Indi...That joke fell flat. were we supposed to laugh?
Paul1405,
If you think that was a joke then you'd better think again. That scenario is cold stark fact on a regular basis. If you think this is a joke then I'm afraid you're even more silly than all morons on OLO combined. I actually think you do know but you're not game enough i.e. lacking the integrity to concede it happens. And, yes it is one of the sad legacies of Labor.
May I suggest you start enquiring about those remote communities before you you start laughing at dreadfully serious Labor stuff-ups which the Conservatives now have to reverse & trying to avoid backlash at the same time. I just hope you feel good about having been instrumental in getting the Labor morons into power & ruin the fabric of our society.

Indi, what was the name of the airline which allowed cartons of beer etc to be taken on board as carry on luggage? You cannot take containers of liquid (any liquid including beer, water, coca cola) in excess of 100ml through airport security. A bar in an airport does not have an 'off license' so therefor all package beer/alcohol purchased has to be opened at the point of sale.

Paul you would evidentially be amazed at what goes on aircraft in the less commercial world of general aviation.

I once had a logging contractor desperate for some "log dogs", steel spikes with a ring on top. These are driven into logs, & a wire rope passed through the ring to make up log rafts to tow out to timber ships anchored off shore.

He wanted two, one hundred weight bags of the things. The Rabaul local air service to Kimbe could not guarantee carrying the weight if it had a full load of passengers in their Aztec that did the run.

In a moment of inspiration I booked 2 passengers into the flight, Mr. & Mrs. Log dog. The customer got his log dogs by speed boat from Kimbe the next morning.

I don't know if they traveled in passenger seats, or in the cargo hold, but they traveled, & even better, the passenger fare was cheaper than the freight bill would have been. Talk about win win

Paul1405,
Of course the grog was not on a seat as such. it was right behind but still in front of the rear bulkhead within the cabin space where hand luggage is stowed. Passengers put it there & collect when exiting the AC. It was the same Airline that was allowed a monopoly by both Labor & LNP Governments after they shafted another one which actually provided a better service. Why, I can't say that here because I'd be accused of being a homophobe.
Besides, that's not the point is it / The point is that people use social benfit as a means of procuring super inflated priced grog. Now I imagine if these people would have to pay $7 for the doctor after a night on the rum then that would really finacially hurt them. But they won't have to pay Cent anyway.

Producer says:

“Communism assumes equality. My proposition is capitalism that recognizes there are limits and social responsibility”

. . . and also he says "ultimately they [kids] are the responsibility of the parents, not the tax payer” which is in sync with his "capitalism" ideas.

However I must point out to ALL the extreme importance of this issue, the fact that it is grossly misunderstood and how that leads to most of the political/social problems in our society.

I agree with both the primary premises of communism and capitalism.
Further I claim that both sides totally misunderstand the fundamentals and this causes them to perceive themselves opposed when in fact they are not different at all fundamentally.

First both communism and capitalism is premised on a conception of the ontology of the self as being each as individuals equal to all other selfs in an existential sense only [meaning they are important equally re their very being]. Communism thinks all people are equal and this leads to their 'fairness' lean and capitalists think each individual is as a principle equally allowed to move within the social-political-economic fabric to gain property for their person, this also at heart relies on the same premise that existentially all individuals are equal somehow.

It is just that both sides get the details wrong when they interpret the principles to be able to real-world instituted.

I believe that both the communists and capitalists misunderstand their premises by thinking to use their base to be an equality of real world terms when this is not ever usually the case. In turn the capitalist relies on that erroneous assumption to claim their right to get more wealth IF they can and do the work whilst the communist erroneaouly believes that ALL things should be shared out evenly regardless of indivudal hard work and ingenuity.

Both are terribly wrong.

Both sides misunderstand that the ultimate premise both communism and capitalism are based on is that the self-as-such [i.e. every individual] is equal in their individual existential nature and worth

. . . continued . . . .

Instead both communist and capitalist philosophies miss the mark some and think that ultimate premise is one about how to understand human relations of self to every other self on the world. That conception leads to both sides erroneously believing they have to either accept or reject outright the belief that every individual is ACTUALLY EQUAL in real life [rather than in principle as it really needs to be seen] and this is why the capitalist tends to REJECT this and embrace a level of Rayndian selfishness whilst the communists claim to ACCEPT this and claim to embrace a total selfless egalitarianism.

These issues have been debated for centuries and in modern times most notably between Rawls and Habermas and others. The debate always comes down to the issue of whether a political philosopher thinks about social inequalities that are often born into [no choice] and how that should affect wealth and the level that the privileged should "assist" those with very little.

Whilst the typical selfish capitalist [everyone for themselves] tends to believe that they owe nobody anything let alone charity, the communist thinks that [at least supposed to] every person should be given same pay regardless of job type and same opportunities etc.

The capitalist ignores the fact that all wealth, opportunities etc. are usually strongly determined by where one is born and their opportunities are highly restricted within those particular good or rotten parameters. The communist ignores the fact that individuals despite their chances [assume same for sake of argument] may work harder than another and/or wish to embrace openness and free thinking more than others and therefore some should still get better rewards than others [the degree of the difference of rewards is the issue].

Anyway the capitalist DO ALREADY recognize and employ this 'fairness' policy but not for individual workers - only for business and big financial setups [e.g. tariff protections etc.]