Well said Ken. A sorely neglected topic, though unfortunately only one symptom of the systemic corruption of our so-called democratic political system through entrenched interests acting through the major parties.

Theodore Roosevelt was challenging the cartel system set up by the monopolists like JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller.

The aspirations of control were entirely different to corporations of today.

Today corporations are incorporated, constrained and limited by laws enacted since 1902 WHICH MAKE Theodore Roosevelt’s comments completely redundant. Today we need similar legislation designed to curtail the excessive power which arrogant union bullies seek to force upon this democracy.

Corporations are answerable not only to their shareholders (who are all, ultimately people) and to government and the wider community, through legislation.

Unions are answerable to the rigged ballots of their bosses who, in turn pull the strings of this socialist government through the entryism of union apparatchiks into federal and state labor ministerial positions.

Worker participation is possible, workers are entitled to own shares as well as through their participation in superannuation funds, insurance policies and mutual funds.

As for “All public corporations should have at least two board members elected by the non-executive workforce.”

That is simply code for “Jobs for loyal union thugs”.

That is simply code for “Jobs for loyal union thugs”.

Priceless Col. I'm normally the kind of person to laugh at how we have those dastardly 'unions' and the respectable 'employer groups' (who I call employer unions).

And I really loved the union adverts before the election with management talking about cutting jobs then licking their lips and discussing their bonuses. As Homer once said 'It's funny because it's true'.

But really, as you point out, this applies the other way around in this case. Unions (And their sock puppet political parties) are no more democratic than corporations.

Col, never more blind are the arrogant and ignorant. Ask the shareholders of BrisConnect if they think it is right that a entity that is in a commercial contract with a corporation should be allowed to cast votes at a shareholders meeting without owning the shares. In this case the corporation was not answerable to the shareholders.
another quote from Teddy
"Under present-day conditions it is as necessary to have corporations in the business world as it is to have organisations, unions among wage workers"
in unions only members can vote, however in Australia within corparations the votes of shareholders can be purchased even by a party with a direct commercial interest.

Corporations are nothing more than mini dictatorships. There is nothing democratic about them. Unless you equate democracy with 1 vote = 1 dollar. The owners and their defactos, management, exercise the type of control over other people that the kings of old would have given their right arm for. Even worse many large corporations have been captured by their management who now dictate to and ignore shareholders.

There is no democracy where it comes to business.

You need to have a good look at you self harlequin bug.
You sound like a first class capatialist. Do you want coprruption and collusion to flourish in open territory.
You would be no better than a pill pusher.
You had your chance with kennett and he even kept you under wraps.

Houellebecq “Unions (And their sock puppet political parties) are no more democratic than corporations.”

In fact they are less democratic because there is less statute to regulate their processes and procedures.

Whilst I will be first to admit corporations are not free of the actions of the wrongly motivated, I am certain the "Australian Cartel of Trade Unions" and as you say, its political sock puppets, is even more corrupt and less accountable to ethical standards.

Actually “union ethical standards” is an oxymoron

Slasher “Col, never more blind are the arrogant and ignorant”

Doubtless, that very statement speaks of you, slasher.

For presuming my basis of experience and knowledge is drawn solely from what I have written here.

“In this case the corporation was not answerable to the shareholders”

Then why would they have ever bought the shares?

Share holders rights are, by law, prescribed in the enshrining and permanent records of every company.

mikk “Corporations are nothing more than mini dictatorships”

Another “firing from the hip” comment

It sounds like you also need some education in corporations law, commerce and trade practices.

“There is no democracy where it comes to business.”

Of course there is no “democracy”, in the political sense.

“Business” comprises a multiplicity of private transactions negotiated between interested participants.

Those transactions, being “private”, are not up for scrutiny by any democratically nominated forum or supervisory body. If they were nothing would actually happen because it would all take too long.

I repeat, this article is merely repetition of the union movements attempt to run roughshod over the processes of company ownership for its own greedy and illicit purposes.

It is a demand for jobs for union thugs, without buying proper shareholding, like anyone else would have to do.

In short it is a crude attempt at corporate piracy and should not only be resisted but outlawed by act of parliament.

I am not sure who Desmond is firing at but he sounds as if he is three fairies short of a pixie ring.

Your haughty indifference is still alive and well, eh Col? The problem is not with capitalism or entrepreneurship per se, it is with the way it dominates people when they are stuck in a place where they neither desire it nor can escape it. In other words, a form of slavery or pain/stress generator. Now what do you say to the idea that unions are like a sea wall that break the waves from crashing in on the people who can least deal with it? Too bad, perhaps? Give them the flick like the swill they are?

>>Actually “union ethical standards” is an oxymoron.<<

Actually, that's rubbish. Union ethical standards are as good as the people in the union at the time the assessment is made. Sometimes the individuals are ethical, sometimes not. One can also make an overall assessment as to whether a particular union is operating ethically or not. It's true that unions are exposing their underbelly more and more which in a way is a good thing. But, this has only happened because many good people that gave the unions their credibility or silver lining have been systematically elbowed in the head by people - sometimes in the union, sometimes in the corporate world - who would take the space for themselves. This is where you should be directly your venom I'd suggest. How about surprising us all and doing that equally on both sides of the divide?

You need to stop consistently breaking everything down and comparing it with your own particular narrow standards.

col,

you are opposed to the workers of the corporation electing representatives to the board, and yet you support the notion that shareholder proxies can be traded and purchased by another entity to exercise voting power.

Individual workers can be sued for damages if taking unprotected industrial action, should not the system be that individual shareholders should be liable for the damages of the corporation if breaking the law. Should not each individual shareholder of Visy have been civilly liable for the damages to their customers from their price fixing. Especially as the gauging of their customers led to increased dividends and share market price. Individual shareholders have profitted from illegal activity should not individual shareholders be liable for the damages.
Or is it only labor that actions can be broken down to individual liability not capital

RobP “Your haughty indifference is still alive and well, eh Col?”

Not indifference at all RobP.

What can I say.. .should I “dumb it down” to make it understandable for you?

“You need to stop consistently breaking everything down and comparing it with your own particular narrow standards.”

And you need to address the debate, rather than whining on, like a demented pixie, about my analysis of what is really going on…

This is a blatant power grab, an opportunity for union thugs to get paid for board seats without investing in the corporations they seek to run.

slasher, I support the due processes, as enshrined in law.

I see no need for additional legislation giving the undeserving “union mates” special representation and fees income on corporate boards of directors

You need to understand the nature of “joint stock companies” before you presume to support changes to the very nature of what is known as “limited liability”, how it works and is applied in a corporate context.

I would further note, directors and officers of companies (distinct from shareholders) do carry exposure to actions which a company might be found guilty of; Officers of Visy Board and the late Richard Pratt being a typical example.

It is so easy for the patently ignorant to postulate on matters which are far beyond their limited comprehension, thus making them easy targets for the lies and misrepresentations of union provocateurs

The one major point missing from this discussion is that Visy is entirely owned by the Pratt family and does not need to comply with many of provisions of the corporations act.

Board members already can be held personally legally and civilly liable for any illegal or unethical behaviour, but there is a common law requirement to show individual responsibility, which is not as easy as it sounds. I do however agree that bonuses should be linked to long term performance.

Businesses are not a democracy, and could never function as one. The model of co operatives is only successful when all participants are willing to take financial risks which unions are not.

Having a union representative on the board has had mixed success, as the decisions of the board are not always in the interests of the union, and many union board members cannot reconcile the requirement for confidentiality of board room discussions with their union activism.

"And you need to address the debate ... about my analysis of what is really going on…"

Col,

Analysis? what analysis? More like a pretty narrow/lofty perspective dressed up as analysis. There are lots of things going on, not just what your monologue would have us all believe.

Col, you do not understand my point. Workers form unions to enable them to advance the interests of labor. Unions are provided with a legal identity represent the collective group of workers, yet if collective action of the workers are deemed to be outside of the law the individual worker can be liable for damages. The same principle should apply for corporations.Corporations are creations of the state that enable individuals to pool their capital and create a separate legal identity. Just as individual workers can be liable for tort damages for acting outside of the law so should individual shareholders. Should not the customers of QANTAS be allowed to sue individual shareholders for damages from price fixing, afterall those same shareholders have benefited financially from the illegal activity. Please do not quote limited liability laws they are creation of the state. I am arguing that we need to encourage lawful activity by automatically lifting the corporate veil to enable shareholders who have benefitted from illegal activity of the corporation to be held liable for the damages the illegal activities of the corporation.

RobP “Analysis? what analysis? More like a pretty narrow/lofty perspective dressed up as analysis. There are lots of things going on, not just what your monologue would have us all believe.”

When you offer some basis for debate I will challenge it with analysis, history, prediction and fact.

In the mean time you simply sound like the small, angry and ineffectual voice of the non-achiever, jealous of those who did whilst you pondered and were rewarded whilst you were ignored.

I suggest you look at yourself first, before you try and hurl criticism at me.

Slasher your point re workers:unions and shareholders:companies.

The problem is your analogy is false, under the concept of limited liability, a shareholder is, by law, excluded from being held liable for the tortes of the company they invest in. if they were liable they would be investing in a company of unlimited liability. Many different examples of forms of company incorporation exist, limited by shares, limited by guarantee, unlimited liability etc.


Your suggestion, that shareholders be exposed to unlimited liability would shift the entire basis of financial dealings, cause an economic slump in corporate borrowing / fund raising capacity and likely cause an economic depression which would eclipse that following the 1929 share market collapse.

To strikes and workers, collective action carries collective responsibility. Employees are not forced to strike, they take it as a conscious decision. Shareholders invest and the decisions are taken by directors, who, as shadow minister and I have both pointed out, directors and officers of a company can be and are held personally responsible for the unlawful actions of the companies they direct / manage.

As to “shareholders who have benefitted”. The shareholders who benefitted might well not be the current shareholders of record.

So would you track back to find someone who might be already dead and then make a claim against the beneficiaries of the deceased estate?

To “Please do not quote limited liability laws they are creation of the state.”

You cannot consider “shareholder liability” and ignore the corporate statutes which define “shareholder liability”.

"When you offer some basis for debate I will challenge it with analysis, history, prediction and fact."

Col,

So there it is then. You've already made your mind up. As well as no analysis, you won't provide any real debate either, just a recital as you whistle like a birdie from the top of your cherrypicker.

"I suggest you look at yourself first, before you try and hurl criticism at me."

redneck, oh great one,

FYI, I know exactly what I can and can't do. And will do what I can when I get the chance. Don't need to look at myself and don't need your free character assessment either. In fact, I'm completely neutral on it.

"In the mean time you simply sound like the small, angry and ineffectual voice of the non-achiever, jealous of those who did whilst you pondered and were rewarded whilst you were ignored."

Well, yeah, in the overall scheme of things my voice is small. Angry? Sometimes, particularly when I can see things are not being done well and people with good ideas are being marginalised and/or blocked. Ineffectual? Only when I get marginalised and/or blocked. Jealous? Nope. Non-achiever? I don't think so - I worked as part of a 12-team, 14-year project that delivered a sizeable diplomatic/scientific outcome to the Government. Ponder? Only when there's nothing else to do. Rewarded? Not as much as I would like, but that's got more to do with internal politics than anything else - as a lot of people know, how well you do has got more to do with how you come across than what you actually do.

Any other questions I can help you with?

col, you again miss the point i am arguing that when a corporation breaks the law that the shareholders should be liable they chose to invest in the company and either consented to behaviour that was illegal or acquiesed. I am arguing that collective labour and collective capital should have the same basis of treatment under law, if shareholders are to be shielded when unlawful activities occur then individual workers deserve the same protection and the damages should be restricted to the directors(union official) not flow to individual workers.
Under Workchoices we had a situation where workers on a construction site were provided with flea ridden accomodation. Because accomodation standards were put outside the scope of the award system there was no mechanism to deal with the issue. The workers took strike action which was regarded as illegal. Individual prosecutions were initiated against the employees (latter dropped) that the individuals could be held liable for collective action is morally repugnant. the prosecutions were dropped not because the strike was lawful but the sheer repugnant situation the workers were put in, even the Howard Govt saw the light and dropped the prosecution, but the strike was unlawful. one rule should exist for collective capital and labor either individual workers and individual shareholders should be liable for the collective actions or only the collective legal identities should be liable.

Withdrawing ones labour (strike) is the only power a worker has against a boss and it is unbelievable that any government thinks they could take that away. If a worker cannot down tools any time they care to then then isnt that slavery. They are being forced to work against their will in such circumstances. This IS slavery by definition.

RobP… you are just a sad little tic.

Regarding “I worked as part of a 12-team, 14-year project that delivered a sizeable diplomatic/scientific outcome to the Government.”

Just the place for a non-achiever to ensconce themselves
I would expect to something pretty spectacular and not just “sizable” for 168 man-years of effort

Slasher, if a corporation is found guilty of a criminal offense, such as price fixing or EPA offences the company pays a fine. the shareholders return on investment is diminished.. thus they do share and “suffer” the penalty.

Similarly the directors and officers may be fined and / or imprisoned.

Imposing fines or imprisonment on individual shareholders because of the offenses of a company they happen to hold shares in might cause problems… what happens when the shares are held by a superfund, mutual fund or insurance company – you will need a big prison if all the superannuates and policy holders are to be incarcerated too.

Again we come back to individuals exercising discretionary action. A shareholder is, essentially, a passive role outside of AGMs and the exercise of stock options.

Addressing policy issues from the perspective of “an example based on flea ridden accommodation” is not a viable strategy either.

mikk “Withdrawing ones labour (strike) is the only power a worker has against a boss “

a worker can always negotiate, arbitrate or even resign… all of which I have used many times…

<<RobP… you are just a sad little tic.>>

Col Rouge,

You are an arrogant piece of shite. The project was Australia's Law of the Sea Project that was ratified by the UN last year. Go look it up, loser.

RobP “You are an arrogant piece of shite.”

Maybe so but I am free to be as big a piece of shite as I want…

Of course, you are free to be as big or little a tic as you can aspire to (which means likely to be on the smaller size).

“The project was Australia's Law of the Sea Project that was ratified by the UN last year.”

Doubtless, we will appreciate your contribution in the number of commas and apostrophes in the text…

As for “ratified by the UN”… so may things have been ratified by the UN that the term has lost all value.

Personally I would rather be remembered for what I, as an individual, can claim, maybe a picture or some other aesthetic or constructive contribution like a beneficial software program or a perspective on business management methods (oooooh – done all those), rather than as the proof reader of a here today, discarded tomorrow, volume of dry, bureaucratic text,

As for “Go look it up, loser”

It might be there at the moment but give it a little while and it will all be lost…

Then you would be suggesting, paradoxically, “the loser go look for the lost”…

Somehow, I think that would conform with your life choices, rather than my own “pursuit of arrogant individuality”.

Corporations have no soul. As non living entities, they have no conscience, are totally irresponsible, and supply most of the money the legal profession requires to survive. The same applies to Unions, who are also corporations, but whose leaders have some sort of conscience. The English overcame these deficiencies in the corporate soul, by making them equally accountable to the law of the land as an individual, and since they cannot be imprisoned, set a penalty five times that which could be imposed upon an individual on them.

Since corporations have no soul, but the Directors are supposed to have one, the lawyers decided to make us all citizens without a soul. Since we are now all treated as corporations, entities created by the State, with no living breathing feelings that the law can acknowledge, subject to the arbitrary judgment of State Officers, we have no morality whatsoever. Neither the Unions nor the Corporations they deal with ever have to answer to a court. This is a uniquely Australian slant on the law. It should not happen, because the Constitution is supposed to protect living breathing individuals, from predatory Corporations like the Australian Government, and the eight State Governments, but currently is not doing so.

When the Australian Federal Police was created in 1979, its Act gave it the duty to protect ordinary people, by enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth. It remained a Political Police, until the 7th September 2009. when Commissioner Tony Negus, a professional policeman was sworn in. A question to the Hon Brendan O’Connor, asking if he was going to continue to dictate law enforcement to the Australian Federal Police, as Howard had done, met with a negative.

Commissioner Negus will now be free to allow anyone to make a complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Paul Keating’s government repaired the breach of S 116 Constitution, where the States imposed corporate status on individuals, making them subject to State laws, not the laws approved by Almighty God, and denying everyone complete jury trial, whether a living breathing individual, or a heartless corporation. Negus can bring peace

"It might be there at the moment but give it a little while and it will all be lost…"

As will your software program. It all turns to dust eventually. The thing with the Law of the Sea outcome – it is actually an enforceable international agreement on Australia's Extended Continental Shelf which will give us marine jurisdictional security – is that IT will last for centuries, my dear Col. Way longer than the likes of you or me. Or your software program (presumably this is the one you haven’t written yet, but are still pondering over or procrastinating about?).

"Doubtless, we will appreciate your contribution in the number of commas and apostrophes in the text…"

And BTW, oh great one, I did a bit more than write apostrophes and text. Believe it or not, I wrote more than a few computer programs to reformat data, calculate sediment thickness profiles, which were then imported into our GIS software and then used to generate profiles across the continental shelf. As well, I did a fair bit of grunt work in writing geological/geophysical critical point reports as well as the bulk of technical reports for the 10 study areas (which you can see in the link below).

If you are so inclined, you can look up the Executive Summary here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf

If you ask me, I'll rather have my job than being an accountant any day - Sorry, Col, couldn't resist!.

"Of course, you are free to be as big or little a tic as you can aspire to (which means likely to be on the smaller size)."

Col Rouge,

Speaking of size, your outcome, whatever it is, is like Gilligan's boat up against a supertanker.

It's been rather quiet the last couple of days - I take it you have now conceded the argument and are undergoing a period of sustained self-flagellation?

RobP “Or your software program (presumably this is the one you haven’t written yet, but are still pondering over or procrastinating about?).”

Who suggested there is but one?

A number have been running for years in diverse business and government locations. And more are on the way.

RobP “If you ask me, I'll rather have my job than being an accountant any day”

When one knows ones potential will not meet the challenge, it is best to do something else.

RobP "Gilligan's boat up against a supertanker"

Perhaps but being the "captain" will always beat being a "wage pulling" grease-monkey.

RobP “It's been rather quiet the last couple of days - I take it you have now conceded the argument and are undergoing a period of sustained self-flagellation?”

Not at all..

Sunday we were out dancing all evening (ah she did look so lovely too.. her slight, lively body, as always, immaculately dressed), along with organizing our forthcoming wedding reception.

Monday we jumped back into the Merc. roadster, did some grocery shopping, .then we checked in on my boot maker.. who is making up two pairs of Cuban heeled boots.. one pair in black and the other in grey/white snakeskin, then my future wife ordered some handmade stilettos, one pair in black patent, the other in red patent and a pair of red leather handmade short boots, then off we zoomed to the casino for lunch and a couple of hours fluttering with friends.

Life is so busy. So you see, the notion, to respond to the likes of irks like you, did not get a look in.

In short, I have been busy getting on with life..

you would benefit from getting one for yourself (a life, that is)

So I'm supposed to feel like I'm missing out on something? Hardly - you sound a lot like an indulgent toff.

Sorry to disappoint you, Col, but indulging in that sort of stuff doesn't interest me. Anyway, no doubt you'll go off and pretend you're better than the rest of us no matter what any of us do or say. It's the worst form of disparagement of other people I can imagine.

And in the get a life stakes, I'd say with you 3000+ posts compared with my 600+, that I should be saying that to you.

Concede yet that your argument is one long tirade of BS?

Paul Keating’s government fixed most of the problems that Ken McKay raises in his article.
Unfortunately the corporations of Australia have been in the ascendancy since Whitlam became Prime Minister, and the erosion of democracy has been steady and decisive. The corporations have been ruling by and through corporations sole, when Australian democracy is supposed to be governed by Corporations aggregate.

The Queen or Sovereign is a Corporation Sole, whereas the Parliament is a Corporation aggregate but now subject to the rigors of Party Discipline. The Sovereign as a Corporation Sole was subjected to the discipline of a Corporation aggregate, in the only Monarchy that has survived over time. The Act that subjected the Corporation Sole to the Corporations aggregate was and remains the Magna Carta.

The Supreme Court Act 1970 in New South Wales made the Supreme Court a Corporation Sole in its civil jurisdiction, a lead followed when the Federal Court and Family Court were established, and of course the High Court in the High Court of Australia Act 1979. This is entirely illegal, and unconstitutional. By S 58 Constitution the Governor General is supposed to vet all laws. Unconstitutional laws are supposed to be reserved, or kept inoperative, until either ratified by a referendum under S 128 or dropped. A series of weak Governors General have approved lots of nasty laws.

Without Corporations aggregate to refine and purify bad laws, democracy does not exist. The Corporations aggregate were the ultimate authourity in democratic Australia. They were the only place that had to be obeyed, and are called court, without a capital letter in S 79 Australian Constitution. Likewise the word judges without a capital letter, mandates civil jury trial in a Corporation aggregate. Since the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X any other court has been illegal.

However there have been no enforcers of these laws. Now at last with a professional Policeman as head of the Australian Federal Police, we may have Commonwealth Police willing to accept their obligations to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth. Their priority should be; control the States

RobP “Sorry to disappoint you, Col, but indulging in that sort of stuff doesn't interest me.”

As a libertarian I recognize your right not to be interested…. That is whats good about libertarians.. we accept and delight in the differences of individuality.

“pretend you're better than the rest of us”

I measure my life by its inherent quality and the happiness I experience.

I don’t measure my life relative to the lives of others…

You can blame it on my libertarian perspective… but it works for me.

“And in the get a life stakes, I'd say with you 3000+ posts compared with my 600+,”

You do what you want and I do what I want… who cares how many posts..

maybe you would also like to compare the length of our respective manhood… we might well be similarly proportioned there too –

You know what I mean, you 600 and me 3000

“Concede yet that your argument is one long tirade of BS?”

No .. it is you, who are so steeped in envy and the need to regulate and limit the freedoms of everyone else (like you said, spending years helping "the team" build statutes), that is full of BS …

I am a happy chappy, about to marry a most beautiful lady, about to dance into a new stage of my life (we dance at least twice weekly.. mainly Latin) and still sure, even after all these years, that I still have lots still to give, businesses to build and parties to host –

rather than be thinking of “down-sizing” or pondering how to eek out my superfunds or moving into some secure retirement village full of worn out ex-civil servants and other assorted tossers, who now look back over their nice secure little lives and wonder why they ever bothered.

I have not upset the atheists and agnostics on this forum for a while. The Australian Prayer Network had a feature article recently on the role of the Christian church in society. The statute laws of Australia especially the Constitution are firmly rooted in the Holy Bible. When we departed from its guidance, we have had to suffer corporate irresponsibility.

In the Holy Bible in Matthew 7:1 the first thing a Christian is requested to do is refrain from judging others. In Matthew 7:7-12 it says if a Christian asks, Almighty God will grant his request. Since Almighty God is the ultimate Corporation Sole recognized by Muslim and Christian alike, every Judge should grant every request in writing filed in any Court. However, Jesus Christ introduced the separation of powers doctrine in the Holy Bible. The place it is found is in John 5:22-23, where the Corporation Sole vested judgment in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ in his turn, promised that where two or three are gathered together, in his absence, ( he has been away about 2000 years) He will be present. This is the Corporation aggregate. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit as promised to find all truth. The truth is called a verdict. ( a true saying).

This basic democracy, adopted by the English as their Constitution, by the Magna Carta Statute, has stood the test of time. No one should ever be imprisoned unless a jury says so. Judges and Magistrates are offenders. The articles of Association of Corporation Australia is the Constitution. It relies on the blessing of Almighty God. To top it all off Jesus Christ makes it the unforgivable sin to deny the Holy Spirit. This is found in Luke 12 verses 10-12. The Christian Bible binds Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second by Her Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). The Parliament of the Commonwealth starts each day with the Lord’s prayer, from Matthew 6:9-13. S 116 Constitution forbids the Parliaments from introducing any other religion. Some of our Pastors and clergymen have been a little slack in teaching these democratic fundamentals

Well, Col, you're just proving you're the worst type of patronising tosser.

One day people like you will be given the big elbow and others will finally get a chance to do things in either a non-competitive environment or one where they do not get run over by people that are better than them or who happen to be driving a bigger truck.

But, by then the meek will inherit the legacy you leave. So, all I can say, Col, is keep it up, son. Just be careful to get out the way when a bigger truck than you comes through.

So what that you've got a nice woman hanging off your arm? Who she hangs around with says more about her than you.

>>spending years helping "the team" build statutes<<

Col,

So who's the hypocrite then? You've said on various occasions that you prefer order over disorder. If the Law of the Sea outcome is not an example of legislating for international order on the high seas, then what is it? It's a lot more than a statue, my friend.

But, I know there's really a deeper agenda on your part - it is to promulgate the myth that public service = bad while entrepreneurship = good. What garbage on so many levels.

Firstly, there are as many good workers in the PS as there are in private enterprise. And it wouldn't suprise me if the proportions of each are roughly the same too. What this means is that a core of good workers keep PS agencies viable. They tend to carry the weight of others who don't - whether that's fair is another issue that I won't go into here. And these divisions are replicated in the private sector.

What your real agenda is, is to con people into following your particular career choice - or even better, to try to emulate it but fail - so that you have more power and effectively have more people working for your commercial interests without empowering them to the point where they knock you off your perch. It's purely a case of self interest and keeping the hacks in their place.

RobP” But, I know there's really a deeper agenda on your part - it is to promulgate the myth that public service = bad while entrepreneurship = good”

Na.. I am just messing with your head, with some success.

Re “good”versus “bad” … people are “accountable” in the private sector and “unaccountable” in the public sector….

“What this means is that a core of good workers keep PS agencies viable.”

Private sector workers are “viable” by virtue of the management “skills” they work with. When they fail, people lose their jobs and the company fails

Public sector workers are “viable” based on the amount of tax-payer funds they can extort.

When public servants fail they usually get promoted into some pointless position and then screw the tax payer for more money to employ more people to do the job of the previous failure.

“What your real agenda is, is to con people into following your particular career choice - or even better, to try to emulate it”

My agenda is to encourage people to aspire to the maximum of their potential – as for following my career choices…. Oh you silly boy, that is like encouraging competition… and not a sensible strategy for any one selling “scarce skills”

but I understand your problem, you have no vision and no aspirations or perhaps you are just too frightened to risk thinking outside the confines of your secure little box.

“so that you have more power…..”

It seems to be you are the one interested in “Power”… obsessing about how you did something to make “rules of the sea” or whatever… forcing people to conform to your regulation.. and now projecting it into your armchair psycho-analysis of my private persona and what you claim is my secret agenda

I bet you get sucked in by paranoid conspiracy theories too.

“self interest and keeping the hacks in their place.”

I see no “hacks", only individuals…

“hacks” is your term, like “power”

Along with other clues to you being someone who feels entitled to be gain personal “empowerment” by putting others (like me) down.

Col Rogue,

>>Na.. I am just messing with your head, with some success.<<

Pardon me while I choke back the tears, but you're not messing with my head at all. If anything, you're giving me licence to start to let rip. Your one-sided utterances are going to get my nth degree attention from now on. Good luck from here on in.

>>It seems to be you are the one interested in “Power”… obsessing about how you did something to make “rules of the sea” or whatever… forcing people to conform to your regulation.<<

Let me give you an idea of how the LoS legislation has been used to protect Australia's interests and then maybe you'll understand that this isn't just some power trip for it's own sake that's used to tell people how to conform or act.

A few years ago a foreign trawler was poaching our Patagonian toothfish in the Australian EEZ around Heard Island in sub-Antarctic waters. The fishermen probably thought that, as it was so far from the Australian mainland, they could plunder our fish stocks with impunity. The Oz Government found out about it and thought otherwise. A navy vessel was dispatched which intercepted the trawler and escorted it back to Fremantle harbour. The ship was impounded (don't know whether it was sold off or not), the catch sold at the Freo markets and the crew imprisoned for a time. Now that sends a message to plunderers, don't you think?

Without international law being in place, these poachers would have been untouchable.

Your problem is that you have no sense of helping anyone else, so you think that anything done in a group is automatically dragging others down. Well, there's always an element of that, but you try to protect the nation's interests via a bunch of individuals who each have their own personal agenda. It's a bunfight. I like individuals, as individuals too. I just have a different emphasis to you which follows the contours of my life experiences. One particular class of person, like libertarians, do not have a monopoly on the truth.

RobP “If anything, you're giving me licence to start to let rip. Your one-sided utterances are going to get my nth degree attention from now on. Good luck from here on in.”

Ooooooooh .. and why am I not quaking in my boots… when I hear the rattle of an empty bucket.

Doubtless you “letting-rip” has the same terrorizing consequences as a baby breaking wind.

“Your problem is that you have no sense of helping anyone else”

And your problem is you think you know my problem.

Trust me I have no problems.

What you see as unacceptable or as some sort of problem on my part is just a manifestation of your own paranoia and delusion.

However, I do not kow-tow to prickly and pompous little despots who think they have the right to command me on any matter.

I treat your brown-cardigan, home-spun psychoanalysis for what it is.. .

The ravings of the patently ineffectual, using every desperate means to add relevance to a pointless existence.

“One particular class of person, like libertarians, do not have a monopoly on the truth.”

Agree

but it is the socialistsand their fellow travelers who have a monopoly on the use of lies, propaganda and manipulation (as that paragon of political virtue, Lenin, said “If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth”)

so just keep on coming at me, as hard as you can and I will keep on playing you along.

Have a nice day

Col,

I restate: "Your problem is that you have no sense of helping anyone else". Absolutely true and your attempts to cover your trail do you no credit.

So, what does a private-sector bean counter achieve that is so much better than a public servant? Designed a few tax-avoidance schemes for your business associates, have you? And, as if we are supposed to value people like you highly. What bollocks!

You remind me of Robbie Williams (the singer) when he said something like he needed/wanted to change the way he was ... but just not yet. You smack of the same thing. You obviously have plenty of talent, but you are putting your lazy and indulgent self-interest before all else.

You come across as someone who would say to the ordinary person, "Thanks for what you've done for laying the foundation for this country's propsperity, but I couldn't really give a toss about you. I'm going to use my superior talents to hoist myself up and have a comfy life for myself". You smack of that Rouge - and if that's not true come out and directly and unambiguously refute it. The fact you haven't up till now is why I think you are a lazy and indulgent toff.

>>However, I do not kow-tow to prickly and pompous little despots who think they have the right to command me on any matter.<<

I'm couldn't give a rat's what you do, quite frankly. You are far too sensitive if you think I'm telling YOU what to do. It's more of a political fight for the available space on offer. At least get that right. My interest in in getting a bit of justice for ordinary people and making a bit of space for them. You completely overstate your importance in the scheme of things. Toss off somewhere else.

RobP ”I restate: "Your problem is that you have no sense of helping anyone else".”

And I restate “And your problem is you think you know my problem….

…a manifestation of your own paranoia and delusion.”

You are wasting your time pretending you have sufficient intellectual insight to analyze people like me.

We are just above and beyond your comprehension, not because we are special or superhuman

but simply because your “comprehension” is just inadequate.

“I'm couldn't give a rat's what you do, quite frankly”

Seems inconsistent with “Your one-sided utterances are going to get my nth degree attention from now on.”

Nothing new with the intellectually bewildered being inconsistent

“My interest in in getting a bit of justice for ordinary people and making a bit of space for them”

I prefer to see individuals respected as individuals

“You completely overstate your importance in the scheme of things”

What you mean as an individual?

I see no one more significant than a self-motivated individual who accepts his responsibilities and carries them without complaint.

You on the otherhand, prefer to tell us how you wrote the “laws of the sea” and how we should pay homage to your grand plan for regulation of the most mundane…

perhaps you are working on a regulation to control every individuals bowel movements …

I would like to read that..

But speculate, it will be just another bureaucratic load of “tish”.

“Toss off somewhere else”

Well I guess on that matter you have the edge on me… hands down, so to speak….

How nice that Col's found someone new to play with. Nothing new here, but this bit did strike me as being funny:

<<...it is the socialistsand their fellow travelers who have a monopoly on the use of lies, propaganda and manipulation >>

I recall a certain conservative PM who was awarded the sobriquet "Lying Rodent" by members of his own party, and who wasn't averse to a bit of propaganda and manipulation (remember the Tampa, 'children overboard' etc?).

Yup, John Howard was definitely a socialist.

Good one, Col.

>>You on the otherhand, prefer to tell us how you wrote the “laws of the sea” and how we should pay homage to your grand plan for regulation of the most mundane…<<

I didn't write the laws of the sea, you dunce, I was part of a project that applied those laws to fashion Australia's claim. You have gone way past the hyperbole stage to an outright lie/mis-statement of the situation.

I can just picture the young Col Rouge as a smartarse whippersnapper who always got what he wanted as a teenager. Probably a complete prat as well who doesn't take too kindly to anyone else competing for resources that he's earmarked as his own. The Hans Grüber of OLO.