actually individual, I've lived in far north communities. I don't anymore, though I still live in regional Australia.

Individual rights aren't the problem, it's a simple issue of voter concentration amplified by pork barrelling in marginal seats.
If it's the aboriginal intervention you're referring to, I hardly see how you can chalk the problem up to people having too many rights, when it appears the rest of Australia is often quite happy to sit back and pretend it's not happening.

I still don't see anything that warrants your attitude, which, when you strip it to its core, is basically calling for a dictatorship.

is basically calling for a dictatorship.
TRTL,
well, isn't that what we've got now ? being dictated to by leftist minority groups who, if left to their own competence couldn't run a chook raffle. the taxpayer funded "keeping" of these interfering parasites is in my opinion evil. the Beatty outfit funded an artist to the tune of $90,000.- for his art which was regurgitating food onto a cement slab. that's just one example from the TV news. if you really care than take more notice of where public funding is distributed. the disadvantaged are always looking for support but hardly any is offered. evil bureaucrats rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an assistance query when a few hundred dollars would have helped a person to get back on their feet. victims get no restitution whereas offenders get protection & better conditions at great expense. That TRTL falls into the EVIL category & I for one can not find a single excuse for the system which offers nothing to decent people.

No individual. Incompetent bureaucracy yes, dictatorship, no.

I see you're loaded with criticisms for the system. Fair enough, though I see you're a little light on the constructive side of things.

There's millions of people out there, loaded down with bile and cynicism, willing to take potshots at whatever system we have. There's far fewer who can come up with genuinely constructive solutions that actually improve the situation.

I find it interesting that you've simultaneously criticised do gooders and leftists who push for change as unrealistic, yet criticise the system and say it needs change.

I also find it most amusing that it's generally the leftists that favour a welfare state, yet you make the comment: "when a few hundred dollars would have helped a person to get back on their feet" I can't help but wonder how you decide who is worthy.
In practicality, a program like this could just as easily lead to corruption and pork barrelling.

Practically speaking, you're saying the government should do more to help people but they can't be trusted to help people. Nice.

In fact, looking over your posts I see nothing but a seething mass of criticism and contradictions.

Talk is cheap. Human nature is complex, especially when it comes to working together.

Can I ask, if this system of ours is so decadent and useless because of all the evil leftists, where is a better system?

Would you like the right wing US model, which couldn't even help the victims of Katrina yet squanders billions on Iraq contracts for companies run by associates of the administration?
They're probably about the most right wing out there...

Would you like the Scandinavian models of government? Regrettably, they're the products of the leftists you so despise.

Like I said, talk and criticism is cheap, but that's all I'm seeing from you.

Constant negativity without respite... now that's evil.

TRTL,
you just don't get it do you. well, never mind I almost felt sorry for you but, no, I'll wait till you leave school & hopefully you'll discover that critisism is there to make people think of what they're doing to others. what about the scandinavian system ? they're scandinavian & their system would never work with the australian mentality. same as they'll always be perplexed how people can actually compete with each other in ruining one of the best places on the planet. I'm about bringing peoples' attention to the things that need changing & yes of course it's all negative. I don't rave on about the good side of things because there's no need to.

individual, it's you who I feel sorry for.

And making false assumptions in an effort to devalue an opponents position is a very poor debating tactic.
My days of schooling are long behind me. You can try to paint me into the corner as naive or youthful all you want, but it's wrong, plain and simple.

I just don't subscribe to your "everything's screwed, nothing works, it needs to be fixed but you can't trust anyone so don't do anything" mentality. I also think your attempts to pin it all on leftists are the refuge of an embittered right winger. This isn't as much an assumption of your character as it is an interpretation of your posts.

I understand criticism very well, after all, I'm directing a fair bit of it at your constant pessimism. I just believe that it's far more effective when coupled with constructive suggestions.

At the end of the day, it boils down to one very simple concept: anyone can harp on about the problems of the world and how difficult it is to change. Far fewer can either do something about it, or have the courage to make suggestions.

Largely because with change there is always a downside - but if you're going to say that things are terrible here and need to be changed, there is an implicit assumption that there should therefore be change.
With change comes an inevitable downside, but you're just as keen to attack that as well.

Cont'd

So in an effort to actually be constructive, I'll suggest that changes that would actually improve our government should start with increased transparency - there's little downside to that.
I suppose you can attack the media for irresponsibility or poor coverage, but the fact is they're hamstrung in their efforts to obtain information from government.
In recent days we've seen reports regarding the state of FOI in Australia and how difficult it is to access.
I guess the first tasks would be to make the issue a prominent one - government transparency has entered the election campaign as a fringe issue that Rudd's made a few comments about, but given his disposition toward media management I'm sceptical. I tend to think that a more concrete step by step process geared at actually returning responsibility to government officials is needed.
Journalists can start by refusing to use "a department spokesman" instead using the actual names of representatives, so there's somewhere where the buck stops.

The ultimate aim of this is to actually give more insight into how this government which you seem to loathe so much actually operates. That's the first step in fixing these issues.

Well individual, I guess that's my suggestion for actually DOING something. What's yours? Or is it all hopeless anyway?