TRTL: The IR legislation has been a boon for small business, whereas decent employers of small businesses were crippled in the past. There's certainly a ratbag element who wanted these laws so they could exploit their employees, but a large number just wanted some breathing space.

However, I take your point about the IR laws potentially being a lot worse under different economic circumstances, and it's something I'm still weighing up. Whilst I'm generally not a fan of government intervention in the market, I think if for no other reason than practical terms, because I'm right wing, it's better to have a centre-right government where I don't get everything I want than to get everything in the short term, only to see a massive backlash and then end up with a very left of centre government.

Even on issues where I do agree with them (and there are plenty where I don't!), the Howard government is always a bridge too far and what really worries me about that is that when they lose this year, the opposition will get in not necessarily because people want the ALP, but because they don't want the Coalition. That's equally as problematic. The long term future of this country requires stability, perhaps with a little oscillation, not a pendulum like (re-)action every seven to ten years.

I guess where we will disagree about privatisation is that ultimately, a really successful business makes a lot of profit precisely because it satisfies consumer demand really well, and that any business that excessively chases profits is only thinking short term. The market will correct itself eventually, though I'm sure you'll disagree.

I agree with your points on Telstra, though I think if things had been done differently, it might have worked out. Most privatisations in this country have been a complete balls-up (and many have turned out worse than before), and there's been far too much short term thinking all round. I think that's indicative of our wider cultural mindset right now though.

I don't know enough about QANTAS to comment on it.

"The market will correct itself eventually, though I'm sure you'll disagree"

Actually I do think the market will correct these problems, but not before a lot of people suffer needlessly - though I think in many instances, there are some services which are never going to be profitable without government sponsorship.

The most obvious example of this, I suppose, is the variance between services in urban areas as opposed to regional.
Logically, if providing these services to regional areas is unprofitable, the question needs to be asked whether people are justified in living in these areas if they don't have the income to support the higher service costs, coupled with a desire to live there that is strong enough to encourage them to pay for these services.

The issue is, that this will only encourage further centralisation in the urban areas. I've yet to see any evidence that either State or Federal governments consider regional areas, and the secondary consideration of privatisation as a crucial issue for the infrastructure problems that many areas are facing (see the water problems in SEQ and Melbourne to see what I mean).

There is also the issue of primary industry - in an ideal free market, one supposes that primary exports would be profitable enough for industry to provide the infrastructure if they want their farming operations to succeed. This approach certainly works for mineral resources.
The reason I bring this up, is that primary industries are often located in sparsely populated areas. The issue of service provision impacts heavily on their success.
The problem is, that with Australian exports competing against subsidised produce from other nations, they're operating on an unfair market and struggle to be profitable despite best practice. This is another issue, though you can see how all these issues are interwoven, and although it's a bit of a wiggly line, you can see how a connection can be drawn between privatisation and a wealth of issues affecting the Australian economy.

HA!

This must be a joke, right Shorbe?

You tell me that I think I have a monopoly on truth. Yet you just know, without demonstrating that you have read, let alone understood Marxism and socialism, that “practical examples of socialism” ARE “real socialism. You know it Shorbe – that’s why it’s true – you just know it. You can just say what you like without having to substantiate it, or study it, or show why it is so, its just THE TRUTH, because Shorbe says so. You might as well be saying that you just know God exists, so he does.

As for my apparent desire to attack capitalism based on “practical examples based on non-free market systems” – no, I’m quite happy to analyse and criticise pure capitalist theory, and all its variants – that is actually what Marx did, but how could you know that if you haven’t actually studied him?. By the same token, you ought to be prepared to analyse and criticise pure Marxist theory, which means actually reading it and digesting it, not just bandying about trite well worn phrases and superficially lumping all “leftist” sounding demagogues into the category “Marxist” or “socialist”.

You tell me that there is no compromise for me, but I didn’t see you compromise, or even demonstrate that you understood, or reasonably attempted to understand, what I wrote about causal claims. What I wrote was not even Marxist, just standard philosophical and scientific practice. You just came back at me with the same personal attacks and assumptions about what socialism is, and what socialists are. Who is painting a two-dimensional caricature here?

Apparently, I think I know what’s best for everyone, I should mind my own business and stop preaching– well to start off with, no-one twisted your arm to read or contribute to this thread, you’re the one who stuck your nose in where we horrid Christians and socialists could bash it around a bit, and made facetious little comments about us to boot

Let’s look at some of the opinionated judgements, sermons and directives you’ve given:

“Where most socialists completely miss the boat, I believe”,

“they're so fundamentalist about it and that they have little to no sense of humour”

“it has nothing to do with the belief systems and everything to do with the dysfunctional personalities.”

“You think you're on the side of righteousness, just like any other zealot, but at the end of the day, it's just more of the same (whether the buzzwords are "workers' revolution" or "market system" or "Allah's will" or "Jesus Christ is my personal saviour").”

“What really causes a lot of the suffering in this world is people like you who think they know what's best for everyone else.”

“Maybe you should just mind your own bloody business and stop preaching to everyone.”

Do you see any FACTS or ANALYSIS as opposed to SUPERFICIAL OPINIONS and DEROGATORY COMMENTS in the above diatribes? I might be insulted if it wasn’t so apparent that you are, in football parlance - playing the man, not the ball.

This must be the quality logic and reasoning you would like us to all live our lives by is it?

Nice little deception too! Accusing others of pushing a barrow and pretending you’re not pushing-your-own. If we were to believe the impression you gave, it was that you had no personal-interest in the capitalist-system – you, through superior “common-sense” could just see the bleeding-obvious, that capitalism was the best we can hope for. In actual fact you do have an interest in the capitalist system - your hip-pocket.

I was actually wrong on something you know. I thought your philosophy, and comments, came from your misanthropic disposition. The truth is actually that you are a “right wing” capitalist, which is why you must roam around this forum looking for socialists, and their ideas, and smash them any way you can. So much for “pluralist” ideology. Anyone who doesn’t see things as you do has “missed the boat”, “no sense of humour”, a “dysfunctional personality”, is a “zealot” and a busy body preacher.

As for your comment: “Ultimately though, there won't be a workers' revolution not because people have been brain-washed, oppressed or exploited, but because most people aren't idealists or ideologues and they do compromise”. You then proceed to tell TRTL “because I'm right wing, it's better to have a centre-right government where I don't get everything I want than to get everything in the short term, only to see a massive backlash and then end up with a very left of centre government”

Well what in the hell is a backlash, if not a potentially revolutionary-situation? If the masses don’t feel oppressed and exploited, why would there be a backlash? How does a “very left of centre government” gain power if not because they appeal to the ideals of the masses? What is “everything I want” – a “free market”?

You are on this forum to encourage people to compromise – centre right instead of far left – thus maintaining the capitalist system, and your own economic interest. It is no wonder you are such a fan of Nietzsche:

“As socialism is a doctrine that the acquisition of property ought to be abolished, the people are as alienated from it as they could be. And once they have got the power of taxation into their hands through the great parliamentary majorities they will assail the capitalists, the merchants and the princes of the stock exchange with a progressive tax and slowly create a middle class which will be in a position to forget socialism like an illness from which it has recovered.”

A man after your own heart (or that stone where it should be). Nietzsche actually hated the working class “rabble”, and had disdain for scientific-method, historical-research, rational-thinking and objective-truth, preferring instinct and myth – right up your alley.

“Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights—Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ , 1888
Nietzsche’s philosophy was largely a reaction to the growth of socialism in Germany, and laid some of the philosophical foundations for fascism and Nazism. You probably even believe you are one of his superior ranks.

A right little deceiver you are Shorbe.

So as far as I’m concerned Shorbe, you can accuse me of whatever you like – it is merely a cover for your own lack of intellectual rigor, and to hide the barrow of your own economic interests which you are pushing. At least I’m honest about what I believe, as Marx wrote:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. “

No, I don’t believe there will be a constructive discussion. Our interests are completely opposed. You are not willing to “compromise” unless it is a temporary compromise designed to ward of a “backlash”, deceive workers, and further your own ends – as with all good capitalists – you are only in it for yourself. I don't need to charicature you Shorbe - you are what you are.