The frustration that an intelligent politician must feel is explained by aspirations like these.

Collective responsibility and democratic action are necessary to ensure people can develop themselves and excel.

How must it feel to be elected to Parliament, be surrounded by highly paid advisers when you are elevated to ministerial rank, and yet still ask that people assume collective responsibility and take democratic action. Collective responsibility is written into the Australian Constitution and in the three Acts that implement that Constitution. S 64 Judiciary Act 1903 makes the government responsible to the people, not just at election time, but in true democratic style, between elections, because it says: In any suit in which the Commonwealth or a State is a party the rights of the parties shall be as nearly as possible the same as in a suit between subject and subject.

The democratic action is in calling together a jury of twelve, to decide and adjust the rights of the parties. The Liberal Party has set out to destroy this basic principle, and the Federal Labor Party has legislated to restore them, but closet Liberals in the State Labor machines, have refused to accept the wisdom of their federal colleagues. This must be terribly frustrating to both Julia Gillard and KR. I know it frustrates backbenchers, who throw their hands in the air, and say they are powerless.

In the days before Police were invented in 1824, every community had a responsibility to keep the peace in its local area. If it did not, a collective fine was levied on that community and paid to the person whose rights were violated. That was the origin of what was called the hue and cry, because if a thief was not pursued a fine was levied.

To avoid democratic scrutiny, the Liberal Party abolished civil juries in the Federal Courts of Australia. When they created the Australian Federal Police in 1979, they nobbled them and made them a half a police force, by political interference with their functions. It is now clear from High Court decisions, that this is unjust

Indignation at Injustice
Should I be indignant?
1)Child removed from yard of parents by a person that supports an allegation that DoCS don't believe
2)The false representation of a trainee DO as to his delegation
3)Care application in wrong name and only the Court File altered
4)The Child representative sacked by the parents turns up representing the child taking instructions from DoCS
5)Perjury placed before the Court with the Attorney-General's Library verifying that Perjury
6)Fight for your child to where it is claimed by the manager of the DoCS agency that you know as much if not more than any Solicitor about the Child Protection Act of NSW
7)Learn to understand John Bowlby who is acclaimed as the most eminent man in his field of Attachment and Loss
8)Come to another State my son's year 2000 Christmas presents stolen no action taken
9)Solicitors argue that you can't do this and you can't do that then those Solicitors are told they are wrong on all points
10)Finally break where you can't remember from the start to finish of an act
11)Persued to the max while more offences committed against you with still no action taken
12)Then find out the last 21/2 years has been a deliberate act to keep you from your child so he can be with your ex and her boyfriend
There is much more that can be filled in between these few points
Indignant who is indignant? Injustice what injustice?
Thanks all have a good life from Dave

Pelican “The trouble with these debates is exactly as in your last post. The tendency for diatribe at the extremes of the "collective" and "individualistic" spectrums.”

You will note from my post I did not deny the merit of either “collective responsibility” or “democratic action”
Re ““collective responsibility” and “democratic action” can be the products of “individual effort” and “personal responsibility””

However, collective responsibility and democratic action are also used by the indolent and incompetent to grab their “share” of what they are not prepared to “work” for.

Like Margaret Thatcher said “no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour.” http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/thatcher.php

We each have a personal responsibility to ensure we do not end up living below the poverty line.

Ultimately, every society based on collective responsibility has failed, from the small kibbutz to the monolithic USSR.

Libertarians are not anarchists, we believe in the democratic rule of law, to alleviate theft, fraud and abuse etc but we do not support the regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation which seems to be the aspiration of the levelers.

Equal inputs never produce equal outcomes simply because we are all, first and foremost – individuals and being individuals means diversity both good outcomes and (as we see in the small minds like RobP) the product of sterile seed.

RobP regarding

‘Col the Troll, Sir Trollalot

Not this turgid garbage again, surely?

At least come up with something original for a change.”

You have just devoted an entire post to attacking me.

You could have tried to make some real contribution – I know, it is tough when you are so limited but instead of that you focus your entire attention on abusing me.

So RobP– dispute and challenge what I said.

Try and prove the fallacy of it.

When you can, I will be here to tear your argument apart….

but I suppose we should be thankful, at least using a computer keyboard, you are not challenged by joined-up writing.

hey again julia...got a link you might want..[or not..want to know of]
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

its providing a four hour analysis of the whole scam
i cant ''maKE YOU WATCH IT''

but there is much govt is doing that its not allowed to do,..like put us in debt..but thats explained at the other links

http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.infowars.com/

anyhow in the old days you would have been telling us..know the carbon credit is about fully big busness getting tax from us direct...carbon credits..will have a value set by the same proffiteers that bought us debt swap derivitives,,

that in being underwritten..will collapse every major govt and busness...not able to make its own fiat..[money by decree..the fed really needs auditing

ps re afgan issue simply establish out posts..that buy opium..openly at double black marjet value..let them earn their living..live monitored to ensure saftey..then send in us hippies..as peace core tourists..there is more to the plan...but hey you lot are smarter than us mugs..thats why your super is in the bank

how come you lot got a wage-rise...i heard the guy..that didnt give us our due[minimum wage increase.....told his wife to drawout 10.000 cash..and hide it throughout the house....

when he heard of an ongoning bcollapse..aqint that insider trading..off confidential info?..or is this the norm...ok john appointed him..but still..ignore my rave and get a transcript of that first l;ink..and pass it though to kev/linsey and wayne

thanks doll...you make coffee...sorry just being cheeky

Col,

>>So RobP– dispute and challenge what I said.<<

I have already challenged your view. My problem is not with the content of what you say, it is with the DEGREE to which it is held. In particular, the way it leaves others with no space to put their view at all. Get that through your thick skull! The issue is fundamentally political in nature, not of whether what you are saying is right or not. I’ve said that before but you refuse to get/acknowledge it.

>>You could have tried to make some real contribution…<<

I did make a real contribution, you nong. Read the post of mine right after the one you quoted. Or are you one of those pedants who only writes back to someone when expressly written to? Achieving balance, which was what I was on about, means, amongst other things, getting compromise between people of diametrically opposing views. Your one-sided approach and lack of initiative in seeing the merits in opposing views, and/or of not having the guts to acknowledge that publicly, epitomises why we never get any balance.

The harder you one-sidedly push your view, the more you are destroying people with opposite views. You do know if you cause them to be destroyed – even indirectly – you’re on a suicide mission, don’t you? As I said to you before, you’re the Hans Grüber of OLO.

BTW, he was the “terrorist” in Die Hard who wasn’t really a terrorist at all, but was purely out to enrich himself no matter the cost to anyone else. The parallel is that you use your libertarianism as a convenient shield when what you are really after is a comfy life for yourself, no matter the cost to anyone else.

Now, I’d like to see *you* refute that. And I suppose you can add that to the list of “abuse” as well, you poor dear.

Col: "However, collective responsibility and democratic action are also used by the indolent and incompetent to grab their “share” of what they are not prepared to “work” for."

I agree with that particular statement Col but it should not be held up as the slogan for reducing social support infrastructure. There will always be the spongers and designing policy so that the spongers don't continue the cycle of dependency and abuse of the system, while not penalising genuine cases, can be very difficult.

Programs like Work for the Dole or the new Green Corps are some of the ways I think governments try to seek this balance and reduce the possibilities for those who would try and rort the system. The same goes for some of the training courses offerred to return people to the workforce.

Sometimes governments go over the top and we end up with cases where people undergoing chemotherapy being 'forced' to seek work and attend interviews. This is usually more of a stuff up than anything else but still needs to be factored into future policy decisions.