<< You can't see it, because you don't want to see it. >>

You’ve make this sort of statement a number of times in this discussion. But you would surely know by now that it is completely off-track. I am as open to your arguments as anyone could be and will freely express agreement with you wherever it occurs, which it often does.

I am not one to hold on to my views religiously. Rather I am one who is very happy to fully engage those who have some disagreement or total vehement disagreement, and to adjust my outlook accordingly.

One example is my shift from being very pro AGW (a warmist) to being a sceptic.

If you reckon I can’t see something, it is because I have carefully considered it and come to the conclusion that it is not what you purport it to be.

Fair enough.

>>If you reckon I can’t see something, it is because I have carefully considered it and come to the conclusion that it is not what you purport it to be<<

I'll withdraw the comment.

And that's probably a good point for me to bow out of the discussion. I genuinely believe that people, when left to organize themselves, solve problems a hundred times faster and more efficiently than governments. You take the view that we need to be cared for by a pervasive and all-powerful government.

I suspect that our positions are too far apart to arrive at any meaningful middle ground.

And I really did enjoy my time in Perth. Cracking beaches, fabulous climate, cricket tracks that were an opener's heaven.

It's still a provincial country town in drag, though.

Thanks Pericles

I have really enjoyed the discussion and would be happy for it to continue for a long time yet.

I totally respect your feeling that it is a good time to end it, but you’ve left me with a comment that I can’t resist responding to.

You say:

<< I genuinely believe that people, when left to organize themselves, solve problems a hundred times faster and more efficiently than governments >>

But governments are not divorced from the people; governments are part of the organisation of the people. And that is why I advocate improved and stronger governance rather than reduced governance.

Hey, did you see my reply to you a few days ago on the ‘Going extinct is no fun’ thread?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13991#241754

Well, it is slightly off-topic, Ludwig, but I'll bite.

>>But governments are not divorced from the people; governments are part of the organisation of the people. And that is why I advocate improved and stronger governance rather than reduced governance.<<

Sadly, governments do not see themselves as "part of the organization of people". That is an ideal that probably never existed in the first place, but certainly does not pass even the slightest scrutiny.

Historically, government was a matter of kings-and-subjects. Kings were by definition divorced from the people. When parliaments were invented, in their various guises, they were inhabited predominantly by patricians. While there was a form of connection - the rabble outside the Senate were ever a source of genuine physical fear for the Seantors - it was still effectively command-and-control. With a bit of bread-and-circuses thrown in.

Governments today range from the outright dictatorships of central Africa, through the sham politics of the Duma, to the fraudulent "Representative Democracy" we enjoy. Which is, when you look at it carefully, neither representative, nor democratic. None - not one single one of them - regards itself as beholden to the people. Only to themselves. The Government.

The fact is, unfortunately, that governments invariably take on a life of their own, entirely separate from the citizenry that they nominally represent. We become simply "the numbers", that political parties need in order to carry on their work. The bureaucracy that they surround themselves with is a means to enable them to enact their policies, not to engage with their subjects in any meaningful way.

But that said, I am aware that I am an outsider, and therefore can be treated as if I just don't understand how wonderfully it is all working, truly-ruly.

Alright, so then how would the people efficiently organise themselves outside of government without forming what essentially would be a new government, or a new political party that would have operate within the existing regime?

If we are to have good organisation of a very large number of people such as in Sydney, let alone in the whole country, then we’d have to have what amounts to a government, and a pretty big and powerful one at that, wouldn’t we?

And it would no doubt have all the same sort of problems as we now see – inefficiencies, contradictions, vested interests, etc. It’d take on a life of its own, at least to some extent.

Without government or with weak governance, the rule of law would break down and the powerful, ruthless and very strongly self-centred would come to rule.... even more-so than they do now... in fact, much more-so than they do now!

Without government, in times of stressed resources, if the people were left to organise themselves, THIS is what we’d end up with!

There’s also no way in the world that we are going to get a much smaller and less intrusive government. So there’s not much point in pushing for it. But there is a very real point in pushing for better governance, and every expectation that we can get it, because it will be demanded by the people as things get worse.

Ludwig and Pericles, you are both right to some extent. Government can be arrogant, corrupt and uncaring of the community. But it can be very responsive too.
This is a subject tackled by a Sydneysider in the 1970’s after conflicts with hopeless government. He decided that government would work better with more input from voters and more notice taken of it by politicians. He figured that as opposed to bureaucrats who could “say NO!”, he would help people to get results from government by going via elected politicians. He learned that many people wrote to their local MP or the relevant minister and got no result. So he invented the Votergram which went to every member of parliament and launched it in 1986. A resounding success to this day it had MPs doing what voters wanted and taking on board good ideas. Because it went to all MPs it was party neutral. Because it went to all MPs it did not matter whether or not the local MP responded. Others would. The opposition pressured the government, Back bench pressured cabinet. Cabinet pressured the minister. It operates in every parliament of Australia.
The NSW Government has now proposed new ways in which the community can be involved in the planning of housing developments. With necessary public participation and negotiation there is every chance that this will rectify the thoroughly corrupt planning processes that have plagued some Sydney suburbs in the last decade. Then with any sort of luck voters will convince politicians to get rid of those offensive bureaucrats who like to work more for the developers than the voters who pay them. Of course it may be that the developers pay them too.They have certainly paid a lot to political parties but voters are getting the upper hand. In any case, many of the developers are in such a perilous financial state that they are likely to collapse as the GFC recession hits Australia.