The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Towards a more egalitarian Australia > Comments

Towards a more egalitarian Australia : Comments

By Frank Stilwell, published 4/7/2007

Should the gulf between rich and poor in Australia be a matter of public concern?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
BN
I congratulate you on the way you have twisted my words.
Where have I denied poeple property rights? I believe in property rights but not in absolute property rights.There is a difference.
Where have I denied people who excel the right to prosper? Reread my original statement, I have limited wages to a factor of 20 over the minimum wage.
Let's spell this out.The min wage is, approximately, $700pw. So the max wage would be $14 000pw. Is anyone on $14Kpw not allowed to prosper? Anyone on $14Kpw who leaves that job for more money would do so out of greed and not need. Name me any greedy person who has been a benefit to society.
Posted by fdixit, Saturday, 7 July 2007 10:48:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sowat “Well, you and Col can opt for either a civil or very UN-civil society: what will it be?”

I will opt for the society which leaves the individual to decide to be civil or un-civil and to reap either the benefits or the consequences of their abundance or lack of civility. That is an infinitely superior solution to some form of soulless socialism where we are forced into a submission to the common mindset (eg clockwork orange).

Thanks BN

Fdixit, “Just ask Louis XV1 or Czar Nicholas 2.”

I would suggest the good citizens who observed the demise of both those individuals would say that Robespierre’s and Stalin's “terrors” were both leaps backwards in terms of the tangible and practical merits of social welfare reform.

As for “Name me any greedy person who has been a benefit to society.”

I see greedy people (the small minded) all the time, I also see the morally bankrupt (alot bureaucrats and civil servants), the intellectually barren (a lot of tenured academics in that bucket) they all, in some way, rely on the largesse of a society which does not push them to excel.

I also see people who are driven by a desire to be their best. They believe they know best for themselves and are prepared to risk their future in that singular belief.

However, that the “individually and creatively successful” might generate greater personal wealth is a consequence of their action, not its motive.

Removing the common opportunity to excel will merely stunt society. I read the synopsis of “Atlas Shrugged”, Ayn Rands book would be right on the money.

Removing creative individuals from society leaves a "population of the tasteless", condemned to equality through mediocrity.

Which really does describe the best possible outcomes of "egalitarian socialism", suggested by Frank Stillwell and supported by some of the obviously "less gifted" posters here in just 3 words (equality through mediocrity).
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 7 July 2007 6:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge
I agree with your observation that Robespierre and Stalin were worse than their predecessors, but that only confirms my original point that an unjust society leads to tragedy.
Had Louis XVI and Nicholas addressed the problems plaguing their societies Robes and Stalin would never have been heard of.
Posted by fdixit, Sunday, 8 July 2007 10:36:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fdixit,

The comments about property rights and prosperity were particularly relevent given your statement that you found Atlas Shrugged offensive. The book, particularly in later parts, deals in the conseqences of removing those things - very unpleasant.

But particular to your statements on income, why should someone who has educated themselves, or has skills that are in great demand, or who is willing to bear the responsibilty of making million or billion dollar decisions be limited in their income? Why should someone who generates income for their staff and shareholders have their income limited? Because there are some who are jealous? That's not a good reason to me.

Col Rouge said it perfectly:

"Removing the common opportunity to excel will merely stunt society. "

One of the many messages from Atlas Shrugged
Posted by BN, Monday, 9 July 2007 9:29:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is not the size of the gap between the richest and the poorest, but the opportunities that the poorest have. If the people on the bottom rung have enough, what does it matter how much the people on the top rung have?

What does it mean to have enough? Enough to eat, a decent place to live, access to affordable, good quality health and education services. After that, everyone must make their own way in life. Inequality of outcomes is not the problem: absence of opportunities is.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 12:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If inequity is not a problem then model states are places like Brazil, Mexico or South Africa. Personally, I'd rather live in a more equitable place like Australia. Infact, many people in Mexico are fleeing their country because they cannot get even basic jobs and are trying their luck in the US. A large number of Filipinos are chancing it in the Middle East because they are desperate for work. And women in Eastern Europe end up in brothels in the Netherlands thanks to poverty at home. Inequity as well tyrannical governments causes a refugee problem.

Australia is obviously not at the stage of Mexico. But if we reach the stage where having a job is not a way out of poverty or even homelessness (as is the case for many in the US), then we will see undesirable social outcomes.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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