In the most recent Brisbane Sunday-Mail there was a lift out telling of the 100 richest people in Queensland. I didn’t look at it, as I know the only way I am going to wind up with a small fortune is to start out with a big one.

I would like to see a feature telling about 100 of the poorest people. I don’t know about them, but I would like to find out.

How many are addicts? Has the casino been the cause of their poverty? Is there anything our society can do to help? I don’t know enough to ask the most pertinent questions.

What would 100 very poor people tell us about our society? They don’t have to be identified by name, but enough of their story should be told so we would know about them. Maybe it would tell us something about our government and ourselves

Some very interesting thoughts here DavidF.
I wouldn't mind betting that most of the sad souls on this list of 100 poorest people would be suffering from severe mental illnesses.

Correct the current very ineffective mental health system in this country, and see a marked improvement in the numbers of poor and homeless.

Good thread David. I saw that article in the Sunday Mail and brushed over it very quickly. I'm not impressed at all by multi-millionaires.

Dare I say it; I think we need a much more socialistic form of democracy, which can much better distribute wealth. Not to take the vast majority of wealth off of the rich and give it to the poor, but to even up the playing field a fair bit better than our current system.

Afterall, there is not much of a correlation between wealth-generation and intelligence or ingenuity or doing what is right for society, environment or one's fellow man.

"100 very poor people"
The question is what we mean with the words"very poor",
1. lowest income per year, per week, per day? then we have thousands of unemployees or retired people or students. All of them with same or about same income.
2. The people who lost their money?
3. I do not think with $65.000 per year I am the poorest one!

Probably new migrants and refugees are the poorest one, who do not work and do not have any support from social security. We will never learn for their problems as they have limit contact with most Australians. At the moment Australia is a hell for them but they hope for a better future and soon or later they will find it!
Pray for them, we do not know them and we can not find and support them. Your GOD is good one and will care them

Dear David f,

What a brilliant idea.

If the spotlight was focused on at least
100 of the poorest people in the world
it may make us not only count our blessings
and realize how fortunate we really are - but
it would also attract attention to the plight
of these people and how the current global
financial meltdown must be affecting them.

It may also make us want to help in whatever
way we can. We complain about our so called 'rights,'
and other nonsense - but perhaps seeing
how some of the poorest live and why - may make
us realize how much we actually have to be
thankful for. We're not struggling to survive,
we don't have to worry about where our next meal
is coming from - or how to put food on the table
for our family - we don't have starving children -
Seeing these 100 of the poorest people - may be
the 'wake-up,' call we could all use.

I only hope that with this global financial crisis -
that the richer nations will not forget to keep
and honour the commitments that they made to
supply aid to these poorest people - especially
of food - and other much needed supplies.
I worry about countries like Africa, Haiti,
Afghanistan and so on...

Antonios raises a good point, in the need to define 'poorest'.
While realistically a homeless person, without family or friends, who for one reason or another cannot even get social security would be the worst off, it is reasonable to assume their baseline would be zero, as it is unlikely such a person could get a loan from anyone.
The 'poorest' people would be those who have accumulated debt in better times, and for one reason or another (retrenched, sacked, one partner got sick) has fallen behind; become either unemployed, or one of the 'working poor'. Such a person would or could be working very long hours at a very crappy job, and still not being able to make ends meet, or put decent food on the table, while they watch their debts grow and become ever more unmanageable. I think the latter would be the most depressing; knowing you're doing everything you can, and still not getting it together.
I suppose that creates 2 distinct classes of poor. Those who are outside the system, and those who have genuinely tried to work within the system and have failed.
Of course, debt alone cannot define poverty, as the current crisis has highlighted the fact that some of the very richest owe more than they own.
A strange system, where owing a thousand dollars makes you poor, but owing 10 million dollars makes you rich.

So Ludwig
If you're not 'taking from the rich to give to the poor' how else do you propose the wealth be 'better distributed'?

Now there is a safety net in our country, one that if often abused and it's called 'personal bankrupts'.

David F, an interesting thread, one that is sure to lure the 'tall poppies'

I agree with others, you must first define 'poor'.

Rehctub, I think you have misread my post. The essence of a more socialistic regime would be to take more money off the rich and give it to the poor, to the extent of balancing it all out a bit, but not to the extent of dragging the rich down to the same level as the poor or the ‘middle class’. In fact, you could argue that the protection of the poor is not really socialistic at all, but should be seen as a fundamental principle of democracy.

There is something very sick about our ‘pseudodemocracy’ when some people can become absolutely obscenely rich or be on incomes that are a hundred times greater than people who have university qualifications and have worked their way up into reasonable positions over many years for example, such as myself, while there is a significant portion of the population that is battling to survive day to day.

I agree; the poor need to be defined. There are indeed many aspects to poorness, including those with money but poor health and/or a poor quality of life.

grim, thanks for your post to this thread. It opened the topic right up.

Much of this gets away from the excellent point made in the original post but still seems relevant to the discussion (in my view).

Things which might go into the mix when considering wealth and poverty.
- Assets/debts at a point in time
- Income - non-discretionary outgoings
- Skill set (personal and professional)
- Support available (family/friends able and willing to help can create a safety buffer that someone else may not have)
- Where they live - a poor person living somewhere where they can grow much of their own food is in a better position than a poor person who does not, someone with ready access to services is in a better position than someone isolated from them, aspects of the cost of living vary depending on where you live as well)
- Relative wealth of peers and community ( better or worse off than those around you)
- Physical and mental health
- The level of choice a person has about their situation.

R0bert

Antonios asked about defining poor?

I would not use poor health or a poor quality of life as a descriptor. Kerry Packer died at 68 having had many health problems. He probably had much better medical care than I have had.

I am 83, besides hay fever have no health problems, have no false teeth and can read and drive without grasses and enjoy nature, literature and music.

Possibly my life is richer in enjoyment than Packer’s because I probably appreciate life in ways that were unavailable to him.

However, is my life really richer than Packer’s was? He had the thrill of being able to stake large sums at the gambling table. That does not appeal to me, but what I have done would probably not appeal to him.

I didn’t start this string to compare debts and assets or to define gradations of well-being among those not at the bottom.

In talking about the very poor I think there are simple criteria by which we can make that judgement. They don’t have a bed to sleep in, are insecure in safety of life and limb, don’t have a disease free source of water to drink and don’t have a roof over their heads. They may be in the cities or in the bush.

There are people like in this country, and I have seen them on the streets. How did they get that way? What can be done about it? If it is a genuine matter of choice nothing should be done about it. I think it is rarely or never a matter of choice. How can we keep this from happening to others?

On Sunday I saw a man sitting on a ledge at Anzac Square. He was next to a little portable radio tuned low. Beside him was a shopping cart with what I assumed were the sum of his worldly possessions. His eyes were red-rimmed. His grimy sweater and trousers were raggedy, and he seemed oblivious to the world. I am posting about him.

There is no problem in defining very poor. He was it.

One is often consoled with the thought that there are others who are worse off but what off the poor bastard who cannot take comfort in that? the person who is genuinely worst off?
So how would you define such a person?
We all have lifeplans, some are better formulated than others but each and everyone of us has some of idea of what we need for our life plan.
A rational plan is one that one can have some realistic hope of achieving. For example a person who is blind would not rationally have a plan that requires the ability to see.
In a just society people have the means to implement their rational plans of life. That requirement is only tempered by the reality that your plan cannot be achieved at the expense of someone else's plan.
When we look at our society we see that there are a great number of people who are incapable of implementing their rational life plan because of the way the goods needed to achieve your plan are distributed.
I am not referring to wealth as such but even in affluent Australia there are people who do not have access to quality education, quality health care - access to the sort of public infrastructure that is essential to execute one's rational plan of life.
Part of the reason for this lies in the way we distribute our wealth. In Australia as in most other western democracies about 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth - if that imbalance was addressed then even the very worst off in our society would have a chance to execute their rational plan of life - at very least we would give them reason to hope.

Davidf “I would like to see a feature telling about 100 of the poorest people. I don’t know about them, but I would like to find out.”

Why?

Poverty is hardly something to aspire to –

unless you are a socialist, who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution, through the relentless leveling of everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Some folks feel "poor" and demand the state provide for their every whim, before considering the value to be gained from their own efforts.

Conversely:

If some of us were to lose all that we do possess overnight, we would not feel “poor” because such feelings are alien to our “attitude”

In short, whilst I can still hear Mozart being played on a public broadcasting system, or see the works of Canaletto and Cellini in library books -

I will never be “poor”.

My sincere apologies, David. It was never my intent to 'cheapen' your post with obfuscations and hair splitting. My point was in purely dollar terms, a person in debt could be defined as poorer than someone who has nothing.
In our society, it is almost always better to be in debt.
As to the poor bloke you describe, it is circumstances such as these that are gradually converting me from atheist to anti theist.
My sister and I once had a discussion about why we are who we are. She believed we all have choices, and ultimately, we are defined by those choices. I -naturally- took the opposite view.
Some people are quite obviously capable of making better choices than others. My sister has always chosen fairly wisely, while me, not so much.
Clearly, intelligence has a lot to do with our decision making abilities, but also our background and beliefs must play a big part. You probably wouldn't go to a Palestinian born and raised on the Gaza Strip for an unbiased and objective decision on how to deal with Jews, to use an extreme example.
The point is, I know of no one who 'earned' their intelligence, or had any say in their background or the way they were brought up. Yes, we do have choices, but the decisions we make are often governed by circumstances beyond our control.
And it appears there are a number of theists who justify leaving poor sods in the street, by ascribing it to 'God's Will'.
In fact, how else can millionaire Christians (surely an oxymoron) like say, Kevin Rudd, justify the egregious and growing gap between haves, and have nots?
I have seen very little evidence that the richest members of our society are the best and brightest, or even the most productive; although this may be due to change. I have heard complaints that some of our brightest students are ignoring the sciences, in favour of business studies.
Undeniably the smartest thing they could do for themselves, but of dubious benefit to society.

Dear Col,

Your post expresses the attitude: "If you're poor it's your own fault." I sincerely hope you will never be poor. However, you cannot control all the circumstances in your life and may wind up being poor even though you can hear Mozart being played on a public broadcasting system or see the works of Canaletto and Cellini in library books. The fellow I saw in Anzac Square may not be able to go into a library to look at art books because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.

You questioned why I would like to find out about what has happened to those people. I am a human being who is troubled by the suffering of other human beings. I don't appreciate the sarcasm of your remark "Poverty is hardly something to aspire to" It is also something not to turn one's eyes away from.

Why does my concern bother you?

I know of no socialist who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution. That is your definition of socialism.

We have different attitudes towards life. I believe that much of our life is beyond our control. I was fortunate enough to have a good set of genes. I didn’t pick my parents. I was fortunate enough to get a very good education. I went to a public school in the United States during the depression years when people were lucky to get any sort of job. My teachers were people who could have had very lucrative jobs in a time of prosperity. Instead they wound up teaching. Doc Poland, my chemistry teacher, was a brilliant man and a brilliant teacher. Many of my teachers had PhDs in the fields they taught.

As a veteran of the US army in WW2 the government paid for my university education. I have led a good life but recognize that the good life was largely a matter of circumstance.

Had I been born in Europe in 1925 instead of in the US the Nazis probably would have put me to death.

Davidf " Your post expresses the attitude: If you're poor it's your own fault."

Not at all. My post expresses the attitude “poverty” is

as much a state of mind

as it is a state of material paucity.

“I sincerely hope you will never be poor.”

I am the son of a UK railway worker. I did not arrive with a silver spoon in my mouth.

So there is little you could teach me about being “poor”.

“because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.”

Oh so he needed a security guard to stand over his wealth?

“Why does my concern bother you”

It does not. Asking the question “why”? is an open question and alludes to no “bothersome” concern.

“I know of no socialist who thinks we should all be reduced to poverty and destitution. That is your definition of socialism.”

I was not attempting a “definition of ” socialism,

I was observing the inevitable “consequences” of it.

“We have different attitudes towards life. I believe that much of our life is beyond our control.”

Too right, I believe we control what we want to and those who aspire to or use the excuse they have no “control” end up broke and in the gutter or the beneficiaries of state leveler benevolence (which is, invariably, less than one could achieve if one took control and applied even a modest effort).

“Had I been born in Europe in 1925 instead of in the US the Nazis probably would have put me to death.”

And it would have been my family members who would have tried to save you:

because we believe in the sanctity and worth of the individual

and not the crushing authority of the state.

A list of the 100 poorest people is a great idea david and would go some way in understanding nature of poverty. Like others who have posted the 100 Rich List is enough to bring on a yawn.

Why are we so titillated by the rich and by celebrity? They are generally an unhappy lot in my experience far removed from the real world. There are of course some exceptions.

Rather a rich list of those who made their money via ethical means - without exploitation, price fixing, anti-competition activities, fraud, corruption, planned obsolecence etc - you can fill in the gaps.

For me, distribution of wealth is about reducing the gap between rich and poor. And about valuing those important unsung roles in society that often receive poor recompense but give heaps in value to us all.

Take about fifty five Federal Court Judges, including the seven Judges on the High Court and add the forty five odd Members of the House of Representatives who are legally trained, and you have the 100 poorest people in Australia. They are not money poor, but intellectually and morally as poor as church mice.

Their addiction to money, is the source of their abject poverty. They are poor because the wealth they have cannot be taken with them, and the evil that they do lives after them. To live a rich and fulfilling life, and be a top 100 person, is far more rewarding that to accumulate enormous wealth, and every one dies sooner or later.

There is nothing warms the heart more than a man or woman, quietly going to meet his or her maker, in his or her own good time, having lived a good life, surrounded by admiring and loving relatives, who respect their right to die peacefully. Eventually every organism dies to be reduced to the dust from which it arose.

Sixty five percent of those 100, if statistics have any meaning, will be Christians, and some will even go to Church sometimes or often, but that is not enough. They may talk the talk but the real job is to walk the walk.

Unless the 100 poorest people in Australia realize that the Australian Constitution incorporates the principles of the New Testament and that Matthew 7 Verses 7-12 should govern all their conduct, in all courts, including Parliament, they will remain poor in spirit, and a burden on the rest of us.

The symptoms of their moral poverty are clear to see on many street corners in the three main Capital Cities in Australia. Just look at the poor homeless men and women, sleeping rough either drunk or drugged out of their minds, and there go the 100 poorest people in Australia after they cross the great divide. The Devil tried to tempt Jesus Christ, in Matthew 4:8-10. Jesus answer was complete, and when the accounting is done, their balance may be very poor indeed

You have a remarkable mind, Col Rouge.
It's fascinating to see a statement like:

"My post expresses the attitude “poverty” is as much a state of mind as it is a state of material paucity"

So closely followed by:

"'because he would not know what to do with his shopping cart.'
Oh so he needed a security guard to stand over his wealth?"

Dearest Col,
Oh ya! such British aggrandising selective use of the facts is stunning.
Do I mention the "ship of shame". How about the prejudice that was about in England about the Jews for what was it 400 years?
The ONE Jewish born PM was a lapsed Jew.

Let's get real, the British weren't there to save the world... Just Britain. which is ok I guess, but the pretense is ludicrous.

In two world wars and incompetently so. Remember Gallipoli ? how about Singapore...and oh yes the statement 'England first then Australia'.... The common denominator... Winni the poo.

Excuse me if I don't get out the Union Jack and wax lyrical of his praise.

Do we then praise the Brits for their duplicitous actions in the the middle east and Asia all the pain/deaths etc?

By the way where in the world is/was there ever a real socialist government.USSR? Cuba? nth Korea? (perhaps you should read a bit more.) it wasn't socialism that created the problem it was the dictators.

Facts trump the "seductive(?) waft"(sic) of Baroness Botcher's oops sorry (Thatcher)immortal shoes.Who? and/or who cares? most of us may well ask.

Oh yes your assumptions about being better off under 'liaise Faire Economics' (caveat emptor), the illogical assumption that survival of the least empathetic' and or most ruthless is a real chuckle headed piece of chauvinism. Prove it!

And the real lulus that everyone has the same skill level and I especially love the notion that poverty is only in the mind. The logical extension is that the poor are feeble minded but don't need protection from the predatory for the sake of society. What a load of prejudice and irrational tosh.

But, I forget Society doesn't exist.... because... BARONESS goddess said so. Well then that it then isn't it.

It's good to see you haven't lost any of your hyperbolic arrogance and you call me names?

NB I attack what you say not you personally

I have chosen the forty six lawyer types in the House of Representatives, because any one of them, at any sitting of the High Court of Parliament, has the right to raise a matter of privilege, and by the Statutory Rules of Parliament, Parliament must stop, until the contempt of Parliament is purged. They have been privileged to be given a great education, and be chosen by a majority of the people in their electorate, to carry out a noble trust.

Parliament has abolished slavery in Australia but it continues unabated as the premier punishment for all crime. Parliament has made enslavement the subject of the most condign punishment, 25 years imprisonment, but not one Lawyer Member, has stood on his feet and asked why, since the 16th October 2001, not one prosecution has occurred.

I have chosen the fifty five highest unelected public officials, give or take a few, who inhabit the Federal and High Courts, because they are the ones who should be prosecuted, and have their salaries turned over together with their superannuation, to the poor they have caused to be abused by State Governments. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and once upon a time, in the fairy tale Kingdom that was Australia, there were no homeless on the streets to act as the conscience of those in high public office, because the system was working.

These 100 should remember Our God, is a forgiving God, not a vengeful one, and as lawyers should understand we used to have the Lex Misericordiae, the law of mercy, not the Lex Talionis the claw for a claw and eye for an eye, philosophy of the Old Testament. Because the media is mostly bloodthirsty, and loves gory stories and horror tales, they promote vengeance over forgiveness. The 100 poorest people could become saviours. They choose

The poorest 100 in Australia would still earn (receive) much more from the dole than the vast majority of people in the world. IN the middle of the biggest mining boom in history where we had to import thousands of skilled and unskilled workers we still had the unemployable. The problem is obviously a lot more spiritual than physical. Very sad really but you can only blame successive Governments who have created a poverty mentality where people feel the world owes then grog, drugs, food, housing, free transport, free health... No wonder we have so many poor.

Col,

You remind me of the hard British soldier character in the movie "Rob Roy" who wanted to ethnically cleanse the Scots.

And you have the cold, incisive intellect of Avon and Orac in "Blakes Seven", not to mention a wide Calvinist streak.

In an absolute, puritanical sort of way you are right. People in poverty are to some extent responsible for their situation. But, sometimes the things they suffer are way out of proportion to what they are responsible for. The thing is, as they get more and more marginalised, it becomes impossible for them to get back into the mainstream even if they wanted to change their ways. It's to these people that compassion should, and in fact must, eventually be extended.

Examinator “Oh ya! such British aggrandising selective use of the facts is stunning.
Do I mention the "ship of shame". How about the prejudice that was about in England about the Jews for what was it 400 years?
The ONE Jewish born PM was a lapsed Jew”

You seem to have a “racists” problem with the British. Kindly leave your small minded prejudices out of the forum.

Maybe you have a problem with the Jews too. Remember Disraeli was PM of Britain at a time his fellow Jews were being persecuted across Europe

I fail to see what your addled mind is attempting to contrive but it is pretty feeble substitute for rational thought (or any thought)

“NB I attack what you say not you personally”


Then why do you go on about my forefathers?...

As to the facts.. tell me what did I “selectively use”

Deal with this fact..

Australia was settled by the British, It was, for many years a British Colony and still benefits from the stability of many historic British institutions, customs and values.

I am not sure which far flung cesspool of deprivation you were vomited up from but I can see wherever it was, Brit-bashing seems to be a local sport

So get this sun-shine…. This Brit by birth (Australian by choice) bashes back

ROBp “who wanted to ethnically cleanse the Scots.”

Are you implying I have suggested ethnically cleansing anyone RobP?

If you are, say it and debate the point

Don’t bother to post riddles and innuendo disguised as “opinion”, it shows you as a coward who lacks the courage to stand behind your views.

Regarding “The thing is, as they get more and more marginalised, it becomes impossible for them to get back into the mainstream even if they wanted to change their ways. It's to these people that compassion should, and in fact must, eventually be extended.”

Yes and I feel compassion is a human virtue which cannot be assigned or bequeathed to government.

"Compassion” treats each person as an individual but government can treat people only on an equal basis.

David the last set of posts have highlighted yet another poverty, a poverty that I suspect we all share and rarely escape. The poverty of understanding, empathy and compassion.
Often when I post something the responses remind me how difficult it is to write accurately and precisely. We tend to treat these posts like real conversations the problem is that the many non verbal cues that make the spoken word intelligible are missing. As a result what started out as a harmless response becomes a cutting jibe, a personal attack.
Yet when we respond in that manner, when we lash out angrily, we are demonstrating that the greatest poverty that we all have is the difficulty in accepting the right of others to their opinion. When we are insulted and afronted we respond by countering in kind. Yet had it occurred in conversation we would have had the good sense to check that we understood correctly.
I guess none of this would matter if we could label those who indulge in verbal attacks as being atypical; I suspect that far from being atypical this is the one flaw we all share. Hence my suggestion that it may well be the true test of human poverty - our inability to consistently act with charity and compassion to one another regardless of what we may personally think about their views.

Col,

I'll take your response to mean that I hit the truth right on the button.

Baygon:”Hence my suggestion that it may well be the true test of human poverty - our inability to consistently act with charity and compassion to one another regardless of what we may personally think about their views.”

Shuddup.

Nah kidding. I have come across a lot of compassion, David F is over on another thread defending Col. Freaked me out completely, I suspect Col is actually bullet proof.

See you can tell face to face if you are being heard and if someone is being deliberately obtuse or some emotion has taken over any clear thoughts. Difficult on line to judge, I lose track quite badly of where I am at times and am often guilty of reading through a message too quickly and reacting more than replying.

The 100 poor has confused me the more I read about the definitions one could apply.

Runner is making sense to me though... but I will go back now and check I read it properly.

RobP “I'll take your response to mean that I hit the truth right on the button.”

No

I said “Are you implying I have suggested ethnically cleansing anyone RobP?

If you are, say it and debate the point”

And your response has hardly “hit the button”

Obviously, I was right, you lack the courage to debate and prefer to simply hide behind innuendo and cheap side-swipes.

BAYGON “The poverty of understanding, empathy and compassion.”

Because someone does not come forth with immediate offers of materail support and succor does not imply a lack of “understanding, empathy or compassion”

It might just mean the application of the concepts of understanding empathy and compassion are considered to be achieved in other, better ways, means and mediums.


I often find it contradictory that so many people suggest for Africa


"Showing a man how to farm and feed his family is a better solution, versus giving him food rations,"


Whereas when the "man" happens to be in Australia,


we seem to follow the concept of give him a handout, so he can have a lifestyle equal to everyone else.


I know which one will eventually work (although we seem to spend a lot of effort on training African farmers to no avail).


Maybe we need to retrain the politicians too (but in Australia as well as Africa).


We also need to retrain the do-gooders, so they can stop pretending that a society based on handouts produces any “sustainable solution”.


And TPP.. yes.. I have a charmed life..

on that other thread someone suggested I had superhuman skills..

that could be so and I might modestly observe, one of them might have made me “bullet-proof” :-)

"I said “Are you implying I have suggested ethnically cleansing anyone RobP?"

Col,

I know - I didn't answer because you were trying to change the question. But if you must have an answer, I don't remember you ever saying anything about ethnic cleansing - I made an association between the energy and views you exhibit and that activity. After all, I said originally that you REMINDED me of it not that you actually did it. Not that I could possibly know from a blog.

Re courage: the easiest thing in the world for me to do would be to mould an argument that agreed with you. Safe as houses, I'd be. It actually takes more courage for me to disagree with your view. And, I'll help the down-and-outs before you as it's them who need it more.

On the second page of this topic Col Rouge asks "why?", in response to davidf saying "I would like to see a feature telling about the 100 poorest people".

In the first post here davidf wrote 4 paragraphs. In the last 2 of those 4 paragraphs we see that davidf had already answered Col Rouge's question, "Why?". I've been reading a few of Col Rouge's posts these past few days, and the one thing that particularly stands out is that Col Rouge often doesn't comprehend what others write. He then replies, often in a combative manner, not to what the other poster actually said, but to what Col Rouge would prefer others to think what the poster really meant. Col often attempts to do this in a sarcastic and clever way, which shows 2 things (1) he's sarcastic (2)he's NOT particularly clever. Col seems to lack human empathy and personal insight, 2 of the main ingredients towards what makes us more intelligent than other species. Col, from his posts, seems to think that he's clever and smart. I actually have formed a different opinion, I think he's one of these people who gets off on "battle" and I don't thinks he's particularly smart at all. For a while I even thought he might be antiseptic, as they share very similar behaviours here on this forum. I realise antiseptic pretty much attacks women only, and that Col Rouge attacks both men and women, but that would be a pretty good cover I guess. But I'm not so sure now that Col Rouge is antiseptic, despite their remarkable similarities when they descend into juvenile sarcasm. Col Rouge needs to actually properly read, and try to understand, what others are actually saying. He often doesn't do that, unless the other poster is in total agreement with him........ and by not doing that he's certainly leaving by the wayside that higher intellect he believes he possesses. The fact is of course, he doesn't possess what he thinks he possesses in this regard.

Col Rouge
I will never be “poor”.
Are you sure that you are not poor in social sensitivity and understanding?
Are you sure you are not poor in social solidarity and social support?
Are you sure that you are not poor in understanding the social and economic, political privileges?
Are you sure you are not poor in understanding the social, economic and political discriminations and barriers?
Do you know persons with high IQ, maturity, responsibility or productivity stack on the bottom and other with very low IQ, lazy, immature or irrisponsible jumped on the top?
Did you ever interested to see how the system of equal opportunities work?
Did you ever interested to see how many barries there are who control the trafic to rich or poor, succes or fail?
Did you see professors to clean the floors and IDIOTS TO BE MANAGERS?
This world is not fair and logical at all.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I agree with David f's definition of poverty.
The inability to afford minimal standards
of food, clothing, shelter, and health care.

Why isn't something done about eradicating poverty?
The reason may well lie in the belief that the poor
are in poverty because they are 'idle,' and prefer
to live on 'handouts.'

Opinion polls
repeatedly show large sections of the community
favouring cuts in welfare spending, or favouring
plans to 'make welfare recipients go to work.'

Myths abound:
that welfare recipients are a terrible
burden on society - (welfare actually represents two
percent of the Federal Budget); that people are on
welfare indefinitely - (most receive it for less than
two years).

Why do these myths persist?
If those who get ahead can claim credit for their
success, then those who fall behind must, logically
be blamed for their failures. The poor are therefore
supposed to need incentives to work, rather than help
at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, there are few complaints about how the
Nation pays out far more in "handouts," to the
non-poor than to the poor. A large majority of people
receive benefits in one form or another. This fact
generally escapes attention because these benefits
take the indirect form of hidden subsidies or tax
deductions rather than the direct form of cash payments.

I imagine that were surveys to be done - a great deal
of benefits from hidden subsidies would go to the
top five percent of income earners in the country.

I'm not trying to suggest that poverty is "all society's
fault," Some people undoubtedly contribute to their
deprived circumstances. But poverty like wealth is the
outcome of a complex interaction between individual
human beings and the social environment in which they
find themselves.

If we can socially construct our societies, we can
also socially modify them as well - provided that people
are conscious of their own ability to change what they've
created. Whether we choose to preserve, modify, or
change our system is ultimately up to us.

Our choice - what kind of society we want to live in.

Mary:”...I've been reading a few of Col Rouge's posts these past few days,...”

Were you holding a cross, garlic, wooden stake, holy water, gun fully loaded with silver bullets, kryptonite, a bible, your blanky?

WHY MARY? WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING?

Well TPP, after I read a post I then look at the name at the bottom, and by mere chance Col Rouge has been popping up a few times lately. Now I know this would give him joy, because it means he's the centre of my attention for 1 minute. He probably gets off on this attention, but as we know most men take less than 60 seconds so I guess my 1 minute gives him ample time. God bless him.

Ludwig, doesn't our system already take from the rich and give to the poor.

We have 42% who are welfare dependant, this means the other 58% (call them rich if you like) pay extra taxes which provide the very welfare they receive.

How much more do you want the 58% to give. They already pick up the slack and pay all the bills?

Mary:Well TPP, after I read a post I then look at the name at the bottom, and by mere chance Col Rouge has been popping up a few times lately. Now I know this would give him joy, because it means he's the centre of my attention for 1 minute. He probably gets off on this attention, but as we know most men take less than 60 seconds so I guess my 1 minute gives him ample time. God bless him.”

Given the content of some posts I reckon he is getting more than enough attention at home in all departments and performing over par to have this attention bestowed on him now with the promise of it continuing in sickness and in health.

I’m trying to work out if this latest flurry of debate is the man positively gushing with love for all mankind but not allowing it to hold him back while participating in his favorite sports activities which look like CJ hunting and Examinator fishing with a little David prodding thrown in.

But I have faith that maybe next year when marital bliss has settled in with a comforting warm and more domestic embrace that we might see more of the “no one is safe”, “god help what you say to me”, “you’re going to be so sorry once you’ve looked all the words up”, man we all cherish for his uniqueness and utterly arctic approach without favoritism.

Yeah okay, I hate it when he’s telling me off. I’m backpedaling and arsekissing like crazy.

Peace out.

I suspect those who don't believe in the condition of poverty or being poor have never been experienced those conditions which are high risk for poverty such as disability, chronic illness, old age, PTSD (Vietnam vets), single parenting, mental illness, gambling or drug addiction etal. Excepting Third World poverty which is entirely another discussion.

While I understand Col's concept of individual responsibility what I think he misses sometimes is the fact that things can happen to people that are out of their control - even for a short time. Things that might make it difficult to lift them up from the abyss to become self-supporting and contributing individuals.

It is not impossible but support is necessary from governments, private individuals and charities in various combinations. Some individuals may require less support than others, but ultimately we cannot assume that we are all the same, that we have the same level of education, family support, intellect or the same personality types.

These supports benefit the whole community in the long term.

"What would 100 very poor people tell us about our society? They don’t have to be identified by name, but enough of their story should be told so we would know about them. Maybe it would tell us something about our government and ourselves."

Getting back to this question, I bet if you did a "longitudinal" study of the 100 most poor people, leaving aside for a moment how you define them, you'd find that at various points along their life path, they had to make a decision and take a fork in the road. Often, their decisions would have been made with incomplete information and with the stigma of some past failure in the back of their mind. Their decision would have been made knowing, from previous exerience, what blockages for them there were out there in society and what their own personal weaknesses were. I guess that people in poverty take a certain decision to shield their weaknesses from painful exposure because poverty seems like the easiest way out, when what would be best for them is some support to take the next step on the road to their rehabilitation - normally the slow scenic route rather than climbing up a sheer cliff face. Half the time, external moral support is needed just to give the person the courage to have a go. Some of the time, helping these people is futile because they don't want to change (better to leave them alone), but sometimes it makes all the difference. Sometimes, if you get to them early enough, all they need is a psychological boost when they're feeling low.

The bottom line is that if everyone in society did a little bit more to help - the "many hands make light work" approach - the positive momentum could one day snowball until the problem of poverty in all its forms was gotten rid of. A little pollyanna-ish? Not if society at large focussed on it.

Thanks for the question, David.

RobP I can confirm your latest comment. In the early days of privitization of the labour market I was CEO of a company that specialised in placing the long term unemployed. In personal interviews I discovered that offering these people a job meant exposing them to a great risk. The government recognizes that when you are long term unemployed you need a more robust safety net - you do not have the cash reserves to cover the costs of things we tend to take for granted. You now offer them a job. Because they are long term unemployed the employer offers them a short term trial - the problem for me was that I knew that some employers were simply taken advantage of the financial incentives offered to take on long term unemployed; once the incentives finished so did the job. This meant that instead of being regarded as long term unemployed they were back at the end of the queue financially worse off and even more difficult to employ for their CV would now seem to indicate that they were difficult to employ.
Over the 3 years I was doing this we had over 5,000 people on our books. Of these about half a dozen were genuine dole bludgers. The majority were just as you described people in a situation where they could not identify how they could lift themselves out of poverty.

Foxy “The inability to afford minimal standards”

Problem: a “standard” is like a “bar” which people hurdle over…

how high or how low the standard might be depends on who sets it.

Ultimately a “standard” is just another subjective measure which will vary with situation and circumstances.

I guess the “Australian Standard” bar is set somewhere above the “Sub-Saharan Standard” –

Yet I suspect a real “minimum” will be common and consistent across continents.

And people survive in Sub-Sahara Africa.



Oh MaryE you need to improve your presentation style if you expect anyone to bother to read what you write.

I got half way through that block of tightly written drivel and fell into a coma of disinterest (even though it was about me).




ASymeonakis “Are you sure that you are not poor in social sensitivity and understanding?”

Define them and I will tell you

“Are you sure you are not poor in social solidarity and social support?”

Define them and I will tell you

Are you sure that you are not poor in understanding the social and economic, political privileges?
Are you sure you are not poor in understanding the social, economic and political discriminations and barriers?

I am unsure what “wealth” there is to be found in such “gifts”

Do you know persons with high IQ, maturity, responsibility or productivity stack on the bottom and other with very low IQ, lazy, immature or irrisponsible jumped on the top?

Yes

But the lazy, irresponsible ones do not jump much

“Did you ever interested to see how the system of equal opportunities work?”

Yes, But equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes.

“Did you ever interested to see how many barries there are who control the trafic to rich or poor, succes or fail?”

I overcame them

“Did you see professors to clean the floors and IDIOTS TO BE MANAGERS?”

All the time

“This world is not fair and logical at all.”


So what…

we all have to make the most of it

It is whats called "life"

make your own way... no one will make it for you

Pelican “what I think he misses sometimes is the fact that things can happen to people that are out of their control - even for a short time.”

That is where you are very, very wrong

I have known

Job loss(es), heart attacks, bypass surgery, death of parents, divorce …..

the usual stuff, which many folk experience

by needing to deal with such issues, they become the steps which help us to grow as individuals ….

My life, like many peoples, has been a process of forward momentum, interdispered with sudden and sometimes unexpected backward steps...

Where I can I am insured (house insurance, life cover, income protection etc), where I am not I have to manage / deal the consequences and accept the help of my network friends and those who know and love me.

But we come back to how “high” a support standard should be set…

Support sufficient to finance a 5 bedroom mansion in Toorak or Vaucluse?

or

Support just sufficient to ensure people eat today?

Or

Something in between

and for the something in between.....

“support is necessary from governments, private individuals and charities in various combinations.”

How government spends tax payers money is subject to the electorates scrutiny.


How private individuals spend their private resources is up to them


Charities fall in between.. they are subject to public scrutiny against fraud etc


The danger with addressing those three support sources in one single statement is to assume the levels of scrutiny and public accountability is common; whereas, obviously, it is not.

I would set the "support bar" at below "subsistence" level (well below the minimum wage), where the opportunity to be "economically self-supporting" was seen as an upward step.

I would abandon maternity allowances and all the other bling-bling stupidities.

for old aged pensions, such funding needs a life time..

we cannot abandon those who came before us because we changed the rules but we do need to wean the commnunity off the idea of "government pensions as a safety net"... over say 4 decades.

The responsibility for the 100 poorest people in Australia whoever they are rests firmly with the three East Coast State Governments. Tasmania is too cold, I think because I saw very few homeless in Hobart.

There is no doubt that the over regulation of the boarding houses in Sydney by the Sydney Council and State Government caused them to close throwing their residents on the streets. There is no doubt the creation of a State Judicial Power, in the name of a State Government in all of those States after they got the Australia Act 1986 has made the access to justice outside the possibility of any homeless person. There is no doubt the monopoly enjoyed by the legal profession, from magistrate to High Court, in providing Judges, means that compassion has died.

There is no doubt that many criminal corporations like Visy are able to buy justice, while thousands sleep rough every night, winter and summer. There is no doubt there is plenty of money in Australia, and it is unevenly distributed. The creation of a State Judicial Power is illegal, and the only reason States are not being called to account is the unwillingness of the Commonwealth and Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth Laws against them.

Until we restore the justice system we had between 1900 and 1953, and give everyone fair free and unfettered access to justice, not just Law, then we will continue to see sights that make us feel guilty. The States are parasites. In a country of 21 million people we don’t need them. They were abolished in practical terms in 1995, by Paul Keating’s government but Howard loved them, with their Labor Governments he could denigrate and they kept him in power lots longer than he should have been.

I know that some think I am a nutter, but I have researched the reasons for poverty and it is the Australia Act 1986. It creates nine separate Churches in Australia with Church and State merged in Judges and Magistrates. When a Justice and jury ruled, there was only one Commonwealth Sovereign power

RobP, I wonder if this is really true:
"I guess that people in poverty take a certain decision to shield their weaknesses from painful exposure because poverty seems like the easiest way out..."
I think we are all aware to some degree of "the flow". Some of us just like to drift along, go with 'the flow', no stress, no hassles. Over achievers I think are striking out (in the swimming sense) all the time, sometimes against the flow, sometimes trying to beat the flow; sometimes winning, sometimes losing, but always battling.
We all make decisions based on limited data, and I think we -at least the honest ones- can look back on our lives and think "Thank God I chose..." or "why on earth did I choose..."
Some people decide not to make decisions; and strangely that doesn't automatically commit them to poverty.
It may just commit them to well paid bureaucracy.
I strongly believe that 'fortune favours the prepared mind'; but I also believe very few people if any have ever succeeded entirely by their own devices. I think every honest person can look back and see how their lives were affected by others, for good or ill.
In other words, I agree with the bulk of your post, and with Baygon's.

BAYGON

Because they are long term unemployed the employer offers them a short term trial - the problem for me was that I knew that some employers were simply taken advantage of the financial incentives offered to take on long term unemployed; once the incentives finished so did the job

You are right to some extent, however, most long term unemployed are in this situation for a reason.

Either they are unreliable, or their skill levels are low. There are also the ones with minor dissabilities, through no fault of their own, however, the system fails to realise this and expects employers to pay 100% wages in return for say 70% productivity.

This is why they loose their jobs. It is also the reason I won't employ someone on this scheem.

I did once, however I realised that the job would be to hard for him, so I terminated him so he would at least have some 'credit' left for the next employer. I was almost taken to the cleaners for that by the department as they said I had broken the agreement. I only acted in good faith.

I guess this is yet another example of why set pay rates don't work at times.

I agree with col.

There are 'poor people' and there are people who can loose everthing and become poor.

Now if you are one of us who have worked hard for what you have, then just because you may one dayloose everything, does not mean that you will be poor, as, it is often the 'fight in the dog' that matters, not the 'dog in the fight'.

People who are self made, often made it form leaving thier comfort zone and taking risks.

Risks like starting or buying a business. Commiting huge sums of money to buy property 'off the plan', thinking that the market will be strong when you get to sell.

I can assure you that if I lost everything, and I almost have a couple of times, then I would not be poor for long as we usually tend to learn from our mistakes and come back even stronger.

It's a bit of a rush!

>>RobP, I wonder if this is really true:
"I guess that people in poverty take a certain decision to shield their weaknesses from painful exposure because poverty seems like the easiest way out..."<<

Grim, can you think of a better reason why people get into poverty? Who would choose to live, say, on the street otherwise? There has to be some underlying reason. I'm fairly sure it's some sort of weakness as there can't be many people who prefer to live that way, can there?

I'm sorry, RobP, I thought I did list the reasons, fairly comprehensively. It's difficult to be brief, without leaving things out.
Specifically, I would suggest these people made a series of bad or unfortunate decisions, each one contributing to the downward slope. There have been an abundance of stories (possibly apocryphal) about homeless ones being ex stock brokers, ex lawyers, insurance agents, etc. The end result being a profound depression, where the homeless one decides he/she is basically where they 'deserve' to be.
Col and Rehclub may be partially correct when they suggest that many of the extreme poor have a strong sense of 'fate' forcing them into their situation.
I would think this should engender greater sympathy and support from the rest of us, not less.
From a societal point of view, the worrying aspect is the sort of character traits currently required for success, compared to traits which tend to be disadvantageous.
Bad traits: humility, modesty, generosity, empathy, lack of ambition, sensitivity...
Good traits: Arrogance, conceit, greedy, rapacious, ambitious, insensitivity...

PetertheBeliever “The responsibility for the 100 poorest people in Australia whoever they are rests firmly with the three East Coast State Governments. Tasmania is too cold, I think because I saw very few homeless in Hobart”

The “responsibility” rest firstly with those 100 people, unless you are suggesting they are cognoitively impaired, in which case, they should have a court appointed guardian, empowered to administer their affairs.

The “likely hood” is: the 100 poorest are so bereft of the necessary documentation (re the recent Victorian bushfires) that they are denied “government welfare support”, they are likely to be effectively “itinerant nomads” (romantically “swagman” style) and most likely burden no one else with or through their choice of lifestyle.

To assume “government” is by default, the responsible authority is to assume we have an absolute “Nanny State” and that is and never should be so.

Rehctub I agree wholly with your view. Being self-supporting and self sufficient are the first steps to self-esteem.

I suspect as a “dog” you would be quick to lick your wounds and get back into the frey.

“wealth” is not limited to material possessions but to the richness of experiences and love we attract largely through our attitude.

I occasionally mention Maslow here.. anyone who is unaware of Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” should take time out to google, read and understand them and then you will have a better chance to understand what rehctub is talking about when he says “It’s a bit of a rush”

- because that rush comes from events found in the upper half of the hierarchy.

Anyone who associates “poverty” exclusively with material wealth is missing out on most of life

All of our “wealth” is only experienced by how it is interpreted through our senses and the organ between our ears and the sources of that wealth is not exclusively “material”.

On the Queensland government website I found the following:

Information about community services for young people, seniors, indigenous communities, multicultural resources, pensioner concessions, resources for women, people with disabilities, volunteers, rural and regional communities, community assistance and funding

Assistance and funding
Indigenous services
Multicultural services
People with disabilities
Rural and regional services
Seniors services
Volunteer services
Women
Youth services
Last updated 29 January 2009

I could find nothing that is being done by the government for those at the bottom. Something may be going on, but I couldn't find it.

I started this string with the hope that it might be seen and inspire an article about those at the bottom comparable to the Sunday Mail article about the rich 100.

So far there has been much speculation about how the very poor got that way.

What research has been done?

Any ideas about going beyond speculation and actually finding out?

Any information about what is being done?

I think religious groups may have done something, but I am not sure precisely what they have done.

Grim “From a societal point of view, the worrying aspect is the sort of character traits currently required for success, compared to traits which tend to be disadvantageous.

Bad traits: humility, modesty, generosity, empathy, lack of ambition, sensitivity...
Good traits: Arrogance, conceit, greedy, rapacious, ambitious, insensitivity...”

Based on my experience of life, what you define as “good” versus “bad contributors to “success” is a load of crap.

What you describe is amounts to the most negative perception of other peoples motives and values.

Anyone who wants “long term” success will more likely succeed through the adoption of what you describe as the “Bad traits” and will most likely quickly fail by pursuing your “Good traits”.

Adopting the practices which bring about “success” and the pursuit of excellence in any field of endeavour is, after all, a long term exercise.

Even Mozart had to practice his craft before he wrote his first score and he did not do it with “Arrogance, conceit, greedy, rapacious, insensitivity”. (ambition is different)

I would suggest he did it with: Dedication to the task, passion for his art, love of life, generosity of spirit, study etc.

Most commercial success is founded upon

accepting the criticism of ones customers (humility)

balancing the praise of ones customers (modesty)

extending credit to trusted clients (generosity)

being responsive to client needs (empathy and sensitivity)

“lack of ambition”, is not a “quality trait” at all… it is a deficiency.

Regarding “Arrogance, conceit, greedy, rapacious, ambitious, insensitivity...”

With the exception of “ambition”, the rest would ensure personal and business failure before success.

Ambition is part of what propels people to achieve and do better.

Without it, we would still be groveling in caves, chewing on roots, killing the odd rodent for meat

- and a life expectancy of 25 years (that is shourt but don't worry, I doubt we could even count the passage of time).

"Specifically, I would suggest these people made a series of bad or unfortunate decisions, each one contributing to the downward slope. There have been an abundance of stories (possibly apocryphal) about homeless ones being ex stock brokers, ex lawyers, insurance agents, etc. The end result being a profound depression, where the homeless one decides he/she is basically where they 'deserve' to be."

Grim, no doubt some people fall into poverty after making bad decisions. I also think others do so due to serious personal weaknesses and others because they hit a large blockage and couldn't compete on level terms with the larger forces that were around them. I'm sure when you get right down to it, poverty occurs for a whole heap of different reasons.

Col Rouge, thank you for validating my points so comprehensively.
RobP, you're probably right. As David f. suggests, more research needs to be done.

Grim "Col Rouge, thank you for validating my points so comprehensively."

Hardly.. I argued your point is total garbage and it is.

You espouse the jaded perceptions of what could only be called a "life failure".

If you have the courage to make proper debate ....

I look forward to you bringing it all on

by demonstrating where what I wrote is in error.

However, if you want to just pee into the wind...

and have a little whine about all the people who have made more of their opportunities and their life than you....

Then I wish that what you spray be returned

A thousand fold

My sincere apologies, Col Rouge; for some reason I was under the impression you were quite successful.
If you haven't really been the success you wanted to be, of course you have my deepest sympathy. Cheers.

Living decently on a very low income needs extremely good budgeting skills, something which many poor people simply don't have.
Even for those who do the best they can, things are set up in a way to make managing very difficult.

For example - basic payments of rates, car registration, insurance etc attract a surcharge if not paid as a lump sum.
Essential medical equipment eg CPAP apparatus can cost $2500. Banks will not lend to those on pensions, although GE finance will at 27%.
Having no access to small loans for essential items at market rates is a definite contributor to low income struggle.

kendra
For example - basic payments of rates, car registration, insurance etc attract a surcharge if not paid as a lump sum.
Essential medical equipment eg CPAP apparatus can cost $2500. Banks will not lend to those on pensions, although GE finance will at 27%

I doubt the 'poor' that this thread is reffering to even own a house, car etc.

As for lending on a pension, would you lend to someone not knowing if they could repay the debt.

Banks are often targeted as 'the bad guys', so, rather than risk the prospect of being a 'bully' when the loan does not get paid, i.e. pensioners, they tend to addopt the old, 'prevention is better than cure' approach and simply avoid the situation.

A Church in Sydney which has entered into a partnership with the local community, has available interest free loans up to $1000 and makes them available to pensioners. A pensioner cannot get the money for a new fridge or washing machine, from conventional lenders, but by a grant from a major lender, this Church was offered an opportunity to establish a revolving fund so that it could lend to the poor people of Sydney.

It was originally offered $15,000 but ended up getting $50,000 and has lent money to otherwise ineligible people on Centrelink benefits. Centrelink has kindly agreed to deduct a small amount every fortnight until it is paid back, and does the same with clients when it advances up to $500 to clients in temporary financial distress.

This scheme could be expanded to every Church in Australia if Churches were prepared to teach the Bible as the basis for the Australian Constitution, and instead of going into altruistic theological study of the Holy Bible, extended their research to understanding the practical aspects of the incorporation of the Holy Bible into everday life, by virtue of the Constitution. Poverty was and should again be abolished by the common law. Instead of calling upon us to make poverty history, the Churches should not be afraid to use their unparalleled political clout to actually do something about it.

I know Belly will spew, but Labor won in 2007 (and lost in 2004), because it was led by a Christian in 2007. The political clout of Christianity shifted from Liberal to Labor and that was decisive. Christians everywhere in Australia should call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to clarify the meaning of S 79 Constitution. It applies the Christian principles of the Holy Bible to the Constitution, in that it uses two words without Capitals; court and judges.

A court is never a Judge and Christians should be clearly taught that, and judges are not and never can be one person. To check it out for yourself click here:
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=473

With a liquidated penalty of $33,000 for every breach, poverty should be history

We were never taught at School or in Church that the so called Poor Laws, were a mechanism that ensured no one starved in England before there was a social security system. The Poor Laws were an essential feature of the Common Law, and Australia is the poorer as a Nation for the illegal and unauthorised abolition of the common law.

When Bob Hawke promised in 1983, that no Australian Child would live in poverty by 1990, he probably meant it, but his bite was nowhere near as good as his bark. He could have done it, by simply understanding that the common law was in force in Australia, and in 1915 in a case entitled R v Kidman, the High Court declared that there was only one judicial power of the Commonwealth. You may read an extract here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=495

If our lazy bl**dy churchmen stopped pussy footing around about poverty, and got off their superannuated backsides, and started to assert their political clout, to ensure that S 79 Constitution is enforced and enforceable, as a Christian principle, we would be able to abolish poverty absolutely in Australia.

There is a quasi religious organization that has to abolish Christian principles to prosper. It is called the Law Society or Bar Association, and they are the reason paupers are poor. The law is cruel, but justice is merciful, and S 79 Constitution was inserted into the Australian Constitution to ensure courts were courts of Judicature. Justice is bought and sold by lawyers, and the poor are getting poorer, and the rich richer. Jesus hated that.

We have all the laws we need to make poverty history. We have a powerful lobby group, with thirty members in the House of Representatives in the Labor Party and fifteen in the Liberal Party, who are all legally trained. These obstructionists of the Australian Constitution are keeping the poor, poor. If they have a true allegiance to the Labor Party, they will see that the membership of the legal profession is a conflict of interest. Lawyers were banned from the English Parliament for 498 years

When the State Government in New South Wales abolished the common law in 1970, with the Supreme Court Act 1970, they repealed the Common Law Procedure Act 1899. They guaranteed that poverty in New South Wales would become a growth industry, and that like any other third world country, we would have beggars in the streets. One of the key features in S 24 (c.) of the Common Law Procedure Act 1899 was the right of anyone to enforce Statute Law, and that included the Australian Constitution.

Before 1970, no Judge as representing Almighty God represented by Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, was entitled to disregard the Gospels, and unless authorised by higher authority, namely the Holy Ghost, was not until 1970 entitled to refuse any request for justice. This was as the Holy Bible says, this is the law and the prophets. ( Matthew 7:12). Since 1970, and after 1976 Federally, a Judge has been a God in New South Wales and Australia, and accountable to no one but himself or his fellow Gods, in the Court of Appeal.

The pagan Gods of the Greeks and Romans had no compassion. The pagan Gods of Australia have none either. The real reason for Exodus was the injustice of the Egyptians towards the Jews. God said I have heard your cry and I am answering it. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has heard the cry of Australia’s poor and enacted the laws to abolish poverty forever. S 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) carry fines of $165,000 and $122,000 respectively if and when the High Court decision in 1996, establishing the “Kable Principle” is accepted by the Government.

Justice Gaudron said in that decision: the States are not free to legislate as they please. As soon as the Commonwealth accepts that the States cannot abolish the Common Law, and nor can the Commonwealth, good honest people will be able to ensure poverty in Australia is history. There should be no poverty in any common law country. The word Commonwealth incorporates the common law, and it is your birthright

You've made a pretty good assessment of the way things are, rehctub.
The question is:
Do you think that's the way things should be?

Of course the homeless and people without possessions are far more needy than pensioners who have a home and transport.
I was simply trying to point out the things that can send people on a downward spiral arent simply mismanagement or mental illness.
The costs of poor health and maintaining a home can in fact lead people to lose what they have.

You've made a pretty good assessment of the way things are, rehctub.
The question is:
Do you think that's the way things should be?

Well, yes, I do.

Banks can't simply lend out of compasion, they need security and assurance that the loan will be repaid. As I stated, the last thing they need is bad publicity, so they avoid it.

On the other hand, if a younger family member were to offer to guarantor the loan, then I see little problems here.

Kendra
he costs of poor health and maintaining a home can in fact lead people to lose what they have

I agree. Many pensioners can't afford to keep thier homes simply due to rates, as a result of the value.

I have sid for years that if you reside in a your residence for a period of at least ten consecutive years, then the rateable value should be frozen. This alone would save many pensioners from having to sell up due to skyrocketing rates.

Some homes are now worth in excess of 10 million$, why should the owners have to pay rates based on that if they have lived there, raised a family and now wish to reside there for the rest of their lives.

However, I still doubt anyone on the 100 poorest list own a home, car or even have a place they call home. Remember, we are talking about .0005 of the population, or there abouts.

Some interesting contrasts there, rehctub. You believe things are pretty right the way they are, except rates should be frozen in some circumstances.
On a thread about the 100 poorest people, you are worried about people living in houses worth more than 10 million.
Fascinating.

Nicely observed, Grim.

Grim “My sincere apologies, Col Rouge; for some reason I was under the impression you were quite successful.
If you haven't really been the success you wanted to be, of course you have my deepest sympathy. Cheers.”

Ah I always find sarcasm to be the antithesis of “success”

So me, “quite successful”?

I never ever presume myself to be either “successful” or otherwise, Grim.

I know I have done some things which I think and others would agree could be deemed “successful” (my two daughters being the crowning glories (oh Maslow’s ‘success of offspring’ comes to mind - you should read it)) and other “things” which have been total failures (which we will not dwell upon).

More importantly, I enjoy the experiences of my life, more than becoming disheartened by them.

Yet, even more important than that, I still feel I have not reached my “peak”. I feel I still have things to contribute and goals to score, I am embarking upon a new marriage, which will bring me the love, kinship and a partner who will see me achieve those goals.

“successful” is something for other people to assess of me.

“successful” or not, is something I would not wish to see written on my tombstone but rather than a word like “happy” or “ethical”, a real word, which conveys something about me, rather than shallow perceptions others might have of me.

Of course, those who hanker after “success” often find it alludes them and end up bitter and twisted, envious of we, for whom it holds no currency and they do tend to have an outlook which might be described (coincidentally) as “Grim”.

So, judge me as you wish.....

You, like me, are free to do as you want....

To make sarcastic asides and evade answering my points in debate.

As to whether you are more or less successful than I, makes not a hoot of difference to me.

I have moved on beyond the point where the opinions of others and other trivia matter...

and this is merely advise: you should try to grow a little too.

Maybe the 100 poorest people should ask themselves what makes then poor?

Is it the Gods contriving against them?

Are they poor because those who have more are being greedy?

Should those who have the ability to succeed be forced to support the economically bereft?

Should those who are poor be appreciative of the compassion shown by those with the heart and generosity of spirit to take on their burden?

OR are people poor because they just make poor life choices for themselves?

To welfare entitlement: I refer everyone to what the erudite Mrs Margaret Thatcher said to people who expect money from government:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And 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. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

The poorest will be the poorest regardless of the assistance possible from government.

The poorest will be the poorest not because other people forced them into poverty.

The poorest will be the poorest because they just “do not get it” (being what life is about and how to manage their circumstances).

And of course, “poverty” is as much a state of mind as it is a state of material wellbeing.

The only way to adequately support the 100 poorest would be to administer their affairs for them..

and I really do not think they deserve to be treated that badly …

there are, after all, some things worse than “poverty”;

like denial of personal choice and freedom.

Red Col said:

Maybe the 100 poorest people should ask themselves what makes then poor?

Is it the Gods contriving against them?

The short answer is yes. The departure from the Christian principles of government and the decline in Church attendance, is directly in relationship with the increase in poverty. I asked the Anglican Archbishop in Sydney about twelve months ago, to consider appointing a woman to a vacant parish as Vicar. I received a prompt answer, saying and I quote: This cannot be legislated for by the Commonwealth or anyone else, if it is against the teaching of the Bible.

The Gods, is a symptom of secularism. Belief in a God, any God, is central to government of any description. Chairman Mao became God of China. The order was believe in me or die. Stalin became God of Russia, and Mugabe is God of Zimbabwe. At least these regimes only had one God, and everyone knew that if they bucked that God, they would die much faster than if they obeyed him without question.

The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, so aptly described by former High Court Justice McHugh, as enabling Parliament to legislate to kill all blue eyed babies, in the Essenberg transcript is the creation of Gods, instead of Almighty God. Read the transcript for yourself: He said: I mean, Parliament established its authority over the monarch ( God) after the struggles which led to the execution of Charles I and the flight from the kingdom of James II in 1688. But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.

http://beta.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2000/385.html

Without a Christian commitment, this statement is possible from one of the Gods Col refers to. I think Justice Mc Hugh worshipped racehorses or something, and was unwilling to face the fact that legislatures are in fact fettered by the Constitution. In 1996, he was one of the Justices established the “Kable Principle”. He got one of these decisions wrong

Grim, we have pople who bought a block of land in the 50's, on the beach, where nobody wanted to live back then, so why do they have to pay tens of tousands each year in rates simply because they made a choice that turned out to be very wise some 50+ years later. Remember, most of these people don't have huge incomes, they are simply assett rich and cash flow poor and, they are being forced to sell thier homes due to the increased values. It stinks!

Now as for things being right as they are, I was reffering to the way banks lend, or don't lend to certain people.

Just remember, we are all given an equal opportunity to be poor. Some of us just prefer to defy the odds and step out of our comfort zone.

I could sell my business, my houses etc, withdraw all my cash and waste it, then I to would be poor. There's nobody stopping me!

There are also people who were poor but took risks and today are on the rich lists. The guy who designed the 'attitude' logo comes to mind.

He had an equal opportunity to fail and remain poor. So what's the problem?

rehctub,

I don't think too many people have a problem with others who take a risk and work hard having more wealth. The problem really comes when the split in society between the rich and the rest gets so large that people who are otherwise healthy become deadened - simply because they cannot compete with the fastest runners in society. That's at one end of the spectrum.

At the other end, I don't believe one should help people who aren't interested in being helped - ie, casting pearls before the swine as Jesus put it. However, it is fair enough to help those that can be helped (so long as they don't throw it back in your face). This is one reason why getting Government to dole out welfare (rather than leaving it up to individuals as Col might have it) is a good thing. Can you imagine how chaotic and fragmented things would be if it was all left up to individuals?

Would your friends with the block of land on the beach be prepared to sell that land for the same money they paid for it, in return for lower rates?
If they wanted a block in a small, uncrowded fishing village, I'm surprised they didn't sell up and move on years ago.
I have paid rates on a few houses, in a few different areas, but the rateable value of the property was never even close to the market value.
Your friends are going to make a huge capital gain on their property.
Why are you talking about them on a thread about the 100 poorest people?
We're talking about people who can't afford to eat. You're talking about people who can't afford a new Mercedes every year.

Very early on in this thread I argued for the proposition that poverty means not being able to implement your ratiional life plan due to systemic problems. In other words your lifestyle and income were not a product of your own doing but the way in which the system put road blocks in the way. My reason for this argument is that by defining poverty in this manner we take out of the equation natural advantages or disadvantages and focus purely on the way our society is organized. The exampple of people being forced out of their homes because of rising land values is a good example of this. In the 1960ties the South East Corner of Adelaide was an area of social disadvantage. People who bought homes there were your typical battlers. Over the years the area has become gentrified - the result is that the few remaining battlers have now lived in the area for close on 50 years - they are retired and are making ends meet on their pension. Their homes have increased in value as have their rates. Why should they in their old age leave their familiar environment because they cannot afford the rates? This scenario is played out all over Australia; in many instances their homes will be advertised with slogan renovate or detonate which is an other way of saying that their ratable value is in the land rather than the house. These people are given the choice to sell up and move into an unfamiliar neighbourhood or stay put and attempt to pay the rates. Some councils offer a rate holiday in return for equity in the property but that too hardly seems fair.
If people's poverty or straitened circumstances can be attributed to factors outside of their control, to the way our system is organized we have to ask the question whether or not we have a good system.

BAYGON “In other words your lifestyle and income were not a product of your own doing but the way in which the system put road blocks in the way”

Why should you see the ”system” as putting road blocks in anyone’s way?

Perhaps some folk feel poor because their “aspirations” or “sense of entitlement” exceed the value of they can produce from the deployment of their natural ability.

As for battlers buying cheap.. when their area is “gentrified” I assume those battlers who had bought their houses cheaply walked away with a fine tax free capital gain.

“If people's poverty or straitened circumstances can be attributed to factors outside of their control”

But those factors are often indeterminable and inseparable from the factors which are “within” their control

Some folk just do not make good life choices… from deciding to take drugs to running up credit card debt…. People can never be protected from the outcomes of their own stupidity.

“to the way our system is organized we have to ask the question whether or not we have a good system.”

A system which allows everyone to aspire to the maximum of their own potential is the best “system”

It may not be “good” by your definition but it is better than any other “system” which works to ensure they all end up “equal”.

Equal opportunity does not presume equal outcomes,

Quite the opposite when we consider that everyone is an individual, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits.

Doubtless the distribution of those “strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits” will not be “equal”

So if "Equal outcomes" ever became the "goal"

Since we cannot make the deficient and defective “better”, the only alternative would be to make the strong and able weaker, which will hardly produce a practical or productive outcome or anythiing which I would ever support.

Col Rouge
A system which allows everyone to aspire to the maximum of their own potential is the best “system”

This is precisely what was the intent of my post. No doubt I expressed myself badly.

In determining how well society does at achieving that we cannot extrapolate from particular examples.

Equal opportunity does not presume equal outcomes,

Quite the opposite when we consider that everyone is an individual, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits.

True, I do not disagree BUT if in looking at society you can see one group consistently at the bottom of the heap then you have to question whether or not that is a product of natural diversity or artificially created by the way society is organized.

Simple example here relates to female income. It stretches the bond of credulity to breaking point to accept that the reason that women on the whole earn about 20% less than men is due to their individual strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limits. That suggests to me that as a society we make it more difficult for an individual woman to get due recognition for their contribution.

The same argument applies to poverty. Brian Barry (Why Social justice Matters) makes the point that if the USA system was a genuine meritocracy than on the basis of George W Bush's business dealings he should be "holding out a paper cup on Broadway and begging for small change" (p143) The Bush example on its own does not prove anything. But if we go on to look at the family history of the poorest people - we find that if your parents were poor the odds are that you will be poor. This confirms my position that we live in a society that has entrenched structural inequalities, a society that only has a veneer of equality of opportunity.

But I repeat this does not mean that there are no poor people who would not be poor regardless of what system is in place.

I think rehctub's point about the asset-rich, cashflow-poor ratepayers is that they are being driven off their land because they cannot afford to pay their rates. Yes, their property is worth a small fortune, but if they sell it, what do they do with that fortune? If they buy a fantastic new mansion, they still won't be able to pay their rates. If they don't, they sacrifice the life they worked for and take up a life of suburban drudgery. They end up asset-average, cash-rich and cashflow-poor.

David's comment about the guy in Anzac Square got me thinking. Walking down Townsville's nightlife strip in the afternoon, I often pass a homeless guy sitting in a doorway, reading a book. It's not a trashy magazine, it's not a simple pulp fiction novel. He reads 'canonical' literature - the sort of thing that suggests that he is quite well educated and literate. What has happened in his life to make him discard the opportunities his education has afforded him in favour of a life of reading in doorways before being ushered away by crowds of partygoers? His story would probably be a very interesting one, should it make the (nonexistent) Poor 100.

>>Since we cannot make the deficient and defective “better”, the only alternative would be to make the strong and able weaker, which will hardly produce a practical or productive outcome or anythiing which I would ever support.<<

Col, this may not be the disaster you believe it to be. What if the weakening of the very best doers over time was replaced with lots of good doers. The effects of the go-forward would be much less lumpy (because it is less dependent on the few) and the people who are currently being eclipsed by the very good would actually have a chance to shine which would be good for their development. Your argument implies that the people lower down the pecking order are unsalvageable, when a lot of them can live productive lives if given the chance.

One thing's for sure - if you don't give them a chance you'll never find out. And, if there are a rash of high-level casualties in future, no doubt society will be giving the second wave the green light to carry things forward.

Good post, RobP. I don't think the evidence that the richest people in the world are the most intelligent, or the most productive, is all that compelling.
In fact, many of the obscenely rich, seem painfully ordinary.
Has anyone else ever seen a well regarded actor interviewed, and thought: "what a tosser!" I have seen quite a few interviewed, and without someone feeding them lines, many seem almost incoherent.
I've always wondered about that 'tall poppy' syndrome. That would be the poppy that through some natural (unearned) advantage, grew just a little bit faster, was able by that headstart to hog the nutrients of it's neighbours, grow taller and shade the neighbours, thereby putting them at a greater disadvantage...

"That would be the poppy that through some natural (unearned) advantage, grew just a little bit faster, was able by that headstart to hog the nutrients of it's neighbours, grow taller and shade the neighbours, thereby putting them at a greater disadvantage..."

I'm sure this happens quite often in life. On the bright side, in the end, the undeserving will get blown out of their tree by a big wind.

Actually, I'd like to see Col being eclipsed by someone who was manifestly undeserving. With a bit of luck, he would put his energies to good use, whip out the axe and chop the poppy down. But then again, his libertarian ideals probably extend to leaving such tall poppies alone.

RobP “What if the weakening of the very best doers over time was replaced with lots of good doers.”

Your notion of someone being a “best doer” presumes that the “good doers” are not the same folk.

History has provided us with "best doers", like the Cadbury and Fry families in UK who, (possibly because of their Quaker heritage) who were also at the forefront of improved working conditions for their workers at the time of the industrial revolution. The village of Bournville in the English Midlands, was set up by the Cadbury family as an experiment in improved industrial work environments.

“Noblesse oblige” is where the most powerful accept responsibility for the less fortunate a part of their social obligation. Again those who, at their time, would represent the “best doers” accepting responsibility to be the “good doers”

So your comment, “good doers” are a separate group to the “best doers”, is worse than a fallacy, it is a misrepresentation of historical fact.

“Your argument implies that the people lower down the pecking order are unsalvageable, when a lot of them can live productive lives if given the chance”

My argument makes no such implication, it is you who see are focusing on “social status” and pecking orders.

I believe we should all be free to aspire to the limit and reap the rewards of our individual potential, rather than being hogtied, through punitive a tax systems and limits to personal reward and freedoms, which small-minded, envy-crippled and misguided socialists think will “level the playing field” and force equal outcomes for all.

Grim “I don't think the evidence that the richest people in the world are the most intelligent, or the most productive, is all that compelling.”

Who cares, they are not subject to your judgment.

They are individuals, free to achieve for themselves and free to express their personal compassion, charity and humanity in any manner they see fit. and not subject to the whims of envy based criticism.

If relying on "compelling argument" to justify everything, we would all be dead before actually achieving anything.

>>So your comment, “good doers” are a separate group to the “best doers”, is worse than a fallacy, it is a misrepresentation of historical fact.<<

Col,

This is where we differ - you're talking about the past and I'm talking about the future. Sure, good doers and the best doers are essentially from the same stock. But there is also layering within these people. For the best outcome, it is necessary that the best go in the first wave to lead the way for those coming afterwards. That was what I was talking about. Let events telescope outwards so that those who are best equipped for the times are given the driving seat. For the best outcome overall, society needs a planning layer, followed by a foundation layer, and finally by the 'bells and whistles' layer for want of a better term, where all the gaps are filled. This requires the very smart to go first, gradually relinquishing power to others who can keep continuity with the past while still doing new things into the future.

You are consistently conflating me with socialists for the sake of making your argument easy for yourself and scoring cheap political points. Have a think about what I'm saying on their merits for a change.

Grim “I've always wondered about that 'tall poppy' syndrome.”

Yes cut them down and level them so they can see no benefit for their “natural (unearned) advantage”. On that basis, we would cut everyone down all the way back to retardation… hardly the sort of mindset which would ever promote “development of the species”.

Maybe we should cut the ham strings of all the footballers, since they have a gift which is earns them a disproportionate material reward, more than the average process worker.

RobP “Actually, I'd like to see Col being eclipsed by someone who was manifestly undeserving. With a bit of luck, he would put his energies to good use, whip out the axe and chop the poppy down”

Making such comments gives me insight into that narrow, shallow and tiny space which must be your own small world, a micro structure where you can claim to be an all powerful “King”.

Conversely, I find I have no desire to see you so “eclipsed”. Maybe my disposition is more generous and charitable than yours.

“But then again, his libertarian ideals probably extend to leaving such tall poppies alone.”

It sounds like my stated philosophy are, at last, starting to illuminate your small, dark corner.

Tall poppies, exotic orchids or short violets, it makes no difference, they are all uniquely beautiful.

I would sooner live in a world filled with the inequalities produced by diversity, than exist the regimented, monochromatic monotony of what the likes of you and other unimaginative socialist levelers would impose.

That is the difference between

The “social diversity”, of rich and poor etc.

to “mandatory equality”… of uniform socialist poverty

in the former, people have the opportunity to “live”

in the latter, they merely “exist”.

In the former, a small minority have the opportunity to 'live'.
For the majority, about two thirds manage to merely exist, if they're lucky.
The rest just die.

Col Rouge,

You are a first-class intellectual tosser. Enjoy yourself.

All your diatribe is, is a cover to continue to hang it on people who you look down upon. And you call yourself humble. Oh dear.

Grim “In the former, a small minority have the opportunity to 'live'.”

And in the latter no one gets an opportunity to be anything….

I will always fight for the former, since your feeble attempt at selling the latter rates as something less than puerile.

RobP “You are a first-class intellectual tosser. Enjoy yourself.

All your diatribe is, is a cover to continue to hang it on people who you look down upon. And you call yourself humble. Oh dear.”

Maybe you can quote from me where I have “looked down” upon anyone.

Of course, it is you who make the judgments, I guess you cannot understand how I accept people as they are, gifted or otherwise, individuals everyone instead of reflecting the class-bound, envy based values which you espouse.

But you remind me of something Margaret Thatcher once said

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

I know what your intent was, even though your collective mediocrity ensured fell well short of “wounding”.

You cannot challenge the merit of my view.

It is simple

You lack the intellectual rigor and certainly whatever you are, you are not “first class”, so that leaves “tosser”

Well, yes tosser you are

You are in fact, a third rate retarded tosser, who is so hung up on the politics of envy that you cannot find merit in anyone who is different to you, not necessarily better nor worse, just different.

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
Six sentences later, by the same author:
"You are in fact, a third rate retarded tosser, who is so hung up on the politics of envy that you cannot find merit in anyone who is different to you, not necessarily better nor worse, just different."
"Cannot challenge the merit of my view"?
Your view has no merit.
Col Rouge, you always assume someone else's argument must be from envy. You really can't get your head around the idea that some people don't run everything through the 'me' filter. Some people are actually able to imagine the plight of those poorer than themselves, and argue on their behalf.
The fact that I own a computer, and a home to house me and my computer, and I have the time to post on these pages makes me part of that rich minority.
Yes, I am rich. I am never hungry, I have always been able to feed and clothe my children.
What I don't understand is why anyone would need to be ten million times richer than I am, and how they can live with themselves, when millions of innocent children are starving.

Grim "What I don't understand is why anyone would need to be ten million times richer than I am, and how they can live with themselves, when millions of innocent children are starving"

it is simple,

other people are not subject to your determination and definition of what you consider to be "wealth"

they are not subject to your arbitary expectations or self-contrived standards.

the are not required to explain to you how or why the "live with themselves"

They are individuals with the same rights to accumulate property as you and are not limited by what you consider is either adequate or superfluous.

In short,

you opinion to millions of people both worse off and better off than you just does not matter a toss.

You are, I am pleased to say, in the cosmic scheme of things, a complete irrelevance.

so just be happy and maybe wonder what you would do if you had more... you could give more away and feel superior to many... I am sure that would give you some sense of empowerment and maybe even a self-righteous sense of self-worth.

Now I must go out and watch the man polish the Mercedes... one has to keep an eye on the hired help...

I hear all the carping between ego’s going on and cannot help thinking what a waste of time it is.

While we sit in front of a computer, and we all do who post here, others have been working and as Arfur used to say to Terry, Live and learn, live and learn.

This week a blow was struck for the homeless and poor throughout Australia by a Naval Officer, who dropped his genitalia on the forehead of an Army Officer while in a drunken stupor. They call it teabagging, and the sleeping Army Officer was not amused. He complained and the Naval Officer was duly haled into the Australian Military Court and charged.

As all good Navy men do, he did not take too kindly to this, probably believing the Army has no sense of humour, so he engaged three barristers and lo and behold, the High Court wonder of wonders considered it important enough to stir their collective brains into action. He challenged the legislation creating the Australian Military Court and his challenge was upheld.

Because the Australian Military Court was constituted by one Officer, it was held not to comply with Ch III Constitution. This follows on the “Kable Principle” established in 1996, the ruling in the King v Kidman in 1915, and it virtually means that any quasi military Court, constituted by any Officer sitting alone is illegal. If applied universally and adopted by the Rudd or Rees governments, this has to be fantastic news for the poor people of Australia.

While the States have classified their legal systems into two classes civil and criminal, in reality the classification is criminal and military. Currently all Australian Civil Proceedings are conducted under what is in effect, a Military Operations Manual, directing the Officers of the Courts, to operate in a certain manner, as in an army. The operations manual is called variously the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, or Federal Court Rules or High Court Rules 2004 but in effect they are military orders written by officers for officers. This must be ended by our leaders

Col,

Let me make it easy for you to understand - you are a selfish tosser of the highest order. So self-important and full of turgid BS. You may well have the intellectual ability to twist an argument so that it accords with your a priori view, but you ain't fooling anyone but yourself I suspect.

As I have said about you before you are a puritanical zealot. John Calvin would have been proud of you; you'd have been the first one let into his inner sanctum. You see things through the prism of the "if you are not like me you are a nothing" lens. You remind me of a budgie perched in its cage that has such a limited life it looks in its little mirror and reflects on only what it can see.

You can have your life - and I'm sure you deserve it.

But, the sooner the likes of you end up in the dustbin of history, the better. I hope I am good enough to do it! But, until then, keep it up Col, so the whole world can see what it should avoid becoming.

Lane v Morrison (2009) HCA 29 26th August 2009, should be a watershed. It should restore civilian rule throughout Australia, and in the time honoured traditions of the Australian Army, nasty and inefficient officers should be fragged.

The Liberal Party has always liked to think of themselves as benevolent dictators. As benevolent dictators, in 1927 in South Australia they had the Parliament legislate to exclude private soldiers as opposed to officers from participation in civilian courts. They abolished civilians from participation in civil courts, and vested all power in one Officer. No Labor government has yet repealed this para military rule. It suits benevolent Labor dictators too.

However as any force that occupies a country knows, discipline must be enforced, and officers do this. To prevent the great unwashed masses from reviewing legislation cheaply and effectively, they had to get rid of judges from courts and put Judges into Courts. In New South Wales they abolished civilian courts with the Supreme Court Act 1970. It makes the Military Rules Manuals published by the Officers higher than the Constitution. In 1915, in 1996, in 2006, and in the Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Incorporated v The Commissioner of Police [2007] HCATrans 550 (27 September 2007) the High Court accepted that there is a “Kable Principle”.

What is it? I say it is that no single Officer can exercise judicial power, or exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Carried to its logical conclusion, the Rules of Court that permit an Officer to make orders over a civilian, on behalf of any State are illegal. The Commonwealth has provided a liquidated penalty for such conduct, of $165,000 as a fine. The common law, in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X provuded a fine of 500l Sterling, for a first offence, 100l for a second and disablement, or disqualification from further membership of society, and that law is still in force.

If KR or Nathan Rees take the result in Lane to heart, we will make poverty history, before either must go to the polls again. Make Col Rouge Premier

"I hear all the carping between ego’s going on and cannot help thinking what a waste of time it is."

PtB, As opposed to what? Being a walking encyclopaedia of history and accurately relating what has happened AFTER the event? That's hardly of much use to anyone who is facing problems today.

But you are right, though. (I find it a little hard to turn the other cheek when Col Rogue gets going.)

It is good to look back. Memories are only a tail if you are a beaver or a rudder if you are a ship, to be used to go forward. The future beckons and it is up to us all to look to that rather than look to the past. I am believing Lane V Morrison is a landmark decision and will lead us forward in a very positive way.

The problem we have is like Janus, we have had a two faced system, looking both forward and back simultaneously, pretending to be a justice system, but in reality with everything mapped out, and under the control of not us, but of forces outside both the courts and Parliaments. In order to have this happen the manipulators had to have military style Courts, and by graft and gradual cheating, started introducing them one by one, sneaking them in first in South Australia, and when the pig did not squeal, trying it on in New South Wales.

One of the things the Janus system has to do is to never let the facts get in the way of a good story. This was what my mate Jesus Christ hated about the Jewish society he was part of way back about 2000 years ago. So to make the facts fit the preconceived idea of what represented justice, Priests had ordained what was right and what was wrong, and set out punishments accordingly, with a view to holding the population in terroris, under their government. Jesus hated that.

So like all military officers, the then rulers had a set of facts, and vested both fact finding and administration in the body of one man, and called him a Judge. The Christian concept of democracy cannot sit beside the vesting of judgment in one person. We don’t have a democracy in Australia today, we have a theocracy, with Almighty God as some nebulous consensus known only to the cognoscenti. Our Constitution is totally opposed to that concept. Lane and Morrison are vessels who have clarified the thinking of the High Court. Good on them

Peter the Believer “I hear all the carping between ego’s going on and cannot help thinking what a waste of time it is.”

Ah that might well be so, PtB but I am merely exercising my libertarian freedom to waste my time in whatever way I see fit.

RobP” you are a selfish tosser of the highest order.”

Guess what…. I don’t give a dead rats what you think of me because

You are a small minded cretin who,

being so bereft of character and personality…

think you will find solace in pretending to have the right to cast your judgments on people you neither know or understand, those of us who exist of an emotional and intellectual plane beyond the limits of your lowly gaze.

“So self-important and full of turgid BS.” Ah like you who pronounces judgments upon others.

“But, the sooner the likes of you end up in the dustbin of history, the better. I hope I am good enough to do it!”

Trust me, you are not good enough….

And your leftie whimpy socialist mates are not good enough either… the left is being ground down and left behind as libertarianism continues to prevail, supported by the obvious merit of its values system.

But you and the other swill can try as much as you want

I have been dispatching other small minded, envious, left wing tossers like you for a long time and will continue to do so.

You see this is really simple, even simple enough for a retarded tosser like you to understand

You just lack the emotional, intellectual and physical substance to make any difference to anyone,

I suggest you just get used to your under-achievers envy and mediocrity RobP…

because it will shadow you for the rest of your life, right up to beyond when you are in your grave

“History” is what got us to where we are today, you can ignore it at your peril.

I learn from it to avoid mistakes like socialism, collectivism and fight against all that leftie crap for the sake of the future.

Onya, redneck.

Just remember this little tidbit - the meek shall inherit the earth one day. THEY will prevail over the likes of you.

RobP "Just remember this little tidbit - the meek shall inherit the earth one day. THEY will prevail over the likes of you."

ah I always find being threatened by "the meek" to be the hollowest of attempts at intimidation

Just accept the fact that you are a completely impotent loser.

Now I suggest you find yourself a corner to crawl up and die in and leave "worldy matters" to those of us emotionally equipped to deal properly with them......

"ah I always find being threatened by "the meek" to be the hollowest of attempts at intimidation."

I used to think you were intelligent, but after the above I'm now quite sure you're a dunce. The meek, by definition, do not intimidate.

"Now I suggest you ... leave "worldy matters" to those of us emotionally equipped to deal properly with them......"

That's fine by me. When are you firing up the barbie at your place? I'm starving!

RobP “The meek, by definition, do not intimidate.”

And RobP exposes a dullard who has never heard of the term “Irony”

“"Now I suggest you ... leave "worldy matters" to those of us emotionally equipped to deal properly with them......"

That's fine by me. When are you firing up the barbie at your place? I'm starving!”

Whilst discovering the communicative limits which comes from being “obtuse”.

Of course, I can understand how your might be starving.. socialism and the left of politics are really good at vomiting crass theory, subjective conjecture and the politics of envy but never ever managed to even feed those who were shackled under its oppressive yoke… thus the left used to buy surpluses from the capitalist west.

In short, you lose… libertarian capitalism wins

Always has

Always will do

You need to read history to understand “why” but that is something, by your own admission, you prefer to ignore ..

Hence, you are doomed to oblivion, not that I am surprised, you seem light on in matters of practical reality and real world solutions.

Col,

For a so-called libertarian, you sure have an unhealthy obsession with shutting down people with differing opinions.

You remind me of a blowfly that knows it's about to die - madly buzzing around dropping its maggots everywhere before it finally drops dead.

RobP "Col,

For a so-called libertarian, you sure have an unhealthy obsession with shutting down people with differing opinions."

I have not attempted to shut you down at all

That you lack the intellectual rigor to keep up is a limit applicable to you as an individual and nothing to do with me.

I suspect you are merely finding excuses for your own inadequacies because you now know how seriously you are outclassed.

I suggest you go back to the little league...

go bang a ball around instead of try to "top" me

I'm not trying to "top" you at all. I'm simply putting my view. Every time I do you run interference on it.

I suggest you start treating people with a bit more respect instead of using your patronising language.

Why don't YOU whack off to the big league if you're so good?

Hey could I just ask about “the meek”?

Meek would be in the eye of the beholder?

God might have wanted bigger, tougher, meek types hanging about by now?

Did God define “meek” somewhere?

Does “meek” mean the same now as it did when the holy authors were about?

Where are the people, who are opposite to the meek, going while the meek inherit earth?

Good point, Piper.
The age of Chivalry was a time when all people were NOT considered equal. Some were clearly stronger than others, but it was (at least in theory) recognised that "There, but by the Grace of God, go I".
The (good) strong accepted that they had a duty to protect and defend the less fortunate.
It was also a time of very elaborate manners; like in the southern states of America today, it has been noticed that when big men carry deadly weapons, it pays to be very, very polite.
When I look at the types who run the world these days, I can't help wondering if the 'meek inheriting the Earth' wasn't more of a threat, than a promise.
"John Howard, Man of Steel!" Only a dweeb like George Bush could deliver a line like that with a straight face.

Hey Grim, Nowadays leaders are voted briefly in but do you think they do have the same inbuilt regard for their people as Queens and Kings of old? Do you reckon they even see everyone else as their "people”?

I’m wondering what gets lost when a leader isn’t born to lead and trained their whole lives for this one role. Does it work having the system we do?

We may get our 100 poor list (if the pedants stop for a second) but no one is going to be held responsible for any of them. This party will blame it on the last one and this government department will point a finger at the one next door.

This world doesn’t appear to be working if countries like this one have any obviously meek peoples. I reckon the meek inheriting the earth it is more about the meek leaders and not the lost potential of the people who were kept meek without choice or help.

Umm...to clarify, I’m talking about the children, the little ones the government is directly responsible for that they have in their custody and how badly these children do in care and will go on to do badly. If the government can let the kids down and yet they are the Aussies completely under government control then there is no worse failure or more obvious example of how badly a country is run.

Now I’m trying to put how I feel together with what Whistler says about being a Republic

>>Hey could I just ask about “the meek”?

Meek would be in the eye of the beholder?

God might have wanted bigger, tougher, meek types hanging about by now?

Did God define “meek” somewhere?

Does “meek” mean the same now as it did when the holy authors were about?

Where are the people, who are opposite to the meek, going while the meek inherit earth?<<

Piper,

God didn't define meek, but I suspect a few humans in Biblical times used the phrase to mean humble as opposed to overbearing or, if used in a modern context, balanced rather than unbalanced. Whether it was said as a threat, a wish or a dispassionate prophecy at the time, I don't know. I think they were right though.

You can be humble but still strong. I think that's what the future breed of humans will be. A new equilibrium will be reached where there is perfect balance and when "that which is in part will be done away". Those excessive, incomplete or unbalanced people (the non-meek) who cannot come to terms with the new circumstances will effectively be sidelined and will no longer be a threat to anyone.

IMO, What is playing out today is the best and worst of human nature, neither of which will survive in their current form. They will keep playing themselves out until exhausted at which time the new equilibrium will immediately, and without fanfare, flow in.

Hey Rob, I think I did have meek wrong – I was thinking “weak” to start with then decided I never had a definition.

So I have to rethink my post to Grim because “meek” appears the wrong word there now. Humble wasn't what I was thinking.

“IMO, What is playing out today is the best and worst of human nature, neither of which will survive in their current form. They will keep playing themselves out until exhausted at which time the new equilibrium will immediately, and without fanfare, flow in.”

Hope it doesn’t take long because the best and worst both seem to be balanced which isn’t moving anything along and has more the feeling of the world getting bigger but not better.

Piper,

Below is a quick definition of "meek" from the web.

• adjective: humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness ("Meek and self-effacing")
• adjective: very docile ("Meek as a mouse- Langston Hughes")
• adjective: evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant ("A fine fiery blast against meek conformity- Orville Prescott")

So, you weren't wrong if you were meaning about "cowed submissiveness" or "evidencing little spirit or courage". It all depends on your interpretation of the word.

RobP “I'm not trying to "top" you at all. I'm simply putting my view. Every time I do you run interference on it.”

Ah, I suppose I am interfering with your interference?

Its like you said “I suggest you start treating people with a bit more respect instead of using your patronising language.”

Grim brings up the “Age of Chivalry” and “The (good) strong accepted that they had a duty to protect and defend the less fortunate” if you look back a few posts you will see I referred to the same thing as “noblesse oblige”.

It is flattering when Grim takes time to elaborate on my posts.

TPP “This party will blame it on the last one and this government department will point a finger at the one next door.”

Yes government is all a waste of time as well as your and my taxes, that is why libertarianism is a better option. People left tp make their own mind, to be generous, charitable, compassionate with their less taxed resources and fewer outcomes dependent upon the blunderings of incompetent government. People making decisions for their lives instead of some pompous arse telling us what legal substances we are allowed to eat, drink or smoke (the recent Nanny State Health Directive from another panel of here-today-gone –tomorrow experts, with their snouts deeply ensconced in the purse of public taxes.

Ah I see the “Meek” are making their humble presence felt…. Don’t worry RobP… someone with your levels of hubris will never be confused with being “Meek” or even a supporter of the meek,

what you don’t understand is the meek would never use their “meekness” as a weapon,

as you did to try and castigate me…

to a “meek” person that would have been hypocrisy,

to you… hypocrisy seems to be your natural response.

There's an old saying Col - one man's meat is another's poison. If you can't see that you are a dick. Every time you come across with your overbearing opinion, superior intellect and all the rest you are pushing someone else back a little further and making it impossible for them to put their view. My response is simply a direct reaction to what you are doing to me. You stop and I'll stop - it's pretty simple.

I know the game - you cleverly bait and switch all the while hiding behind the veneer that you are a libertarian. Why call yourself Col Rouge (which translates to red neck) if you aren't out to make a nuisance of yourself? You are as transparent as a bride's nightie. Take a hike.

Col Rouge, I'm only too happy to give credit, where credit is due; and happy to acknowledge those times when you have said something I thought was reasonable, and socially responsible.
Twice now, in about 2 years I think.
Yes,"“Noblesse oblige” is where the most powerful accept responsibility for the less fortunate a part of their social obligation"; unfortunately, we have had the opportunity to see how well this system works for over a thousand years, unlike the quite recent socialist experiments.
Since we still have 30,000 children dying daily, while 'the most powerful' measure their wealth in billions, the answer must be, not well.
Was it someone in these forums who supplied a link to this great Asimov quote?
“Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.”
Asimov used this quote to highlight the problem of overpopulation. No doubt Col Rouge would use the quote to highlight the problem of socialised bathrooms. I think it highlights the fundamental problem for libertarians; that 'freedom' along with wealth, is inextricably tied to resources, and is therefore a finite commodity.
The more 'freedom' we allow a tiny few, the less 'freedom' is left for everyone else.
I repeat my earlier question: do you believe all 6.7 billion people on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?

Pursuit of happiness?

I’m just big on perception right now. I am happy so I guess I shouldn’t pursue anything but something might come up that I decide will make me happier, is it socially responsible to pursue it? Maybe, or maybe there should be a “Pursuit of Contentment” or maybe if you have to pursue it the “it” needs to be justified. This is personal ethos (new word alert)?

Should I pursue a new pair of shoes? Well yeah if I don’t own any I maybe should?

You know the population thing…. It’s not the people being born is it, it is what they believe they should pursue.

And in full circle the meek are bugging me. The strong should help them but then there wouldn’t be any meek and maybe god didn’t want anyone to inherit the earth because he was going to destroy it wasn’t he? Maybe the message has been distorted?

What community wants to be able to have a list of the 100 poor unless “poor” means they are fine, just not quite as fine as the people next door.

Am I making sense... I just read that and I’m not sure. Col, you know in England there are squatters’ rights? What was that about?

Is Aussie like a Nanny state or libertarian - halfway?

Grim “Since we still have 30,000 children dying daily,”

Maybe the parents should slow down on copulating if they cannot feed their offspring.

I know I waited until I could afford children before fathering any.

“No doubt Col Rouge would use the quote to highlight the problem of socialised bathrooms”

Actually Grim used the quote to manifest his own straw man…

The point with the bathroom is simple, only a socialist would apply the false economies of social arhchitecture and build an apartment block with an inadequate number of bathrooms, in a libertarian society, the individuals decide what sort of bathroom facilities they will pay for… and those buildings which do not meet consumer expectations for bathrooms will be left either empty or rented only at a significant discount to marginal occupants.

“I think it highlights the fundamental problem for libertarians; that 'freedom' along with wealth, is inextricably tied to resources, and is therefore a finite commodity”

Not at all… most libertarians are higher up Maslow’s hierarchy and hence derive more enrichment through non-material inputs than those who follow socialism and are blind to that which is not “material”.

“The more 'freedom' we allow a tiny few, the less 'freedom' is left for everyone else.”

Ah yes typical Lenin perversion actually Lenin said

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

Lenin also wrote

“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

And that is because he will indoctrinated to slavishly believe what Lenin also described

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

So I suppose Grim would see us rationed of “freedom”, just like Lenin.

Lenin, who oversaw the mass starvations of millions and his efforts at genocide were exceeded only by Hitler and of course the biggest killer of them all, Stalin.

All by operating everything through a soulless and heartless "government", which destroys personal and individual freedom.

Yes, I can think of many things a hell of alot worse than "unequal distribution" of resources.

Grim “do you believe all 6.7 billion people on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?”

Yes

But that does not mean they will all achieve it.

And because some don’t does not impede the right of others to achieve happiness.

“Happiness” is experienced through the pursuit of personal achievement and growth. Such pursuits are not limited to material needs.

The matters Grim suggests, limiting freedom in fact does impede the few but has never provided anything for the many.. all that happens, is a bunch of political zealots take over and bring greater misery to everyone, the few and the many; as has been seen from Robespierre (the Terror), Lenin (the Kulak repressions and mass starvation), Stalin (mass executions, starvation and the Gulags), Pol Pot (mass murder of the educated, enforced social regression, mass starvation and social genocide) -

and all in the name of human “Equality”

everyone having an equal share of poverty and repression.

It seems to me whenever anyone tries to achieve what Grim wants, Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation are its "enforcing companions".

Compare USSR and USA in 1980s… one the product of libertarian capitalism and the other the product of enforced collectivism.

Whilst it was not a perfect place for everyone, people were trying to get in to USA and people were trying to escape USSR.

“Feet” and the direction they are walking, are good indicators of the success of any and every social system.

TPP "Squatters rights" were in USA and were at a time when the USA was "underpopulated". "Squatters Rights" were a way of populating the vast tracts of land which were available for occupation through European colonisation of "the West".

Col Rouge wrote: It seems to me whenever anyone tries to achieve what Grim wants, Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation are its "enforcing companions".

Dear Col,

It doesn’t seem to me that way at all. The Scandinavian countries have a very high average income, an equitable distribution of wealth and a high degree of political freedom compared to most countries. They seem to have achieved what Grim wants without the tyranny of Marxism or the inequitable distribution of wealth in the USA.

The Scandinavian countries have encouraged the productivity of capitalism while, at the same time, limiting its excesses. It can be done.

Accusing people like Grim who mention or concern themselves with the inequities in society of producing Terror, Mass Murder and Starvation is most unfair.

Col Rouge also wrote: Lenin, who oversaw the mass starvations of millions and his efforts at genocide were exceeded only by Hitler and of course the biggest killer of them all, Stalin.

The estimated number of corpses produced by various communist entities is about 100.000,000 from information gathered in the Black Book of Communism edited by Stephane Courtois and published by Harvard University in 1999. In 1997 it was first published in France as Le Livre noir du Communisme: Crimes, terreur, repression. By then much information previously unobtainable was available since Soviet archives had been opened after the collapse of the USSR, and scholars had time to examine those archives.

The following is on page 4:

USSR 20 million deaths
China 65 million deaths
Vietnam 1 million deaths
North Korea 2 million deaths
Cambodia 2 million death s
Eastern Europe 1 million deaths
Africa 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan 1.5 million deaths
Latin America 150,000 deaths
The International Communist movement and parties not in power 10,000 deaths.

Most of the 65 million deaths in China were under Mao. He was a much greater killer than Stalin.

Davidf “The Scandinavian countries have a very high average income, an equitable distribution of wealth and a high degree of political freedom compared to most countries.”

And they are countries with higher suicide rates than either UK, USA or Australia.

They have small population basis centered around a strong ethnic identity (one race)

If what you see as the “Scandinavian Nirvana” was transportable, why is the rest of Europe not adopting these wonderous Scandinavian processes?

I would note, regardless of all your bluster to the opposite, the “Scandinavian countries” operate on a capitalist economic model of private enterprise and private ownership of the sources of production.

Scandinavian countries still have “rich and poor” people.

To be honest, your claim supports my view:
That central an all powerful government and collective ownership produces worse social outcomes than libertarian capitalism for all. In other words, the poor are even poorer under socialism/collectivism than they are under capitalism.

It is all about ideas and innovation and the right of people to follow their passion and benefit from the deployment of their ideas:

Under a libertarian capitalist political structure, people benefit from their endeavour and the whole “economy” is stimulated,

In a socialist political structure with no personal benefits, innovation is stifled, endevour disappears, and the whole “economy” stagnates.

To your second point… so Mao, another communist despot murdered more and push Stalin into second place… excuse my omission,

I was comparing libertarian capitalism to murderous soclalism/collectivism/communism, not "one murdering commie" to "another murdering commie"… your correction in fact validates and affirms my observation:

“collectivism” produces "death" and “tyrannical terror” and human misery of the worst kind and deserves to be assigned to the cesspool of history for all time and its promoters and supporters (Lenins “useful idiots” – a title for which Grim seems to be applying) executed in the name of public safety. For the death of such fools is a far lesser number and eevil than the evil which they would seek to impose on the rest of us.

So thanks for your message of support Davidf, for proving my assertion.

Dear Col,

You have stated you play the ball, not the man. However, that does not seem to be true.

You wrote: I would note, regardless of all your bluster to the opposite, the “Scandinavian countries” operate on a capitalist economic model of private enterprise and private ownership of the sources of production.

I stated my points in a calm way with no bluster. You are attacking me rather than what I say. You are attacking the man rather than the ball.

You also wrote:

“(Lenins “useful idiots” – a title for which Grim seems to be applying)”

It was unnecessary to take another swipe at Grim. Again you play the man.

You also wrote:

“To be honest, your claim supports my view:
That central an all powerful government and collective ownership produces worse social outcomes than libertarian capitalism for all. In other words, the poor are even poorer under socialism/collectivism than they are under capitalism.”

I was comparing the Scandinavian capitalism to the US style capitalism. Socialism did not enter into it so I don’t see how it supports your view.

I have politely answered your points without referring to you in any derogatory manner. I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

Once again, Col Rouge, you have cleverly demonstrated the typical conservative's lack of anything like an imagination. If one is not a libertarian (who grovels at Lady Thatcher's feet) one must be a socialist, or communist.
All I have tried to point out is that Libertarians are ultimately their own worst enemies. You fear totalitarianism (as do I), but you think the only way to achieve totalitarianism is through socialism.
In 2004, 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies were corporations. The latest GFC has seen more mergers, with more wealth concentrated in fewer hands, and more money taken directly from tax payers to prop up businesses 'too big to be allowed to fail'.
Even in a democratic Socialist country, you have one person one vote.
In a corporation, you have one share, one vote, and employees are not even guaranteed a share.
What happens when we are all working for global corporations? Oceania doesn't have to be a nation. It could just as easily be a multinational company.
And how can 6.7 billion people possibly have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness, when they don't even have an equal right to clean water? (Which is currently being privatised all over the world, to become a commodity instead of an essential service).
Col Rouge says: … most libertarians are higher up Maslow’s hierarchy and hence derive more enrichment through non-material inputs than those who follow socialism and are blind to that which is not “material”.
It is the socialists, not capitalist consumers, who are “materialists”.
Is it possible to be happy -or 'derive more enrichment'- when you are dying of gastroenteritis?
“USSR 20 million deaths”.
30,000 children a day. That's 10,950,000 each and every year. Meanwhile, The GDP of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
Incidentally, your quote from Lenin was actually a response to a famous claim by the Jesuits: "Give me a child until he is 7, and I will give you the man."

Davidf “You have stated you play the ball, not the man. However, that does not seem to be true.”

You obviously see no difference between banter and character assault.

If you are so delicate in such matters, maybe you should consider your posting future, I for one will not be changing my writing style or acquiescing to your criticism.

To Grim… there is nothing derogatory about me comparing Grim to Lenin’s “useful idiots”, when he clearly adopts a posture of such relentless blindness.

Grim “Once again, Col Rouge, you have cleverly demonstrated the typical conservative's lack of anything like an imagination.”

Strange how all innovation, invention and development is the product of individual “imagination”. It is the individual imagination which all libertarians cherish and socialists despise, because individual thought can also seed dissent against the proletariat limits.

To be honest Grim, there is an old saying, “think global but act local”.
Unfortunately you cannot see past the global to the local. Local thinking makes your “mission” an impossible goal but then, most socialists pursue the impossible – it is what explains the continual failure of their practical attempts at government.

“In a corporation, you have one share, one vote, and employees are not even guaranteed a share.”

Employees are rewarded for their input and there is nothing limiting their right to acquire voting shares. Indeed, many companies have employee share schemes. My daughter has benefitted from her employers scheme. However, her share-holding rights differ and are logically separate to her employee terms and rights.

“30,000 children a day. That's 10,950,000 each and every year. Meanwhile, The GDP of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.”

So what. The wealthy “West” has poured charity development funds into Africa for decades and Africa remains a charnel house of corruption.

Deal with African corruption (maybe re-colonize the lot) before you try to penalize wealthy westerners with your fetish for equality of povert

Col Rouge,

>>Strange how all innovation, invention and development is the product of individual “imagination”.<<

Who said anything about innovation, invention and development having anything to do with imagination? Other than you, that is. Speaking of straw men, that's what this latest argument of yours is yet another example of.

Imagination is exactly that, imagination. To get solutions to problems, we need the people who can deliver - exactly the sorts of people in your political hemisphere, generally speaking. So, why don't you take umbrage at them instead for the fact that imagination does not translate into reality? Or is it a case that people on your side do not have an imagination at all? Maybe they just sit there and wallow in their all-pervasive greatness, like you seem to. I agree that socialists have no idea how to do some things (they'd probably privately agree too), but sometimes they have no choice but to have a go themselves - after all, nature abhors a vacuum (BTW, it takes two to create a vacuum).

The pool of people you call socialists effectively act as the universal conscience of society as well as draw attention to its weaknesses and imbalances. They do this through imaginings or any other method they can. In that context, don't they do something useful? Or are you just going to continue to indulge in your fetish of polarising the debate in your desire to maintain your pozzie at the top of the mountain?