We seem to have become bogged down in mathematical trivia, King Hazza.

>>"Even if voting were compulsory, it only requires a little over six million to get a bill across the line." Do explain<<

There are approximately twelve million voters on the electoral roll, so to achieve a majority for your self-centred motion would require ((numberonelectoralroll/2)+1). Which according to my trusty calculator (add ten, carry one) works out to a little over six million.

You're still hung up about your lack of voice, I see.

>>that this is still approximately 5,999,950 more than who currently needs [sic] to pass it<<

I'd be interested to hear who are the fifty folk who get to pass bills in the present setup. From memory, about six million voted for the current government and their green/independent hangers-on.

>>I don't recall being asked if I wanted Australia to join Iraq or privatize Telstra.<<

That's probably because you don't read the election manifestos. Don't blame you. Nor do I. But you'd have to have your head in the sand not to realize that is what governments do: send people off to war, and privatize public assets.

(Seriously, did you not see the Telstra thing coming? Wow)

>>So selling arms is ok as long you avoid tricky labels that outsiders feel obligates you to isolate yourself completely.<<

As I may have mentioned, my opinion is irrelevant. It is an issue for the Swiss people. If you are asking what I would do if I were a Swiss citizen being asked to vote on it, I'd do what the majority of Swiss people appear to have done.

Pretend not to notice it, and hope no-one asks me again.

>>Out of curiosity, do you harbor this much animosity to Japan, Finland, Italy and Sweden?<<

Strangely enough, no.

At least the Japanese were clear about their ambitions. Finland defended itself as best it could. Sweden didn't hide stolen money and goods that it could use after the War. And Italy - was Italy neutral?

Why didn't anyone tell Mussolini?

thinker2
I didn't watch it, but the problem with your general criticism of capitalism is that it takes no account of the contribution to the problem by government. You just look at anything you don't like, and declare that the problem is "capitalism".

For example, I understand that the problem with coal seam gas extraction you are concerned about is private corporations polluting public lands and waters. In other words, under the current system, private interests can capitalise their profits, and socialise their losses.

What you and Pelican fail to understand is that this is not caused by capitalism, it's caused by *socialism*. They're not polluting their own property, they're polluting property held by the government on the basis of *your* assumption that it is necessary and desirable for government to manage such property. Then when you see the disproof of your own belief, you don't recognise it, and externalise the blame for your *incorrect* belief that government is good at managing these resources.

But it gets worse. You have not answered my question as to the alternative to capitalism because you know very well that the INEVITABLE result of complete government control of the economy would be far worse both economically and environmentally.

Since full socialism cannot work, and since socialists like you keep trying, through democracy, to replace capitalism with socialism, the INEVITABLE result is what we've got. The kind of corporate corruption you decry is not intrinsically caused by a system based on private property, under which it would be illegal, but by *your* idea that arbitrary forced political redistributions of property, and holding property in common,are good and noble and fair and productive and legitimate and acceptable.

Since your only method for discerning the economic truth of your beliefs is socialist economic theory, what makes you think you're not mistaken?

Sorry- was later at night- the two digit remainder would be parliament, and the "but that's what parliament is for" line is my point:
In a decision of public interest being held at the decision of representatives only, there is absolutely nothing to stop the 50 senators, or 80 parliamentarians who find an arrangement that personally suits themselves, but not the public, and going ahead with it. If this arrangement would have happened differently in a referendum they weren't exactly 'representing their constituents' were they? Instead a bad lopsided policy that suits the few in a position to pass it passes and everyone else pays for it.
In a system where the public are allowed to vote- every single citizen has the right to a say, but does not so purely out of their own will.
And I should point out that you don't exactly get a parliament by majority of votes either- you get a largest-minority-mandate per electoral seat, and majority-per-seat mandate to elect government on our behalf.
Hence why our democratic capacities aren't as large as they could be.

And on the issue of selling arms, if we were to find out our own nation is selling arms (and we are to a small degree), would you not want a referendum on it also? You seem to conveniently ignore that because that country chooses not to, you ignore that they still CAN.

And those countries I selected were all Axis nations (minus Sweden).
So your opposition does, it seems, boil down to not so much what the countries DID, or the issue of cooperating with an abhorrent regime on its own, but by doing bad-guy things without TELLING US they were going to be the 'bad guys' (despite still being not as bad as the Germans, Austrians, Russians and Japanese were- all of which non-democratic autocracies with extensive war-crimes before and during WW2).

And I must ask- does your casual response to the elected government taking us to wars imply little 'soul-destroying' occurring within you?

Curiouser and curiouser, King Hazza.

I suspect we have wandered far from the point, but I would like to comment on one more element of your "Switzerland Forever" paean.

>>...those countries I selected were all Axis nations (minus Sweden)<<

Finns, I suspect, would be extremely unhappy with your cavalier categorization.

Finland was the subject of a hidden clause in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Germany basically "allocated" Finland to Russia. With this tucked in their back pocket, the Russians proceeded to invade Finland. After losing some territory (this is an extremely abbreviated account, with just the highlights) Finland turned to Nazi Germany - the country who only a couple of years earlier had sold them down the river - for help.

It was only after another Russian incursion that Finland officially went to war. Supporting the Nazis, against Russia.

By 1944 the position changed again. Having fought them to a standstill, Finland arranged an armistice with Russia, and began to fight against the Nazis.

I think maybe your sweeping generalization that Finland was "an axis nation" might require some reassessment.

It is complex, gut-wrenching stories like these that put Switzerland's deceitful pretence at neutrality in perspective.

And you do spend a lot of time imagining and inventing stuff that you think I should relate to.

>>So your opposition does, it seems, boil down to not so much what the countries DID, or the issue of cooperating with an abhorrent regime on its own, but by doing bad-guy things without TELLING US they were going to be the 'bad guys'<<

No it doesn't. Stop trying to read between the lines - let's face it, you're not very good at it - and instead confine yourself to what is actually written.

But you would be close, were you to conclude that I can see no honour whatsoever in a country that uses the deception of faux-neutrality to enrich itself at the expense of those who were actually out there fighting for something they believed in.

King Hazza,

While it is hard to condone some of the things that the Swiss have done, I doubt if they would tolerate as much misery and homelessness among their mentally ill fellow citizens as we do. People who live in glass houses ... Pericles believes in open borders, so would condemn the Swiss for keeping foreigners out or deporting them, even if they were above reproach in every other aspect.

In his ideal world, there would be no point in people aspiring to any more than would be afforded in the poorest, worst managed Third World country. This is because if the residents of a country do work to improve conditions, large numbers of foreigners will converge on them to horn in on what they have. After all, it is much easier to latch onto someone else's ready-made higher standard of living than it is to undertake the hard and sometimes dangerous work of fixing up your own society. If the existing residents object, then they need to be held down for it by wise philosopher kings who are insulated from any personal problems by the wealth they have acquired after years of snouts in troughs.

As Pericles said in opposing CIR:

"I was simply trying to illustrate what a sad society can be constructed from a licence to be supremely selfish, via unrestricted access to a ballot box on any and all topics."

The idea that politicians are not self-serving is laughable, as is the idea that we are responsible for what the politicians do, e.g. invade Iraq. Because we cannot vote on issues, we have to accept package deals, and they don't need to tell us all they plan to do. The politicians are perfectly free to lie to us before the election and then do something completely different afterwards. Consumer protection laws don't apply to them. If we live in a safe seat and don't agree with the majority, we are effectively disenfranchised. This is why a party can win an election while having a smaller share of the popular vote.

Sincerely Peter, I am not suggesting for a minute that socialism is the answer, but I am suggesting that Govt needs to represent it's people better than it currently does. I am also suggesting that business interests are over-represented.

And as for private land and resource ownership, I think we all have an interest in the environment. I can only think of my next door neighbour whom I refer to as "have chain saw will travel" and given the chance to make unbridled decisions would saw every tree down that he could get his hands on to feed his fire place. In addition he would exterminate any creature, particularly endangered reptiles that crossed his path and feel completely justified.

It shows that he is not to bright in my view and a dinosaur.
Poison sprays, guns and power tools he's got the lot, and thank heavens there is at least some restraint placed upon this nuffie, protecting the rest of us from such people.

Your right Peter I have no alternative to capitalism , but are you advocating untethered control by capitalism, because if your are then your quite mad.

Those gas companies are being knowingly destructive with there partners in crime, Govt, against humanity and the planet and even the sub strata.
It is truly stomach turning.

Who is most culpable Govt or business?, in my view both are equally culpable.