any "state" to dispense it.

"Compassion" is one of the great lies of socialism and is held hostage by the power-hungry usurpers to simultaneously invoke emotion whilst masking cynicism.

Col ,you are wasting your time.Tristan will only learn the reality through life's experiences[provided he gets a real job in private enterprise] and only then will he understand.

I was a bleeding heart lefty when I left school and experience soon taught me otherwise.Basically people must learn to help themselves and we should only be giving a hand up when necessary,rather than hand outs at the whim of socialists do gooders.