Dear Poirot,

Tony Judt left out two big factors in his otherwise excellent essay. One is the effort to roll back what was the beginning of the welfare state in the United States. Franklin Roosevelt spoke of the United States in the thirties as “1/3 of a nation ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed” and sought to bring social justice to all Americans. Business interests dug in to prevent this by establishing the American Enterprise Association in 1938 which became the American Enterprise Institute.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)

They couldn’t compete with Roosevelt’s immense popularity, but they were in it for the long haul. Their propaganda against social justice was successful, and they succeeded in 1980 in electing Reagan as president after eliminating most of the moderate elements from the Republican Party. The Republican Party originally was for civil rights, promoted the first antitrust legislation to control corporate interests, the first national park and was a force for conservation. The AEI changed all that. Please read about AEI.

The second big factor is the damage done by Karl Marx and the communist tyrannies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/09/real-karl-marx/?pagination=false

is a review of a book that places Marx in the nineteenth century where he belongs. If it hadn’t been for the Leninist takeover in Russia and the resulting horrors Marx would have probably sunk into obscurity. In my opinion the horrors were a logical consequence of some of the Marxist ideas. As the review points out Marx was inconsistent and advocated contradictory positions at different times.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 is my essay which argues that the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist horrors are a logical consequence of some of Marx’s ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto.

The often effective response to such a thread as mine is to point out the horrors of the Marxist-Leninist variety of socialism.

I believe that one can have a just and socialist society in a democratic context. Two things that are necessary to this end is to jettison Marxism and publicise the activities of the American Enterprise Institute in promoting reaction

David, this is Australia, not the US, you might be surprised to learn.

The AEI may be a big deal over there, but over here there are more influential groups and those groups are promoting featherbedding and subsidy of every aspect of life. It is their influence which has lead to the problem of debt expansion, both public and private. Weak populist politicians have allowed those very vocal organisations to scare them into producing bad policy, while wiser heads have been kept quiet behind the scenes, unable or unwilling to risk the public opprobrium that suggesting a reduction in subsidy would inevitably invoke from those who have come to see such subsidy as a natural right and to depend on it to fund their lifestyle.

As I said in another thread, the problem for Australia is that the median income family is now a net consumer of government spending rather than a net provider of such funds. That means the majority of people now have a vested short-term interest in ensuring the money keeps flowing to them. We don't allow children free access to the bikkie tin for a very good reason - they are going to consume what is in it until it is gone, then demand that Mum makes some more. Mum has a competing interest - she wants the bikkies to last - so she limits the child's ability to access the tin, even when the child throws a tantrum.

That is just simple common sense.

Dear Antiseptic,

I agree that basic should not mean luxurious. However, basic should mean that there is not a long waiting time for necessary medical intervention. Pleasant surroundings as well as optional procedures should be paid for by those who want them.

One reason that there are not enough doctors and nurses is that the number of places are restricted by the doctor’s union (AMA). Often having a medical degree and a specialist qualification is simply a license to make big bucks.

Medical costs have blown out, and a large proportion of it is spent in giving an old fart like me (87) a few more months of agony. I would appreciate legal means by which I could end it if I am faced with months or years of agony with only one possible end. I would rather the end be sooner. The Northern Territory had Rights of the Terminally Ill (ROTI) which allowed sufferers of terminal disease to end their lives peacefully. Unfortunately parliament in a bill introduced by Kevin Andrews and supported by Howard and Beazley succeeded in overturning the Northern Territory Law.

My wife and I belong to the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland which would like to see the legislation reinstated and passed in other places.

I agree with hasbeen that somebody my age should not be entitled to a transplant of a major organ although I wouldn’t sticking in a few teeth to replace those that have gone.

As long as parliament is mainly composed of lawyers we will continue to have a litigious society. Lawyers are not allowed to serve on juries. I think this is because they get too involved in the mechanics of procedure rather than in trying to ascertain the facts of the case. Perhaps lawyers should be barred from serving as members of parliament and should only be retained as technicians to ensure proposed legislation is in the proper format.

Dear Antiseptic,

Perhaps you are unaware of how much influence the US has on Australia. Megachurches have been set up in Australia with American seed money. Hillsong is an example.

The American Enterprise Institute has financed groups in Australia. To a great extent Australia is a US subsidiary. I will try to find the reference. I don’t have it at hand at the moment, but it told how AEI has organised Australian think tanks.

I agree with you on the position of the middle class in Australia.

' Everyone in Australia is entitled to adequate hospital care. Every child in Australia is entitled to an adequate education '

wrong premise Davidf

we should view these as a great blessing and be thankful for them instead of demanding entitlements. Otherwise your premise is racist. You could easily write
Everyone in Pakistan is entitled to adequate hospital care. Every child in Pakistan is entitled to an adequate educatio

Dear runner,

I wish you would read my posts before you argue with me.

My first three sentences were: Everyone in Australia is entitled to adequate hospital care. Every child in Australia is entitled to an adequate education. I believe that is true for people all over the world.

That obviously includes people in Pakistan and everywhere else on the planet.

Weren't you able to get to the third sentence?