MP Jason O'Brien, our local Member for Cook has done the right thing to reveal (yesterday) that he has written a letter to the Minister detailing security problems in the region in 2005, with no response.

I appreciate the difficult situation and therefore write the following.

The "NO REPONSE" issue is telling in the over all debate concerning issues of Health and Well-being in Cook Shire and throughout Cape York.

While the issue our Member is outlining is about Nurses and Nurse Accommodation and Safety, and the way the Nurse herself is alleged to have been treated by her own Health Department, I stress the issue ought to be seen in its broader context, if the idea is to Problem Solve.

I add that it is often not until something happens to a "professional" themselves that the "voice" to address "what might be wrong" within and between administrative departments becomes recognisable as a point of true focus. I know as a community development officer, this is the truth, in my own case.

For this reason I have put an OPEN LETTER on my web-site for Ms Anna Bligh, Mr Jason O’Brien, Mr Kevin Rudd’s office and associated staff.

As a Community Development Officer, with a background in community and especially in socio-economic issues of civic and primary development through HEALTH, I urge you to consider this letter.

I am available for consultation and have evidence that can personally support my efforts to find a solution to ground based community matters.

I am optimistic and hold-out for the implementation of policies that combine “Social and Economic Inclusion” (especially through the extended civic health frameworks), and pro-action said to be coming down from our Deputy PM’s Office.

I hope to meet with Ms Anna Bligh, Ms Julia Gillard, Mr Jason O’Brien and our newly elected Mayor, Mr Peter Scott on these issues.

I feel until this occurs, it is ring-around rosy, as it is the “ground” not understood.

Maria Altmann MPhil
Cooktown – Cape York.

http://www.miacat
.

Open almost any economics text book and within the first few pages you will read that we live in a world of finite resources but humans have unlimited wants. Consequently, competition is a natural part of existence and attempts to remove it from society are doomed to fail.

Instead of focussing on removing competition (a fruitless exercise) the real question is which type of society is best at distributing scarce resources to satisfy the most individual needs. The answer, of course, is capitalism.

Why? Because in a market economy, competition is a positive-sum game, everyone is a potential winner. But in govt controlled economies, competition is a zero-sum game where govts steal from productive individuals and distribute their ill-gotten gains to the non-productive and inefficient. Govt interference, therefore, creates a society of winners and losers which ultimately leads to a lower standard of living for all.

Let's take just one example: health care.

There is a delicious irony in the suggestion that since six different govts have failed to properly manage health care, the wise thing to do is give a seventh govt a go. Most of the problems with health care in this country can be attributed to govt mismanagement. As the former director-general of the NSW Premier's department recently noted, the NSW health system employs more clerks than nurses, and continues to obstruct desperately needed reform.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23399851-2702,00.html

Next – you’re making the same mistake Harry made.

“that Harry made a factual error - I can't be bothered checking though - it's completely irrelevant to the thrust of his argument”

No, it’s completely relavant. He (& you) are both implying Australia is a sick society. The UN absolutely disagrees with you. It thinks Australia is the 3rd best country in the world for humans to live in.

“When the only indicator of a society's health is its economic activity…then a society has proved itself incapable of being a society.”

Again, the UNs HDI is made up of literally hundreds of indicators, social & economic.

That you “can't be bothered checking though” explains your & Harry’s ignorance.

Societies have tried a few ways to organise themselves over the millenia.

The present cornucopian system seems to have emerged the global winner, just in time to witness it's own downfall due to the utter exhaustion of the very stuff that gives it life.

There's no point in arguing about the different 'isms of old. This wonderful corporate, competitive, chrome-plated, capitalist system has been very good to me. But there comes a time when it has to be seen for the antideluvian, decrepit, dead parrot that it is. The plumage seems to be vibrant, but it is so VERY dead that we need war and economic con-tricks to give it the semblance of life. Look again. It's a stuffed parrot twitched by old, old men, with old, old desires. Why defend, revere or fawn over that?

Now that there are over 6 billion of us, wouldn't you think it might have entered the mind of social man to move on towards something a little more brainy? A little less Jurassic?

Ego is something we imagine into being, just like our precious fiat currency.

We have ridden this planet for a zillion miles. Time to get the old girl up on the blocks and do a much-overdue service, otherwise the last wealthy ego standing will be master of a dry, red lump of dead rock.

- dunno about you, but I am tired of feeling like just another hopeless
cancer cell in the tumour of economics and consumerism.

Competition and co-operation are really two sides of the same coin, inseparable from one another as both are inherint in human nature. It is necessary to strike a balance between the two otherwise a callously exploitative or brutally repressive society (or both) are the result. Where that balance lies will be the subject of never ending argument and debate.

ed online, I agree that capitalism is a very successfull system but I strongly disagree that untrammelled free markets are the best way to distribute scarce resources (apologies if you are not in fact, implying this). A measure of rules and regulations MUST be applied or competition ceases to function effectively and is replaced with monopolies and oligopolies.

Do you regard government taxation and redistribution as "ill - gotten gains?" Are you saying that health, education, law enforcement and the like - the things that hold the fabric of a society together - should be privately owned and run for profit? Just imagine the immunization program run for profit. The "real cost" of each of those shots would come to thousands of dollars. Millions of people would end up harbouring dangerous infectious diseases.

From Pinochet's Chili to todays Iraq, replacing all state owned structures and systems with unfettered markets has proved disasterous for a good portion of the population. Capitalism can only successfully serve society as long as it's natural excesses are tempered by a measure of socialism (and probably vice-versa as well).

Actually, I strongly agree that "untrammelled free markets are the best way to distribute scarce resources." I don't dispute the need for some rules and minimal regulations, principally to prevent violation of personal and private property rights. But otherwise, markets (like society in general) should be free.

Monopolies and oligopolies are nothing to fear except when they are non-contestable. Non-contestable markets only exist when enforced by governments.

Yes, I do regard taxation as theft. And yes, health and education should be privatised and the taxes collected returned to their rightful owners. We currently have a crazy system where parents who send their kids to public schools are paying taxes to subsidise private schools. And parents who send their kids to private schools are taxed to subsidise public schools.

'Free' immunisation does not exist, it may seem free but it is not.

Empirical evidence shows that countries with greater economic freedom tend to have higher standards of living. The reverse is also true. Check out the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.

Chile’s economy, though not perfect (and which one is?) is doing OK. Over the past five years, it has experienced a 4.5%p.a. compound growth rate in GDP. The unemployment rate is 7.7% and inflation is 3.1%pa.

As for Iraq:

"The Iraqi economy should benefit from many excellent reforms and institutions that have been put in place since 2003, including tax policies, simple and low tariffs, new investment laws, and a significantly liberalized and modernized banking system; but these reforms and institutions cannot be fully effective as long as they have to depend on a foundation of weak physical security and persistent corruption."

The latest figures show an unemployment rate of 25-30% and inflation at 32%.

You say: "Capitalism can only successfully serve society as long as it's natural excesses are tempered by a measure of socialism (and probably vice-versa as well)."

I say: Capitalism = freedom; and socialism = slavery. Therefore, while partial slavery is better than total slavery, its still slavery. I would like to see slavery completely abolished, is that such a bad thing?