The author does a magnificent job of stereotyping and demonising men who are on a board of directors.

I wonder why she likes feminists?

So once again we are being exposed to the whinning of another highly educated white women about the lack of other white women at board level, well pardon me if I don't care. At least they have had the right to an education and full citezanship and other opportunities since 1901, which is far more than what Indigenous people including our women have had.

Carmen Lawrence and Pauline Hanson both white women made it to the top of the white male dominated world of politics, and they were great ambassadors for their gender. Lawrence destroyed Aboriginal Land rights whilst Premier of WA and Hanson did her best to close services for Aboriginal people, despite having lived of them whilst her ex husband worked as plummer mainly for Aboriginal housing.

And what about Meg Lees and GST on books, she will be forever associated with giving us that monster that is now costing the Australian community far to much money for books to educate our children. Also it was white farmers wives and those of civil servants who stood by whilst our Indigenous female slave labour were being molested by their husbands and then did nothing as the resulting children were taken away.

Until suitably qualified Aboriginal women are elevated to the same level in white society as others of their gender, your argument and that of other white women will remain forever nothing more than race based propaganda and irrelevant

hey, what? yindin, did you actually read the article? why on earth would you want to have 'suitably' 'qualified' women anywhere? that's the whole point of the article - that 'suitably' 'qualified' are not the ones who are wanted to make a real difference, and who will make a real difference.

who says they are 'suitable'? who says they are 'qualified'. this is (excuse me) what the article is about!

we want lots and lots of *un*suitable and *differently* qualified women to make a real difference.

hello!

also, you do indigenous australian women a disservice by ignoring all the great contributors to a *good* and worthwhile australia who are indigenous australian women - there are heaps of them out here, i can assure you, and their contribution truly counts in an australia (and world) which needs this contribution - always and forever.

Might have left out the salad anecdote as she can eat what she wants but the rest of the article is strong.

The names Cheryl Kernot, Joan Kirner and RMIT's former VC Ruth Dunkin were all strong women - and I should add Professor Belinda Probert, former Dean of Arts at Melbourne University. I could go through the private sector and the media and name names but there's not enough time.

The rapaciousness of modern organisations effectively chews people up - and especially women who show intelligence and the ability to arbitrate. Why? Fear, not only on the part of men but also some women, who turn their intelligence in to guile and lop the tall poppies.

Jocelynne,

Perhaps you and I travel in remarkably different circles, however the women that are in senior executive positions that I deal with could not be further than the way you describe them.

Many do bring a feminising impact to their areas of responsibility, which is a welcome change. Many do rock the boat from the ways that things used to be done.

Your recollection with how things were in the 80s, while it may be an accurate reflection of how it was then, bears little comparison with the ways of today. Gail Kelly (CEO St George Bank) is a prime example of this - she jumped ship from CBA to leapfrog over the other execs at CBA (and St George), and there was quite a stir as a result.

This article comes across as the whinging of a bitter woman. There is little constructive commentary here, and even less to increase the numbers of women at the board level.

"She remains with the crew who believe that women who “make it” carry with them an obligation to support and promote other women,"

I was wondering what the response would be had a man said that same thing.

I can just imagine the response to a man serving on a board of directors for a large corporation that wanted to hijack the boards direction and supplant non board issues. "Hey Jack, do you think they'll be asking you back after putting forth special for men only banking programmes?" "Um, no Bob. They made it perfectly clear sexual politics has no place in the corporate reality."

I'm always amazed how sexism is excused and made appropriate when instigated by women.

I don't spend much time with the corporate crowd so maybe the comment that really stuck out is reality but to me it looked like an amazing example of sexist stereotyping

"Setting oneself apart from other women, showing a monumental disdain for collegiality in so distinctively not “dining together”, and adopting the arrogance of executive dependency upon the lowly assistant who must tend to every need - including serving a personalised lunch - no doubt resonates with the male corporate crowd."

After a comment like that I think that I have a fairly good understanding of the authors committment to equality.

She appears to see feminism in terms of advancing women rather than seeking a society where individuals can prosper according to their individual talents and drive.

I hope she is right that not many of her type of feminist are getting board positions.

Now people who actually want equality, who will work for paternity leave and flexible hours for fathers with some of the same vigor as they work for issues impacting woman specifically, thats a different story.

R0bert

Jocelynne, I did read the article did you read mine, my issue is not about gender, its about the white gender politcs involved in the issue. As for the suitably qualified bit that was a direct reference to excused that white people including white women employers, give to Aboriginal people as an excuse to not give them a job.

And as for last comment about Indigenous women, having a family and personel history of Aboriginal affairs and civil rights dating back to the early sixties. I know that many of the sister-girls including those few at the top who I worked alongside all those years ago.

Would without reservation agree with me that being excluded from opportunities on the basis of gender, can hardly be compared to that of being excluded on the basis of race.

Let's face it - the corporation is a legal person with a "Y" chromosome! It was invented by men for the purpose of creating wealth for themselves by exploiting others. It continues to do this today with adverse social consequences. I suspect that many otherwise "aspirational" women are turned off by the corporate ethos and choose to obtain their life satisfaction by investing their energies elsewhere.

Those women who survive in the corporate stratosphere require heavy insulation and camouflage.

Biddy

Thank you, Dr Scutt, for bringing this pressing issue to our attention.
I wonder where the idea came from that as feminists we must not hold a successful woman accountable?
The feminist position surely is that we have to expect much from successful women because so many women have suffered in the struggle to achieve these successes. And because so many women continue to struggle so other women can succeed.
It is women's work that got these succesful women there in the first place, hence they have a responsibility to women - women of the past for the trust those women passed on to us all; women of the present, whose lives are still affected by anti woman and patriarchal culture; and women of the future who have a right to be born into a world that is less anti woman because women have bothered to endeavour to do something about it.

Hey aqvarivs and RObert
You've hilighted the whole problem - men don't do "the same thing" ie they don't see the obvious inequality in representation and try to take action to fix it.
I'm amazed you still don't "get it" Women make 50% (approx) of the population! Equality means 50% representation everywhere.
We could use the same approach for every other "group" we may belong to as well.

I'm sorry Procne, but it's you who dosn't get it.

Equal opportunity means that all people can be assessed , in this case for an employment position, without their race, gender or other traits being considered. In simple terms: The best person for the job gets it.

50% of the population does not mean that there should be 50% representation. That's called positive discrimination and has been a failure in all places where it's been tried.

Procne, I'm of the view that while either men or women are fighting for their side and willing to dismiss issues impacting on the other gender inequality will continue. While some are willing to make the kind of generalised sexist slander against the other gender which I highlighted earlier inequality will continue. Sometimes the very things we dismiss are the things which contribute to our own concerns.

One of the reasons that women may be under represented at higher levels of the board room is interrupted careers. Not the whole story but I suspect a significant one.

The example I gave is important to some men but it also has a flow on impact for women. If gender is not the deciding factor in who's career is interupted then women with the drive to head organisations are more likely to be able minimise the impacts on their career of having children. Not much we can do about who carries the baby but after that we should be working to ensure couples can make the choices which work best for them.

With both men and women having flexible working conditions and similar access to leave to be parents couples may have better options available to them rather than being forced into the woman bearing the brunt of child raising responsibility because workplaces don't support fathers playing a more active role. A win win.

R0bert

With the risk of my head being cut off we could introduce affirmative action with Private Enterprise forcing the employment of females at the top level on the basis of sex rather than performance. We see it often enough in Government.

Perhaps the boys should drop out of this discussion - it's not about them, it's about the women who prefer to cast off their constituency once they appear to have triumphed in the cock-pit that is corporate life! Women who act in this way warrant the criticism that jocelynne made.

Biddy,
If men should “drop out”, then how can there be “gender equality”.

I think one of the 1970’s feminists summed up the real agenda when she described men as being “surplus to requirements”. Ironical how she then employed 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property.

It could also be the case with so many feminist groups that have very few or no men in them, and the Office of Women is a good example

But I have noticed so many feminists calling for the Office of Men, and Jocelynne Scutt is of course one of them, being so concerned about human rights and all that.

Dr. Scutt's criticism of how male-dominated corporations still operate is quite correct. In order for women to even be recognised as having achieved high status within such corporations they must always adhere to the male-dominated corporate image.

Dr. Scutt was not 'wingeing' but simply showing how corporate business still operates. In order to understand how it operates, simply change the gender from male to female and immediately one can see how power operates.

As Dr. Scutt says, the proof is of the women who do make it to the top are those who are seen as not 'rocking the boat' not bringing up women's issues or pushing that taboo phrase a 'feminist stance.' After all what has feminism to do with corporate business. Well everything actually. Irrespective women comprise more than half the global population, this little statistic is irrelevant when it comes to male-dominated and male corporate power.

The annecdotate concerning 'lower grade' women were not given the same lunch as the high-flying woman says it all. Translate this into white individuals being given a buffet of their choice with non-white individuals having to settle for sandwiches and immediately one sees there is discrimination. So it is with women who seek to enter male-dominated corporate businesses. The ethos remains the same - toe the male-dominated line or your career will fold.

One only has to change the gender of those in high power from male to female to see how it operates.

Somebody else raised the name of Gail Kelly and thats the first
person I thought of, when I read the article. Migrant, ex bank teller,
now future CEO of Westpac! Gail has clearly got what
it takes! The price of Westpac shares actually rose with the
announcement of her appointment. So much for people not trusting
women, IF they actually have ability.

Climbing the corporate ladder can be a messy business. It seems
to me that the author forgets all the men who try and fail at
the task.

People can rationalise away all sorts of things. How many women
who simply don't have what it takes, find it easier to simply
blame gender descrimination, rather then their own abilities?

One must assume that women are equally motivated to become 'of the corporation'. There has not as yet been any proof that women have the same motivations as men in relative numbers to become corporate leaders. The article hints at feminist wanting access to 'change the corporation' so women dominate by 'right'.
Men and women who have worked hard to achieve their goals don't want their positions minimised and devalued by the feminist ideology of employment by 'right', when they got their positions through knowledge, experience and years of dedication. The last thing you want at the top of any organisation is an appointed victim for representation. Corporate logos are eagles and hawks on shields not the hammer and sickle. We already know what happened to that one. It got flushed through it's own incompetence.

Biddy: "Perhaps the boys should drop out of this discussion - it's not about them, it's about the women who prefer to cast off their constituency once they appear to have triumphed in the cock-pit that is corporate life! Women who act in this way warrant the criticism that jocelynne made."

Perhaps the girls should drop out of this discussion - it's not about them it's about the men who are trying to get a job done whilst waiting for the inevitable knife in the back from some woman's proxy.

Isn't it funny that women want to exclude men from any discussion of gender and the politics of gender relationships? It's just as well they're women and can't be called sexist, eh?

Antiseptic - please don't confuse a comment by one woman with that of the rest of us. Women, like men are individuals first and the similarities between the genders by far outweighs the differences. The last thing we need is for men to opt out of any discussion on gender equality. Many of the issues that affect women's careers also impact on many men - at least those who want to spend some time with their families or have some semblance of a life outside work. Not to the same degree though.

Rather than women harping on about how those few women who have made it to the top are towing the "male" line we should be commending them on their obvious talents and holding them up as role models. As time goes on more and more women will be accepted onto Corporate Boards based on the examples provided by those who are paving the way today. The same will apply to minority groups. Compared to the situation 40 years ago huge progress has been made. Eventually there will be sufficient numbers of women in a position to make changes in the power structure but at present we just aren't there yet. Would like to see the demise of breakfast meetings though!

It’s a long time since I’ve come across an OLO gender commentary section with so many great posts by women. Well done.

It would be nice to think that women who successfully climb the corporate ladder will turn around and give a hand up to others. However, this is unlikely happen. It’s lonely at the top, but for women it can be twice as lonely because they don’t have a female corporate culture or history to draw support from. This makes them less – rather than more – likely to blaze a trail for other women.

Also, social change of any kind is rarely initiated from the top down. Social struggles are almost always fought from the bottom up. From my own experience of corporate life, the women who made it to the stratospheric echelons tended to be more politically conservative, which tends to favour maintaining hierarchical status quos, not changing them

R0bert

‘[The author] appears to see feminism in terms of advancing women rather than seeking a society where individuals can prosper according to their individual talents and drive.’

I believe you’re putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Feminism IS about advancing women. While it’s nice to work towards the sort of society you describe, history has shown that women can’t afford to sit around waiting for that to happen. Besides … for every man today who can hug his son without shame or is not afraid to take an afternoon off work to go to a school function, the ghosts of women activists past have helped to change social gender attitudes to make those male privileges possible.

Biddy

‘Perhaps the boys should drop out of this discussion - it's not about them.’

This is an inappropriate, sexist and impractical suggestion – and I couldn’t agree with you more!!

Many men – even the progressive ones – do have a maddening habit of seeing women’s social struggles as being all about men, which often means women’s energies are taken up having to put out male-ego fires instead of addressing the issues at hand.

MLK
"This is an inappropriate, sexist and impractical suggestion – and I couldn’t agree with you more!!"

I'm wondering if this is a sign of honesty in feminism?

The article is thinly veiled socialism, marxist utopia.

When someone comes into my house they can 'raise the issue' of how l should rearrange my furnishings and way of life to suit THEIR agenda. But alas, l dont have to. They have to make me. Otherwise they can just settle for the supreme impotence of eternal complaint.

Amazing really, how these types will march into someone else's domain and try to take over. Its easier to hijack something than go out and make it for yourself.

There was an article in the paper some weeks ago about so-called 'mens sheds' and a read wrote a letter complaining how they dont accomodate 'shedettes'. How typical. Set up your own shed and give yourself whatever tag of self identity obsession suits you.

If you want a 'family friendly' work place try setting up your own business and LEAD FROM THE FRONT.

No one likes a cry baby back seat driver who nags you where to go instead of getting behind the wheel of their own cars.

A business exists to make money for its owners. Get used to the idea. Its not there to accomodate the personal agenda of self obsessed employees.

If you dont like the wheel... reinvent your own.

The magnificent Mrs Bligh is off to a good start as a high flying feminist.

“Contemporary women stand on the shoulders of those who led the struggle for equality of opportunity for women in social economic, cultural and political life," she said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au:80/articles/2007/09/13/1189276877438.html

However she then excluded all the men in her cabinet to have a women’s only photograph.

I have never heard of a male premier excluding all the women in their cabinet to have a men’s only photograph. It is also rare for a feminist organisation to have any males in it, and only rarely have I ever heard a feminist say anything positive about the male gender.

The possibility that feminists can represent both men and women if they are in government or on a board of directors is as remote as flying to the moon without a rocket.

MLK: "It would be nice to think that women who successfully climb the corporate ladder will turn around and give a hand up to others."

It's quite naive to think that the corporate elite specific exclude someone based on their gender. Board membership is a bit of an in club, and because of the older age, typically a 'boys' club. However as women take on a more 'even' proportion of management roles, they will begin to be elevated to the most senior levels. Unfortunately the roles are typically given based on 'who you know' rather than ability (and doubtfully based on gender). Expecting female corporate leaders to act favourably to other women is nothing short of extreme hypocrisy.

"...but for women it can be twice as lonely because they don’t have a female corporate culture or history to draw support from."

I find the remark that women can only seek support from other women, or that they need some sort of girls club as quite hypocritically sexist: firstly that men can't support women and secondly that women are that needy

"Feminism IS about advancing women"

Feminism was originally about advancing women in a context where they were considered lesser to men. If you make it a "women vs men" issue, a quick look at history will show you who wins.

"...do have a maddening habit of seeing women’s social struggles as being all about men..."

I think it's more that some of us realise that many issues that feminist comment on aren't specifically feminist issues. The selection of board members is an example of this, and something that many people are excluded from for reasons that have nothing to do with ability.

trade215: "A business exists to make money for its owners"

Businesses exist at the pleasure of society. For the most part they are tolerated because a market economy is beneficial to society. But should society decide otherwise it can stop certain businesses from operating.

Girls clubs can influence policy to ensure equality of opportunity: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/09/16/1189881324019.html

"The navy paid $10,000 each for the sailors, aged 25 and 32, to have cosmetic breast enlargements, newspapers have reported.

Plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli, who performed the operations, said the sailors claimed the breast enlargements were necessary for mental health reasons."

Desipis, business exist because someone made or had something and someone else wanted some of it or something like it. The communist thought they could control material wealth too, and ended with the worlds largest functioning black markets and grey markets ever known. People see someone with something they don't have and immediately it's a new desire. They're afraid their doing with out. That others have more.
Some people measure themselves by others achievements and status and demand that the world furnish them likewise. Some people measure their success by what they see next door and race to accumulate. It's the bases part of human nature and will always be trumpeted by a minority.

aqvarivs, slavery existed because someone decided to use their power to force others to do their will. We don't have to sit back and accept it as inevitable. There are many 'business' that today's society attempts to limit or control ranging from complete prohibition (slave trading, drugs) to government run (police, fire), through heavy regulation (health, education) and lightly regulated (food, clothing).

I am in no way advocating a communist economy, however part of the role of a government in a capitalist economy is to regulate situations where a free market will produce poor outcomes (natural monopoly, failure of market signals, tragedy of the commons, etc). If the government/society decided appointment of board members requires regulation (on gender or otherwise), then there is nothing inherently wrong or anti-capitalist/anti-business about it.

I was simply disagreeing with trade215's comments that implied because a business's primary purpose is profit for its owners they should be able to do whatever they want, ignoring other stakeholders (employees, customers, etc) and ignoring the damage done to the wider community through unethical actions.

Desipis,

"If the government/society decided appointment of board members requires regulation (on gender or otherwise), then there is nothing inherently wrong or anti-capitalist/anti-business about it."

There is certainly something wrong with forcing boards to do something like this. In theory, boards should be comprised of the best people for the job, based on experience, education, management style complimenting the business etc. While I'm not suggesting that that's what happens now, that's the way it should be working.

Positive discriminiation, no matter how well intentioned, is just making up numbers and is not ensuring that the best person is in the job. That is the quintessential failure of a policy like the one mentioned above.

des,

there is no such thing as 'society.'

There is only you and me and everyone with an opinion in between.

What l do, what you do, is at no one's leisure.

Permission not required.

But thanxs for asking.

BN,

I meant to make it clearer that I am against 'positive' discrimination or 'affirmative action'; it should be the best person for the job regardless of the resulting gender/race/other imbalance. I was opposing trade215 view that businesses should be totally disjunct from the ethical standards of the community in which they exist.

trade215,

Society exists in the same way businesses exist, as an abstract notion defined by the behavioral patterns of the people involved. It is the collection of people's opinions and behaviors that make up society.

"What l do, what you do, is at no one's leisure."

The notion that you are free to do as you will regardless of the impact on others is quite unethical and, in light of others' ability to react and have impact on you, quite short sighted.

des,

you insist on misrepresenting my position, extrapolating non-existent premises of your own making. Though tedious, l will engratiate your ethical and long sighted intellectual dishonesties.

Its quite OK to make your own point and own it, without attributing self serving extrapolations to those postions you seek to rebut.

You are quite adept at using the strawman, hence argueing with yourself. Ah well this is an internet forum.

A simple premises such as 'you cannot force me to do your bidding' gets spun into all sorts of absurd notions such as "The notion that you are free to do as you will regardless of the impact on others is quite unethical and, in light of others' ability to react and have impact on you, quite short sighted." That supports my position, namely that its all self interest and force (subtle and overt). A notion which reflects your own thinking, sugar-coated, projected.

1. everyone is free to do as they please (self interest), including
2. not doing to others as they would not have them do unto thyself (self interest)
3. one need not force others when you can hide behind 'society', and
4. get government to do your dirty work (forcing boards to reflect your ideological agenda)
5. 'ethics' are self serving behavioural constructs. Ethical to whom they serve and unethical to whom they do not.
6. all the while denying the harsh aspects of human nature and reality, whilst
7. pretending to be ethical, long sighted, 'altruistic', holier-than-thou pretentions of 'moral highgrounds' that the 'socially minded' are so fond of invoking.

Having once been a rabidly devout true believing lefty myself, l prefer to eschew the hypocracy of socialism, leaning instead slightly toward the more obvious hypocrazy of psuedo capitalism.

Its a welfare statist world we live in. Average guy works 50-75% of his life to pay various taxes (sugar coated servitude), which gets doled out for good things like health and education and not so good things like career bludging, business subsidies, arts grants and to ideolgically self serving groups.

l refuse to pretend.

I am with you trade 251, I too was a lefty civil rights advocate of the sixties, that is untill I saw the light when I left the Army. I now work for the Federal Government and have been unfortunatly exposed to its gender politics in the workforce.

Like most of the men in my age and department,we have watched women from middle/upper class white society being promoted purley on the basis of their gender and not for talent and watched the job fail because of it.

We even have the stupid situation of a thing that was once a man changing into a women, being promoted as a female, into a senior role, because its now percieved as a women.

Doctor King in his famous speech wanted to be treated by the content of his character and not the colour of his skin ( I might add his gender) so this policy makes no sense to me, when taqlented men are being passed for less talented women.

I don't expect to be promoted because I am Indigenous or a commissioned combat veteran or because I am male or any other reason except merit. So why should private schooled rich white women be promoted above me purley because they are women or have had a gender change, it makes no sense and is pure socialist rubbish.

We have women in our workforce spending more time breeding and training than we have actually doing any work, which is undetaken by men or worst by other single/married women without children.

SO I don't know how a private sector employer is going to survive if ACTU wins the next election because this gender rubbish is on there agenda.

trade,

the comment I quoted indicated your view is one cannot influence another, and by extension it is pointless to consider how one's actions will influence (therefore impact) others. How is my extrapolation erroneous?

While people will act in their (perceived) self interest, it's possible to change their situation and effect what actions are in their self interest. One key role of government should be to ensure individuals' self interest align with the common interest. You call this "get[ting] the government to do [my] dirty work]", however isn't the role of a democratically elected government to enact policies supported by (in the self interest of) the majority of voters?

Your points 5 & 7 indicate that you believe it's not possible to have an 'intellectual' debate with neutral opinions about the best way run society, or that it is not in the self interest of those involved to do so. This would seem to be ignorant of the entire basis of civilized society.

The 50-75% effect tax rate you point out neglects the issue that it is these funds that go to providing the infrastructure and civil systems that underline our economy, and that without would mean earning 90-95% less in gross income. It is in the self-interest of the majority that some form of tax remains in place, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure it is in individual's self interest to pay (e.g. fines, jail time). I'm not claiming that all tax dollars a spent wisely, just that poor spending policies are a result of the failures in our political, not economic system.

I don't consider myself a "rabidly devout true believing lefty myself,". However what "free-market fundamentalists" (anti-socialists) like yourself fail to acknowledge widely accepted economic principles that identify situations in which the free-market will fail in its goals. A 'Free' market is a proven mechanism to encourage efficiency, innovation and a 'fair' price, however there are weaknesses that cause market failure, meaning a 'socialism' approach is better in some circumstances.

"l refuse to pretend."

What exactly are you not pretending (that by implication I am)?

des,

political ideologies and their proscriptive dictates of how people interact has yielded the best of both worlds. Or the worst, if ya come from a scarcity attitude. What we have is what are meant to have, else we would make it different. People get the govt they deserve.

What we have is a compromise, which mostly works. Democrazy is the best of a very bad bunch. l will not pretend that its some supremely laudible and inately superior framework. Its merely the force of numbers... might makes right.

Ideas like the 'common interest' is nothing more than people with the same self interest getting together. So what. Commonality does not raise the level, if you will, of the self interest manifested. If everyone decides to vote for a despot who bludgeons an ethnic group, then the 'common interest' has deemed that appropriate to its interests.

I refuse to pretend that l am not pretending.

Socialism and capitalism are opposite sides of the same delusional coin, that one side is better than the other. Delusional because its a false dichotomy. Pure rubbish, in practical terms, the fodder of pointlessly eternal debate and discussion. Is a bit like the climate change debate. Everyone goes around painting stuff green, but then hop into their cars, drive home to their overbuilt houses and wallow in a standard of living that drives, nay invented, the whole mess in the first place.

There is no such thing as a 'free' market. There is no such thing as a 'common' interest. They're both non-sense.

(cont)

(cont)

des,

frustrating when a simple statement gets twisted into something it isnt, in order to drive rhetoric. Absence of a centralised entity dictating the nature of peoples interests, based on nebulous concept of commonality, mass projected by the force of numbers (democrazy)... doesnt imply one will act with disregard for others. This is a huge leap. One of the things l rejected about the left... its sanctimonious, holier-than-thou platitudes, paradoxically built on a very negative characterisation of the human condition. We dont need a self appointed perveyor of 'common goodness' telling you and l on what terms we can engage.

We can do that ourselves, conscious of simple truths like cause and effect.

The need for taxation is not self evident. The conclusion (social welfare state) is used to justify the initial premise of taxation, ergo it begs the question. Its existence illustrates (illusory semantics of contrary politics aside) that we live in the grip of statist social welfare, driven by the centrally dictated collectivised redistribution of everyone's existence... from bank account, to backyard, to opinion, to consciousness itself.

Unless ya drop out and retire to a Himalayan foothill monastery.

l am not implying anything about you.

ps. my personal political theories are completely untenable, riddled with ironies and contradictions, having little practical application beyond myself. Its easier, not to pretend otherwise. l am a sort of er 'free' market ararchist who dislikes guns, violence, coercion and manipulation, who appreciates public roads/education/health. But l dont like tax. See, much contradiction. l live with it and try to be low profile. This country seems easy enuff to live in, the system seems to work, tho its a bit of a charade politically. l dont bother pretending that lm not pretending on things like marking a piece of paper and dropping it into a box every few years. And l dont let that stop me from voicing an opinion... hmmmm, pretending?

Yeah l know.

peace.