Paul,

The single biggest problem with your argument is that the reason that there were no private telephone or letter carriers is often because to maintain the monopoly and prices, government owned businesses were legally protected against competition by legislation.

A prime example of rabid socialism is Juliar's NBN disaster which has effectively banned all competition for providing networks.

A prime example of rabid socialism is Juliar's NBN disaster which has effectively banned all competition for providing networks.

Posted by Shadow Minister,

Yes Shadow, & left all new residents in my area with no access to a landline phone or internet. Telstra are not of course expanding the exchange or network here. No work will be done until the NBN comes through & no one knows when that is likely to arrive. They can't or won't tell us, but being outside a metropolitan area, it is likely to be quite a while.

Shadow, the reason for many government enterprises being set up in the first place was because private enterprise was incapable or unwilling to do so. The post for example was of vital importance to all Australians, it required government to provide a service than capital could not at a reasonable price.

Hasbeen, as an supporter of free enterprise, you want socialism when it suits. In your case the provision of government services your not willing to pay for yourself and the rest of the remotes. Is that not the case?
"left all new residents in my area with no access to a landline phone or internet."
Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for.

Paul1405, "Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for"

Disregarding your use of false analogy (pub argument) that you seem unaware of and taking you up on example, would you be saying the same where occupants of islands that are not part of Australia are demanding Australian taxpayer assistance and getting it? Islands that have come and gone over the ages, but the present occupants have convinced the hanky-wringers that somehow Australia is responsible. Others expect roads and other infrastructure, just because, but no strings attached and no thanks expected.

What about Aborigines in remote locations some with one family 'settlements'. Are they wrong to be expecting the same education, health, public utilities that can be supplied through economies of scale in capitals? It is quite impossible to provide the services that activists and Greens demand.

Returning to your criticism of Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet in a location that is not 'remote' as I understand from his previous posts.

The hypocrisy of some who would deny those they perceive to be their inferiors, believing such people to be unworthy of unearned social benefit, for example Aborigines in remote locations and occupants of islands! Yet these same posters believe their perceived social equals are entitled to the prevision of unearned benefits, example; the provision of telecommunications services for some in remote locations.
If you were consistent in your belief that none should receive any benefit not earned then I could understand your philosophical point of view, but you are inconsistent. Beach why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from government, but not for others?

Paul1405, "why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from government, but not for others?"

You have more front than a Greyhound bus. That is precisely the question that was put to you.

So, what is your answer?