Yendis ” Please read my lines again. I said nothing about government owning land.”

You said “The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society.”

So, apart from a duly elected government, which other organization is qualified to collect the rent for “the benefit of society”?

Some religious organization? but not every one holds fealty to any one religion – and I am assuming not some corporate or private entity in which all of society holds shares – shares which they can buy more of or sell as it suits them.

The capitalist system works, as Yabby said, the most significant segment of shareholders are and have been for many years, superannuation funds, insurance companies and mutual funds, which are run, ultimately for the fund depositors, the insured or mutual beneficiaries.

As for your link – looks like Doctor Zeuss on junior economics.

Wizofaus “But unfortunately this isn't the case: we cheat, we steal, we lie, we constantly look after our immediate short-term interests”
Speak for yourself, projecting your own values on to the rest of us is an early sign of self-righteousness.

And libertarianism does not presume no rules, it presumes government is maintained at a minimum, rather than expanding government and allowing some mindless bureaucrat to curtail the vital and productive energy of individuals in the name of “the common good” (translated equal shares of poverty).

“I particularly like the idea of allowing a bunch of libertarians to go off and start their own country with little or no government control, and see how well it really does!”

And I particularly recall all those examples where socialism has runamok, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, an endless list of misery. I wonder why it is that socialists should gravitate to such extremes, maybe Lenin was right when he said

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

He was right when he cynically said “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

That describes labor to a tee, a lie for the proletariat, for the usurpers to use for implementing socialism’s policies of repression.

Who's Doctor Zeuss?

the discussion about the meaning of a 'just society'. In my haste, I spotted about two which I still maintain were pedantic contributions, but, on looking closer, I can see the nearly all the rest which discuss the definition of a 'just society' were useful contributions and were not pedantic. So, my apologies.

---

Rhian,

Your claims about the 'achievements' of thirty years neo-liberal 'reform'' have been hotly disputed on another thread at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326 related to my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326

It's interesting to note that when the heat seems to be off, you
neglect to show your concern for people who have been clearly hurt by the policies of neo-libralism in general and Howard in particular. I guess that if you did the record of 'achievements would not appear nearly so unblemished.

James Sinnamon (author)

Dear Col Rouge,
Your protestations show clearly why your ideology will not win the next election. Whilst I find socialism to be abhorrent I am reminded, by your posts why I shall vote Labor and not Liberal at the coming election. You must really hate your fellow man.
You don't answer questions or make salient points. You attempt the put down to all suggestions,ideas or philosophies.

"The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society." It's a pity this is too complex for your mind. But then you no doubt would have metres to measure the air we breath to satisfy your capitalistic everything can be owned! Then your Bentley could carry a sticker "Freedom the only end." Far better than insulting people.

Col Rouge, can you honestly say you know a single adult that has never lied, cheated, stolen, or put short-term personal gain at the expense of the long-term good of all?

The extreme ideology of socialism is just as dangerous as that of libertarianism. In both cases they have immediate superficial appeal, but in practice, neither work, because they fail to take into account the realities of human nature.

My position is that as long as the people have a choice between a government that offers more liberalization and smaller government, and one that offers more protection of the underprivileged and regulation of corporate excess, then we collectively get to choose what sort we want. Personally I will vote ALP because I am sick of Howard's divisive and populist policies, and because I believe he has pushed his neo-liberal ideal too far: 5 years ago, Australia already had a liberal market economy, with plenty of workplace flexibility, and undoubtably that has contributed towards our current GDP and unemployment - but I see little indication that his government is prepared to invest properly in the future, especially in regard to reducing our fossil-fuel dependency. It also concerns me that the wealth of the last decade has not well shared: regardless of whether you think it is "just", allowing wealth disparities to grow excessively is a recipe for social unrest and ultimately revolt.

The government's job is not to magically fix all our woes, and guarantee happiness for all. However, it is their job to provide a framework within which free market enterprise functions well and generates prosperity for as many as possible (both present and future generations), a job I believe Howard hasn't done well.

Further, from a libertarian point of view, given my representative is Kevin Andrews, who doesn't believe in the right to euthanasia, the right of women to control their bodies, the right of same-sex couples to basic entitlements all other couples get, the right of immigrants to citizenship unless they fit his personal idea of what "Australian values" should be, why would I vote Liberal?

When thinking of good left style governments Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark come to mind. High taxes on income, higher taxes on petrol, extensive provision of public housing and transport. Places like Switzerland also have fairly advanced democracies where referendums are held on public issues. And the other thing to note is economically these countries are stronger than Australia.

From what I've read their governments are often formed of coalitions of different parties rather than just being dominated by two parties on the right as we have in Australia. Labor or Liberal (in their current formations) are certainly not interested in this style.

The Greens at this stage provide the most coherent progressive policies on a local, state and federal level. James is right that they have not been strong on population control, but their sustainable approach to growth means they're not actively promoting it like Labor and Liberal are.