Hey Pelican and RobP. You're right about semantics, Pelican.
It's interesting how two words so close in meaning have such different emotional impact.
Nearly everyone these days accepts we have to have Laws. Laws (theoretically) allow equality. Laws prevent the strong from exploiting the weak, and protect the innocent.
'Regulation' on the other hand, is not a nice word at all. I don't want to be regulated; it sounds like I'm being prevented from achieving my full potential.
Libertarians use this disparity in emotive impact in a very simple way. If a rule is good for Libertarians, then it is a 'Law'. If a rule is bad for libertarians, (restricts their ability to exploit others) then it is a 'regulation'.
The contemporary marketplace suffers from a simple absence of Law. The strong are not only allowed, but encouraged to prey on the weak and -ironically- in the process, deliberately undermine the competitive structure which underpins the greatest strength of the market system.
"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."
Of course, there is a name for these people.
Investors.

Pelican “Col
You are playing semantics”

Semantics …. The study of language, symbols and logic.

Yes I am. Of course, this is a web site devoted to the expression of opinions recorded in English (Language) and based, at least in my posts, on “logic”. So semantics is the order of the day, unless you are thinking of going down the RobP path of “alternative enlightenment”, where small-minded ranting prevails or Grim’s inept sense of the legal.

“but it does not mean that we should abandon support structures altogether.”

But excessive governmental control of resources simply levels everyone to that of the lowest common denominator.

I think that people are potentially a lot more than the small perceptions of socialists and therefore, I would rather see them benefit directly from their own efforts than pretend that equality of resources produces equality of outcomes. Then the spongers would have nothing to sponge off and we would all be happy.

Like dearest Margaret said, there can be no entitlement without obligation.

The hoards, in places like Nimbin and other ghettos of “alternative life style” and the many who lurk in our inner cities should be required to stand on their own two feet, instead of looking down their noses at people who work in real jobs and pay taxes to fund their dole money.

I would further note, government is required to balance its budget, I know socialists think they can just print money but we have seen the consequences of that in the past, Keynesian economic theory is a crock of doggie-does, regardless that it infests economists in academia and government. Spending the entirety of national resources on the under-privileged would leave the rest of us destitute and unable to be taxed for anything.

What you call “balance” depends on perceptions and there are a lot of people on benefits who do not deserve them and could really be self-supporting, given the incentive of starvation as the alternative

Rouge,

You haven't told us what real work you do to earn your money. Like I asked before, have you set up a few bottom-of-the-harbour type tax evasion schemes for you business associates lately?

The only one looking down at people is you from your position of lofty "superiority".

Deliciously ironical, Grim, but way too subtle for the likes of Col and co, who can't seem to think beyond the Protestant work ethic--long since subsumed as the spirit of capitalism. It's incomprehensible to them that some people are not driven to live the bourgeois dream, that they actually despise it and prefer a spontaneous life, accepting a lower standard of living and the frowns of sanctimonious hypocrites as the price. These people, deemed bludgers both by the wealthy---all self-made men according to their conceits who, typically, have never soiled their hands with real "work"!)---and the ignorant sycophants of the system (and Today Tonight). These latter, poor workmanlike intellects are the real dupes, who treat the ideology that enslaves them like holy gospel and can't stand heretics.
As other posters have pointed out, the shiftless bludgers of the system are few and inexpensive compared to the rorters from the big end of town.
And among that omnium gatherum of disfunctional, rebellious types, there are some real treasures, who can hold my fascinated attention, at least, far longer than can those bores who prate about themselves, and rant and rave at anyone scorns the formula

We are a few miles from poor Julia's offering, or should that be, the poor offering from Julia?

Her office minder has stopped posting, satisfied there is no real opposition to her mindless waffle here as we all listen to ourselves spruiking, for ourselves, rather than addressing the matter at hand, Julia's burnt and rather tardy offering.

Never mind, what jolly fun we've had here.

Perhaps we all need a giant mouse ear welded to our backs, to better hear what our Master's say to us in such a forum as this?

Or maybe they could write something more worthy of their reputations, or, at least the reputations they'd like to think we see them cultivating?

My apologies, Blue Cross, you're right.
For me, the stand out issue of this article which has not been addressed, is that of adult education, despite the fact that the first three paragraphs are about the author's father, and his trials and tribulations as a working class stiff with limited education.
This touches on one of the main areas of change in this country over the last few decades, to my mind. Employers bemoan the fact that 'young people don't want to work', particularly at hard or menial jobs. When I left school -at sixteen- job satisfaction wasn't much of an issue; you were just expected to do what you had to do, and count the money.
I would suggest the people most depressed, and most stressed in our society are those who still have this 'work ethic'; the idea that 'life wasn't meant to be easy', do your your 40 hours plus no matter how much you hate it, and live for the weekends.
I'm quite certain there are many blue collar workers out there who would love to change their career path. Unfortunately, the ones who most desperately need further education simply can't afford it, as they are locked into low paying jobs, working long hours just to pay the bills.
In an ageing society where the pension age is being put back, adult education, or re education is an issue which can't be ignored. There are a lot of jobs, particularly in the blue collar sector, which simply are not suitable for oldies, which is partially why over fifties often find it hard to find jobs.
What is the Labor party doing to make it more affordable for us oldies to make -often necessary- career changes, through retraining?