If you go back in time to the late 18th century, at a place called Harvard University, this Socialist system was already enacted and adopted by private enterprise- and if you are confused now by Enterprise, then it was the introduction of scientific management system – that means more bureaucrats and No autonomy.

I n socialism, more so in Democracies, it is known that there is a need to get Business on side; - Germany early 1930ies, - There is a need for Funding to come from somewhere, although it is actually a juxtaposition of the Ideological perception of the state- so there is a need when the state can program the new age management through University Indoctrination – and positions are held in executive positions, then the constant flow of funds is available to fund some of the more Leftoid idiocies.

At a cost of your private enterprise and inovative capacity.

America in the late 18th century had perfected the Socialist control of Private enterprise, some 30 years before the Bolshevik Lobotomy transition of Russia.

Actually, quite a few up and coming dictators used the American model as archetypical of funding their up and coming models.

I think Kevin Dudd is a few Km above his lot in life; to claim the State has the Answers- when the state is responsible for the entire mess of the Depression era, as well as fabricating our demise of today – to fund Socialism – the great ponzy scheme of Psy-ops paradigms

"Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!" (Hanns Johst: Schlageter)

When I hear the word Culture, I release the safety catch...

I have much the same reaction to the words "new world order".

To me they are as meaningful as "old world order", or "boiled cabbage".

>>Australians should contribute to a new world order with a Republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.<<

There are so many faultlines in this statement, starting with the word "Australians", that it is difficult to take it at all seriously.

In fact, I shall assume that it is a complete spoof, and move on.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's call for a new world order to regulate capitalism comes as women achieve occupancy of every level of government.

Women and men bring different life experiences to the rule of law.

The judgement of one on the other is guesswork, thus the lawlessness with which capitalism has become accustomed.

One law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated sustainably.

Come now whistler, 'fess up.

This is a leg-pull, isn't it?

You have just repeated, for the fourth or fifth time, the same impenetrable nonsense.

>>after a century of male supervision, women have become competent and qualified to govern at all levels in their own right<<

Are you suggesting they were not competent or qualified before?

>>governance comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by an executive of elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction<<

Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women? If so, why?

>>Capitalism would be regulated with the most efficient and effective utilisation of human resources available.<<

How would this particular combination bring about this particular result?

>>Decision-making by consensus is enabled.<<

What actually "enables" this consensus? Especially since you appear to have divided both legislature and court system into separate bodies.

>>race and religion are contingent upon gender. Without women and men there is no race or religion.<<

Errrm, without women and men there is no ...anything.

>>The judgement of one on the other is guesswork, an unsound basis for law, thus the lawlessness hitherto of capitalism.<<

You seem to be saying that capitalism is without laws. My company's lawyer spends his holidays skiing in Courchevel, thanks to the vast array of capitalism-related laws.

Your prose seems oddly other-worldly.

As well as somewhat repetetive.

Are you perhaps some kind of highly evolved cockroach, practising your English?

hi Pericles.

> Are you suggesting they were not competent or qualified before?

yes. in 1902 the Parliament of Australia granted women the right to vote and stand as candidates to the two men's legislatures provided under the nation's Constitution, an Act itself of the exclusively male Westminster Parliament.
Dames Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney were the first woman elected to the Federal Parliament in 1943; in 1987 Justice Mary Gaudron became the first woman to sit on the bench of the High Court; Julia Guillard has Acted as Prime Minister and in 2008 Quentin Bryce became the nation's first female Governor-General.
2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.

> Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women? If so, why?

yes. women and men bring different life experiences to the rule of law.

> How would this particular combination bring about this particular result?

the judgement of one on the other is guesswork, thus the lawlessness with which capitalism has become accustomed. one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably.

> What actually "enables" this consensus? Especially since you appear to have divided both legislature and court system into separate bodies.

agreement between women and men

You only answered the easy half, whistler.

>>2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.<<

What, in your opinion, caused them to be less than competent, and less than qualified, prior to 2009?

But your solution still puzzles me. I asked "Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women?", to which you replied "yes".

I'm not sure what problem this solves. You appear to be suggesting that we create different laws for men and women, and then try them in different courts. How does this move us towards "furnish[ing] the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably."? Surely the approach of having separate lawmaking and law enforcement can only serve to deepen the divide between men and women.

Am I missing something here?