Here's the scope of it. Because people are happy to divide each other up on political theory that is rarely lived up to the dream. It has to be said. Left, Right, and center are all missing the target. But it can be done better.

If you are left leaning you're politics are about kindness, a bleeding heart towards causes. But you have no care for ruining what's working, for the sake of holding up a cause. And your causes can lead you by the nose without doing anything. Leading you by lies and misdirection. For you, what you need is a dosage of fear of making the world worse, of ruining what is working, or harming what is good. And if you have a faith in God, then what is needed is to have the fear of turning away from Him, by turning away from His standards.

If you are right leaning politics is about preserving what works instead of ideologies of a utopia. While also supporting individual power over government force. Smaller government, less restrictions, more individual power. You know the fear of losing what your country has. The fault is that greed and corruption is more open and problems are left alone. For you what is needed is a strong heart to hold onto personal generosity and kindness to counter the lack of policies to take that responsibility away from you. If you already do this, well done and thank you.

If you are center politically, then you try to say from extremes. However it's filled with a philosophy of compromise so that no real action is taken, and no real steps to fix an issue are supported. To have moderate center leaning politics and still be useful when there is a need to stand up against corruption, stand ready in case of war, or to stand with justice when there is injustice, what you need is to know when to not compromise. Otherwise what you're left with is spinning your wheels while adopting to a lesser degree both faults of right leaning and left leaning politics.

Kindness? The Left is not very kind to those people who disagree with them; and their “bleeding heart cause” are merely look-at-me virtue signalling.

Adhering to the centre is standing for nothing.

Conservatism is the only hope.

The main difference between the Left and Right is that the Left want the government to help the people who are in trouble. The Right want the government to not help – some oppose intervention because they don't think it should be the government's role, but more commonly they want to make an example of those people in the vain hope that it will deter others from making the same mistakes.

Those on the Centre tend to be misunderstood. Most are there not because they seek the centre ground, but because they seek the best outcome and recognise the problems with the extreme positions.

Economist and social commentator, Peter Smith, has something to say about the 'kindness’ of the Left:

“ … they never seem to run out of compassion for ‘the other’”’ but “...” Ask them to help Aussies – disadvantaged, bad teeth, homeless, old and shivering in the cold – or, alternatively, Syrian asylum seekers and they’ll plump for the latter every time”.

And they feel morally superior as they dispense the best of care that taxpayers can provide to these undeserving foreigners.

A standout example of this attitude is the newly elected independent member for Wentworth, in parliament for five minutes, yapping about nothing but illegals on Nauru instead of concentrating on the Australians who elected her and who will be paying her huge salary, superannuation, and other perks.

Aidan,

Lucky for you that the post on the Marxist threat was pushed out so that you didn't have to come up with an answer to my questions on your choice BS.

ttbn,
Rightwing commentators like Peter Smith are fond of false dichotomies. But in reality there's no good reason not to help both. Also:

• It's the Right, not the Left, who oppose helping disadvantaged Aussies.
• Refugees are fleeing for a reason - they should not be assumed to be undeserving.
• Despite the Right labelling them as "illegals", people have a legal right to seek asylum.
• Keeping people locked up on Nauru is not only unacceptably cruel, but also very expensive.
• Although people resettling here results in an initial cost to taxpayers, they subsequently become taxpayers so in the long run it should be profitable.

As for your post on the Marxist thread, I have contacted politicians on a number of issues, but I'm pretty sure I haven't managed to sway any election results yet. However, grassroots political organisations such as GetUp have. Do you regard the as elites as well?

Aidan,
I can't really comment about the goings-on on your Planet but here on Earth things are not as you described in your last post. I'll play "Il Silenzio" while you digest my reply.

Aidan,

1. A false dichotomy is used to force someone into and extreme position. How does Peter Smith do this? Who has he 'forced into an extreme position'. You? I would have thought that Smith merely expresses his opinions in the same way that you and I do.
2. How did you come by the view that the Right opposes “ helping disadvantaged Aussies”? Australians identified as 'battlers' flocked to John Howard's Coalition, as more recently American battlers flocked to Donald Trump. Doesn't that tell you that the Democrats in America, and Labor in Australia, are the ones who really don't want to help anyone but themselves, and the 'elite' inner city-dwelling academics? Are they really interested in “disadvantaged Aussies”?
3. “Refugees are fleeing for a reason”. Yes. They are country shopping for a better life, which is not one of the conditions of the Refugee Convention. The have 'fled' past one or more countries looking for the best welfare deal. It is not genuine refugees who have subjected themselves to the proper process who have got the backs of Australians up.
4. Illegals do not have the right to pick and choose a country, legally, or by any stretch of the imaginations that many people replace facts with.
5. There is nothing “cruel” about detaining people who have attempted to get here by boat. The are housed and fed, and away from the 'persecution' they claim to be escaping.
6. Just how many of these illegals become taxpayers? Even the MSM you people rely on reports that there many people who will never work; will never speak English; will never assimilate.

Overall, Aidan, I am wondering just how much contact you have with your fellow human beings, Right or Left. I also suspect that you don't care much “disadvantaged Aussies” yourself.

At least you have had second thoughts about Joe Blow's ability to influence the political class.

In today's Quadrant Online, Peter Smith (again, sorry) muses on what happens when a brain is trained to ignore the consequences “of repeated failure”: people become “increasingly stupid”. And, he thinks, the “progressive Left” needs to be treated as a “race apart” when it comes to IQ testing.

IQ's are on the way down in the “developed world” (who would have thought it ,wink, wink). “Younger people are dafter that old people”. He does hint that the old Lefties are pretty daft as well. But, he thinks that young conservatives have “retained he intelligence of their parents and grandparents”.

It's a short article, which includes comments about all the Lefty obsessions. I don't have the energy to properly review it, but I recommend it to the handful of conservatives on OLO. No pay wall

Hey Aiden,
You mischaracterise the issues.

• It's the Right, not the Left, who oppose helping disadvantaged Aussies.
I don't oppose helping disadvantaged Aussies but there's a difference between a handup and a handout.
I'm opposed to freely taking it from those who earned it only to be wasted via poor policy.
I support helping Aussies with a handup so long as they're willing to help themselves.
However 'disadvantaged' does not mean 'being new to the country or some weird PC victimhood socialist agenda'.
I genuinely support good policy that's fair to ALL Australians.

• Refugees are fleeing for a reason - they should not be assumed to be undeserving.
'Undeserving' has nothing to do with anything.
I don't care if they're the most deserving person on the planet.
I'm not going to spend it on a foreigner who's never paid tax and leave an Aussie citizen in hospital who's has paid high and dry, especially when the nation has unpayable level of debt.
In my mind you don't spend on non-essentials when you're in debt.
And as long as you're in debt, you're living in someone else's pocket.

• Despite the Right labelling them as "illegals", people have a legal right to seek asylum.
They also have the legal right to go somewhere else.
This isn't a halfway house for unachievers and global welfare-shoppers nor are Australian taxpayers responsible for their plight.
If individuals want to give they can, but to mandate that ALL Australians MUST pay for them is not ethically right.

• Keeping people locked up on Nauru is not only unacceptably cruel, but also very expensive.
I agree with you that it's cruel and expensive.
But those reasons alone aren't going to make me agree that every refugee without documentation should get automatic entry onto our streets.

• Although people resettling here results in an initial cost to taxpayers, they subsequently become taxpayers so in the long run it should be profitable.
'should'?
I don't want a system based on 'should'.
I want sound foolproofed policies that work, without the BS.

- Nice bullet points btw.

Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 4:26:05 AM

Interesting comments "Not_Now.Soon" you've covered the topic very well.

Aidan.

You're wrong about the left and the right. But ironically the way your wrong about it is mentioned in your second post. It's a false dichotomy.

The right aren't the heartless beasts that you convey. Much of the right supports individual freedom. Instead of being mandated to help, and suffocate from both too many taxes and the inability to make your own decisions, the right supports individual freedom to look after their own. Whether that is their own land, their own business, or even their own thoughts and words without PC threatening them with some adverse consequence. My outlook on the right is that if they hold to this foundation of a small government with less interventions, then they hold the responsibility to up hold high standards on their own. If they are successful at doing so by encouraging private generosity, or even businesses supporting local programs on their own the right is fulfilling it's role of being responsible and more self governing.

The left though holds no reliability to what they say or what they do. If they had more then just an emotional response to issues and causes, then perhaps having a government supported policy will do good to help people out. Instead too often it's unreliable, unworkable unless everyone agrees (or is forced) to act the same way, and manipulative. They also break down many safeguards, traditions, and culture of the society, all in the name of being progressive without any other reason to help or otherwise have a benefit. Just force others to change because the left says so.

Regarding the center. They stand away from right or left because they've seen extremes, corruption, or abuse. But what I see from them is just spinning their wheels in indecision more then actively seeking resolutions to issues. The center faces a similar problem the left faces. Where the left faces emotional pleas and can be lead around by lies and misdirection, the center can be lead around by false exaggerations and lies about what the right or left are doing. Still lead by lies and misdirection.

It's important to understand a concept (in this case the political landmarks) and its underlying landscape before hoping to manage it. Though the ones managing it might be advisers not politicians.

I would have gone for a more continuum based (quantitative rather than qualitative) approach as certain groups excel at moving landmarks in public psychology if you haven't defined the landscape well. At some level its all fairly arbitrary but so is language. This element of language is reminiscent of an arms race.

The Narrative of Politics is similar to the construction of a tower- it's complex, has many systems such as electrical, plumbing- it has to be stable and flexible approapriately- if it's well built the architect will have many commissions and perhaps their buildings with appear throughout the city- buildings are characteristic of their culture. British Australian's have historically been very self sufficient / self governing perhaps we can again.

Perhaps- overall at this point in history (and perhaps it always was since the 1500's) "people need Conservatism" more than anything else in politics. Even if "people need Conservatism" they also "need to want it". Wants and Needs.

Politics is war- the people have been losing for 500 years.

Bring back the villages- sweep away the masses.

Now_Not.Soon- The Left (Social Libertarians) appear to consist of two groups the radicals (that understand) and the "feel good people" (do gooders- useful idiots- don't understand). The radicals from experience are in the extreme minority- but are highly influential.

To ttbn

Wish I could argue with you about the left, but your observations are correct. The kindness of the left isn't kind at all. But they think it is. And that's an issue in itself. Lead around by lies and misdirection, where giving support to a cause in the left philosophy is the same as giving a solution to a problem, and not giving support to a cause is enough to be a villain in your own right. A pack of lies mixed with a blindness to see results or to not worry about trashing what was built on for generations is a dangerous road to travel. But that's the road I see over and over again on left politics and left politicians.

To ArmChair Critic. Nice rebuttal. I those are the issues as I've understood them from a conservative stance.

To Canem Malum. Thankyou. It just seems that the place is divided by political philosophies without really addressing the issues within those philosophies.

ttbn,
1. Although false dichotomies can be used to force people into extreme positions, that's not a defining feature.

Peter Smith is falsely implying that we have only two choices: helping disadvantaged Aussies and helping Syrian asylum seekers. But those options are not mutually exclusive – we could and should help both. And of course there's technically a fourth option, since many on the Right would prefer to help neither.

2. A lot on the Right oppose the government helping disadvantaged Aussies, as they see it as a waste of taxpayers' money. Some spout rhetoric about wanting to give a hand up not a hand out, but then fail to follow through with a hand up - and also fail to recognise that a hand out is often a necessary first step in a hand up.

The Right tend to be much better at spin than the left. Most people are under the false impression that the Right are much stronger on the economy than the Left are, even though the reverse is the case. Howard's Battlers were seduced by the lie that Labor were anti-aspirational, but meanwhile more the tax burden was shifted onto them and off the rich.

Hillary Clinton lost the election for three reasons: firstly she was an abysmal campaigner; secondly people fell for the lies about her, and thirdly there was a lot of anger about the economy not having recovered as well as people were saying it had. That last factor was mainly due to the Hooverites in Congress controlling the purse strings. Trump has at least solved that problem, buying them off with tax cuts for the rich.

3. You seem to be implying people genuinely fleeing for their lives are a figment of the imagination, or that if they're not willing to wait in a refugee camp for forty years then it proves their not genuine. Is that really what you think? If not, please clarify your position.

4. Refugees have a right to keep going until they feel safe. Can't you comprehend they may not feel safe in Malaysia or Indonesia?

Aiden- I really don't think there is any point in discussing refugees with you because you believe you are right just as I do.

ttbn (continued)
5. Whether there is something cruel about detaining people who've attempted to get here by boat depends on the conditions in which they're detained and for how long. Indefinite detention in conditions worse than prison is extremely cruel.

6. AIUI the vast majority become taxpayers, and most of the rest play a supporting role, enabling their husbands to work long hours. But initially getting people into the workforce can be difficult even for Australians, let alone for refugees.

> I also suspect that you don't care much “disadvantaged Aussies” yourself.
It looks like you've fallen for that false dichotomy too.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Not_Now.Soon,
It's a generalisation rather than a false dichotomy. I certainly don't deny there are other choices.

And I think most people on the Right genuinely believe their rhetoric. They support policies they think will lead to a better society and a stronger economy – despite having the opposite effect.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
For a sovereign currency issuing nation like Australia, debt is little more than an accounting identity. We will never need to eliminate our debt, but nor will there ever be any danger at all of us not being able to service it. Though there's an interest cost, that's more than made up for by the ability to invest in our future.

And I'm not saying that every refugee without documentation should get automatic entry onto our streets. Of course they should be vetted by ASIO.

>I don't want a system based on 'should'.
It would be much nicer if we could always predict what will work. But life doesn't work like that. So a better course of action is to monitor things to see if they work as they should, and if not, determine why and make adjustments accordingly.

Aidan,

Thanks for confirming that everything I have said about you is true. You are out of touch with reality. Nothing can be done for you.

Left=insipid
Right=just as bad
Centre=has to give in to both
Solution=not possible until people simply just care & ignore Left-Right stupidity

"4. Refugees have a right to keep going until they feel safe. Can't you comprehend they may not feel safe in Malaysia or Indonesia?"

I wonder how safe they felt in the middle of the Timor Sea in some crappy un-seaworthy tub. Not so safe? Well we did them a favour by putting them in seaworthy craft and pointing them back from whence they came. We are so humanitarian.

I also wonder if they feel safe on Naura. No fear of persecution there. Problem solved.

Just saw a photograph of the sign board at the church of that 'turbulent' Left wing Anglican priest in Gosford. It reads:

"Manus Is How The Holocaust Started".

You can't get much nuttier than that!

The left / right / centre paradigm seems logical enough, but is a total load of crap.
It mght've worked 50 years ago when countries were nationalist, and citizens were mostly all on the same page but in the age of globalism it's cancerous and toxic.

Why do I say this?

The idea of the left / right / centre paradigm only works if everyone supports the idea of democracy.
It does not work if the left are 'off the reservation' and attempting a marxist social revolution to move away from democracy completely in support of socialism.

In this case you have competing 'ideologies', as opposed to competing 'ideas'.
- Competing ideologies in the field of 'governance' instead of competing ideas in the field of 'governing'.
It's flawed, and has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

The real deal is 'Globalism' v's 'Nationalism' anyway and the Marxist social revolution ideology is used to undermine any sense of Nationalism (or ownership of the nation by the people) in support of Globalism and the agendas of the elite.

'Just saw a photograph of the sign board at the church of that 'turbulent' Left wing Anglican priest in Gosford. It reads:

"Manus Is How The Holocaust Started".'

Yes ttbn the liberal theologians are as nutty as the liberal 'scientist' who make up lies about gw. Pity truth in liberals is left at the door.

We haven't heard much about the Fabian Society since the days of Gough Whitlam, an arch Fabian himself. He didn't say a lot about Fabianism as it is a secretive, behind-the-scenes branch of the Left. Founded in 1884, the Fabian Society operates in a manner different from the overt, original Marxism. Fabian-minded intellectuals work covertly, using liberal democracies to achieve the GRADUAL conversion to socialism; the operatives are found in academe and bureaucracies, in schools and universities, in the media, in politics, and in the entertainment industry. The play a 'long game', a more certain game, to achieve socialism in stages.

Sydney Webb, one of the society's founding members, coined a slogan 'The Inevibility Of Gradualness', in line with the story of the frog in slowly warming water. The 'frogs' who realise what is going on can hop out of the water and combat socialism. That's us, folks. The water is getting hotter.

Dear NNS,

I'm afraid I consider that your original post was a piece of jaundiced clap trap but let's see if we can tease this out.

Australia's Medicare would probably not get up in today's climate. People like you would be screaming that it is far left ideology, that is was seeking utopia over reality, it would go against the very essence of small government/individual freedom ideology.

Yet Australians time and time again show how much they appreciate this manifestation of socialist ideology and any government who tries to dismantle it are rebuffed.

The fact that there is little room in your ideology for something like Medicare, or the NDIS, or a decent public education system shows how bereft of care it really is. You claim the by making individual freedom sacrosanct you are showing care for others, but it doesn't really pass the muster does it?

Fabian Society - Wolf in Sheeps Clothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society#/media/File:Fabian_Society_coat_of_arms.svg

Hi SteeleRedux,
Despite my support for Trump's policies over other candidates, and that I'd be considered a right conservative, I don't necessarily go along with all the things the right believes, and look at each and every issue on its own merits.

In some cases (though very few) I actually support the lefts position.

I most certainly do support Medicare, and I also support free (socialist) education.
(Although the way it's administered leaves much to be desired)
I see those things as socialist base-levels of care of citizens.
But I think the system is broken because we give cash as welfare instead of a job.
And whilst I don't want to take that cash away, I think there should also be a socialist base-level employment, 'the job you have when you don't have a job' of double dole for full time work doing things to help the government save money.

The idea is this: How do we have a FAIR system that ensures free healthcare and education for everyone, if we cannot also give a free job in order to pay for this free education and healthcare?

The problem with capitalism is 2 people go for 1 job, and someone HAS to lose.
We need to create a foolproof system that fixes that flaw.

The answer is to create a system that safeguards human usefulness, stops people falling into a rut and all the social problems that brings, a socialist base-level employment scheme that ensures that everyone who WANTS to help themselves CAN.

Use the 5% pool of workers that capitalism needs to prevent wage growth and create a smaller socialist system alongside it, accessed via MyGov, where you log on and find a work-shift.

And make the work these people do be training orientated and geared in a way that creates more capitalist opportunities, so that they can get out of that system.

4. Refugees have a right to keep going until they feel safe. Can't you comprehend they may not feel safe in Malaysia or Indonesia?
Forgive my thinking but I'd have thought a refugee fleeing from islamic cruelty that has caused him to become a refugee, would embrace the freedom he has in a western country & shake that yoke of that religion & denounce it in freedom.
Most of them aren't really refugees, they're able-bodied young people to boost the representation of that religion in western countries. Many westerners in turn had it too good for too long & compassion is a mere fashionable fad to the. Meanwhile the invasion goes on in greater & greater numbers.

To SteeleRedux.

Sorry, but did I say I was against the left? Or for the right? At this time in life I'd wager to trust the right more then the left, but that happens when you see politicians say they are the champions of the disadvantaged and then in grand expression of indifference show they don't care and couldn't be bothered to start. In a great way of hypocrisy the politicians of the left say they care but then show that they don't. I see it as more manipulative on voters then actually caring for those they say they are helping. However that in itself is based on seeing the actions of politicians, not on the grounding philosophy of political views that are common abound those who say they are left, right, or something else.

No, what I was trying to convey was that the grounding foundations of both right and left there is a gaping hole that needs to be bandaged and mended. For the left, those who are part of it usually stay for the reason of helping others. Whether they actually do help others or not though is part of the weak spot of the left. No real accountability in either policy or politicians. The second real danger is that without accountability there's no holding back to preserve what's working well. So in that light some policies are there to push one cause forward without looking at how or even if it will fit together with the whole system or if it will topple another framework of the system.

(Continued)

(Continued)

For example look at two causes that are upheld by left leaning politics. The homosexual activists, and the Islamic activists. Both are held as if they have rights that should only be encouraged more. (Probably based on the assumption that they are a victim filled population). However where do these two causes fit with each other? Homosexuals shouldn't deny and ignore how harsh Islamic countries are to other homosexuals, and if they rail against a businesses showing the tiniest hesitation to supporting homosexual activism, why are they not more so railing against Islamic sponsored butchery? The same complaint can be addressed towards the Islamic activists in progressive politics. Where does that fit in with the homosexual movement? This is an example entirely within the left and it shows the point that that as long as a cause is supported, it doesn't matter how it fits in the grand scheme of things. Even if it harms other positions in the same political philosophy.

I support Medicare, because it is a government wide program that both has heart and works. (At least for now, hopefully continues to do so).

The right leaning politics lacks a sense of victimhood and the sense of social justice. In order to rectify this it needs to be addressed outside of politics and mandated giving, and instead be championed by the generosity of individuals, and the backing of local or chain businesses. But if that is accomplished then it's doing the same job the policies of the left say they are trying to accomplish. That said the politics of the right do one good service. They try to perserve the parts of the government that work.

Simply put the left needs to focus on not breaking things while trying to fix other concerns, and be held accountable. The right needs to have an open heart outside of governing policies in order to fulfill the needs of society around them. Those are the weak points in both.

To SteeleRedux

One last side note, based on part of your comment.

//The fact that there is little room in your ideology for something like Medicare, or the NDIS, or a decent public education system shows how bereft of care it really is. You claim the by making individual freedom sacrosanct you are showing care for others, but it doesn't really pass the muster does it?//

This part of you comment adds one more element to the discussion. It was already addressed by ttbn that the kindness of the left is not really kind at all. I'd wager to add to that that a large part of left philosophy is anger fueled. Stand up to evil kind of anger I suppose is the intent, but anger none the less. It shows itself in unrestrained outbursts that if we're lucky only remains verbal instead of vindictive, violent, or vandalized in nature.

The anger in your comment addresses me as if I am a monster that is against taking care of seniors in our populations. I assure you that this is not the case. In your anger don't let yourself tell stories that aren't true. Least you believe them. I assure you the anger is likely there because of my critism to the left (which holds merit). But it is not there because if anything I've said against taking care of those who rely on Medicare due to their disadvantages.

Dear NNS,

Me? Anger? Really? Mate go and read your supposedly 'even handed' original post.

The left are the ones apparently being lead “by lies and misdirection” and have no care “for ruining what is working”. While the right just need to find a little more individual compassion and all will be rosy.

Look I get that you are pissed off with the SSM vote and the so called 'homosexual lobby'. That anger is obviously spilling into the way you framed your post which is fine. But to then go and lecture someone else about their supposed anger is a little rich.

To your supposed support for Medicare. Give me a break. You do not support the concept of universal healthcare at all. You don't support the vision of it nor do you support its current form. You see it as a 'charity' to be doled out to those who you deem deserve it and the rest can go fend for themselves.

It is obvious from your language. For instance;

“The anger in your comment addresses me as if I am a monster that is against taking care of seniors in our populations.”

And;

“But it is not there because if anything I've said against taking care of those who rely on Medicare due to their disadvantages.”

Both describe not the visionary universal health scheme in this country but rather the insipid and bleak rightwing version of it employed in the US.

“As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories include low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older.”

But perhaps you are an American, if so that would make your position a little more legitimate.

Hey SteeleRedux,
Well I for one definitely mean what I say.
Outright Capitalism is flawed.
Outright Socialism is flawed.
End of story.

Only a combination of the two can allow people to live a life of their own choice, whilst providing a guaranteed standard of healthcare and education for every citizen.

Once people accept this, and toss 'Outright Capitalism' and 'Outright Socialism' on the scrapheap of history where they both belong, only then can we sit down and really fine-tune a fair and efficient system that does work for all the people living under it.

I will go nuts, if they try to mess with medicare.

- It's a red line -

I'm all for promoting Capitalism and Nationalism, but my 'ideal system' needs these socialist base-level systems in place.

- And I want to refine it and improve on it -

I'm even upset government sold off and privatised some things, like transport, because in my proposed system anyone who logged onto myGov for a work shift in the proposed base-level socialist employment system would be entitled to freely travel anywhere on public transport to go to those work shifts.

But now after privatisation, the government would have to pay private companies in order for citizens to get that same benefit.

When the government claims 'we create X amount jobs' they're full of it.
In my system I actually would create half a million jobs with the stoke of a pen and it wouldn't cost any more than what's wasted now, (with the right planning, policies and projects)

To SteeleRedux.

The right only needs "a little" more individual compassion? Apparently I didn't make myself clear. In order for the politics of the right to be balanced they need a lot of compassion to compensate. There is no "little bit" to this. I don't see this as a foreseeable future in the cooperate business culture that is part of most western societies. Especially if you add into it the stock market. Even if a businessman has the drive to take a portion of their profits and donate it to the community for any program that they see worth while, they would be stopped by stockholders who usually only want money spent in a way to greater increase the profit of that business. Without considering the stock market influence, I would wager that a generous CEO is a rare thing. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Regardless, the amount of generosity to compensate lowering taxes would have to be a lot of generosity and compassion on all levels of society. After all, the tax that is removed will stop a government sponsored program and the community would have to pick up the slack themselves or find an alternative for those that depended on that government program. This is no small matter. The reason for public education and Medicare being tax sponsored is because otherwise it wouldn't be funded at all. Those making the laws know this and made the laws and taxes for both.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the left. I stand by my words. Regarding lies an manipulation, I would doubt any politician to be honest nowadays until they prove otherwise by their actions. However the political narrative from the left politicians is completely manipulative and dishonest to a degree that it should be addressed. To get into office they say they will fight for X,Y, and Z, up to 15 to 20 different causes and groups of people they say they are for that are mostly forgotten once they are voted into office. They know they can't help everyone, but they make the empty promises anyways. It's not just the politicians though. It's a culture in the left to play on people's emotions over and over and over again. Manipulative to support a cause, and an active part in their activists. Worse part. Too much money and support they get goes towards paying the activists and the overhead for advertisement instead of the causes that got them support.

Regarding the left's tendency to ruin what's working, I've already explained my stance on that. Even gave an example purely in the left fields of politics where they aren't striving to make the government work well as a whole, but instead splinters off. If you want more examples I can give at least a few more. But the left doesn't even try to integrate with the people, policies, or culture that is part of the country for years. So yes, ruin what's already working is a fair criticism.

As for Medicare, and several other programs supported by taxes, I am glad that they are there. Most of them are probably needed. If you don't believe me that's fine. Believe what you want about me. That's not a point I see worth focusing on.

As I see it, mainstream Australian politics is made up of moderate thinking people who totally hold sway in the decision making process. Australian politics is not a game with rivalry between extreme forces, who hold diametrically opposing political philosophies. Its more a case of like minded political moderates, some progressive, others conservative, who argue about emphasis and priorities rather than any concepts of radical change. All major parties hold with maintaining the status quo, none offer any form of radicalism what so ever.

I don't believe in the left/right nonsense, an invention of the French. The moderates are like the Sun, with all the extremists being the size of Pluto and orbiting at a similar distance, unlike the Sun, Pluto is having no effect on the operation of the Solar System, nor are the extremists in Australian politics having any effect, and that's not going to change anytime soon, unless there is a catastrophic upheaval within society that gives the extreme the impudence to push for radical change.

Dear AC,

Good to hear, see you do make sense sometimes. Keep it up.

Dear NNS,

Pretty easy to resolve mate. Are you able to, without qualification, categorically state you fully support a government run, universal health scheme covering all Australians so they can access free, quality medical health care?

If so I will stand corrected. If not you are what you are no matter the protestations to the contrary.

fully support a government run, universal health scheme covering all Australians so they can access free, quality medical health care?
Steele Redux,
Sounds good except I'd have voluntary drug abusers excluded.

Indy, are you including alcohol and nicotine abusers as well. While we are at it those with self inflicted obesity health related issues. What about those fair skin sun worshippers with melanoma, they only had to slip, slop, slap, how hard is that. Speeding car drivers in auto accidents, people with kids who didn't immunise......the list goes on! What about some clunker who had an accident at home because he didn't follow basic safety..."I told hubby not to climb that old broken ladder, but he insisted." Given all who should not be covered "universal health cover" should extend to about 5% of the population?

Universal means universal, no exceptions!

Universal means universal, no exceptions!
Paul1405,
of course you had to throw that in, it's really the only argument you've got. You're forgetting one vital difference that all those you mentioned already pay taxes on & for the scenario you mentioned. Drug abusers do not !
Unless there is a drug tax I don't know about.

Individual,

Why do you assume that drug abusers don't pay taxes?
There are many well-to-do people who use all sorts of
drugs - cocaine, heroin, ice... Many use
(and overdose - like Elvis, Michael Jackson) on
prescription drugs. Not all drug abusers are derelicts.
Many are hard-working, tax-paying citizens.

"Universal means universal, no exceptions!"
Yes I'd support this in that manner of NOT denying anyone care in the first instance;

But I've got to be honest and say that for me, I'd want to build safeguards into the system.

'Cloward and Piven'.
I don't want a system that is flawed and can implode if abused.
I want a system that's foolproofed, and fair.

What that means is this:
If a parent with 10 kids who never bothered to get their license wants to call the home doctor 5 times a week and an ambulance once a month, for kids sniffles or other minor issues; then that's a problem to me if the cost of servicing that one parent exceeds what another average worker earns and pays in tax.

I won't allow one person to frivolously waste what someone else worked really hard for; and I also believe that if you did something really dumb that contributed to the injury then maybe there should be some small co-payment.

This isn't about punishing anyone or denying them healthcare, but about personal responsibility and ensuring we have a system that's fair, sustainable and efficient for all citizens.

So yes I support universal healthcare, but with safeguards to prevent abuse of the system.

Indy, in the case of smokers I believe they should get a free government subsidised coffin when they cark it at 50, under the not so universal 'Coffincare' program.

"Cigarette smoking generates as much as $170 billion in annual health care spending in the United States, according to a new study. The study found that taxpayers bear 60 percent of the cost of smoking-attributable diseases through publicly funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid."

"In Australia, smokers impose about $318.4 million in net costs on Australia's healthcare system. Depending on rainfall, smokers also cost the taxpayer about $150 million a year in bushfire control. Tax on cigarettes nowhere near covers the health and other costs caused by smoking. If correct tobacco tax covers part of the tangible costs, but none of the intangible costs such as lost productivity. Same for alcohol.

To Paul1405.

If what you say is true about politics being run by moderate politicians that is an encouraging point. But I'm no longer sure this is the case. There are extremes in the world of politics, even extremes that hold a good deal of power or even international pressure such as the UN trying to force an agenda of open borders on all nations instead letting each nation agree or disagree to it on their own terms. Regarding domestic politics I hope what you say if more often true then not, that politicians are not extreme but are trying to serve the people in the best way they can. However even that I doubt completely, because of how often corruption gets into the picture with politicians. Regardless, as a general rule I have to hope and believe that politicians are as you say they are and functioning to make a stable workable government.

That said though, I think the terms of left, right, or anything else are applicable terms for no other reason then we use them often and place value in those terms. Look at the discussions and debates in OLO and you can see the value in those terms when one person identifies themself or others as left or right and argue strongly based on that point and that point alone.

My main point about the underlying philosophies of progressive and conservative are both lacking something within the frameworks of their philosophies. Left is stronger if 1) the policies put in place are considered how they will work in conjunction to the people and the government they effect; and 2) if the policies and philosophies are held accountable. Right is stronger if the philosophy of generosity is culturally cultivated to support the needs of the community that lower taxes will neglect. Center (moderates?) are held to a stronger foundation if they don't compromise on everything but instead stand firm when it is needed.

To SteeleRedux.

My political leanings are not going to be yours. If you want to find fault in them I'm sure you will be able to based on them not being your own. That isn't the point or the intention I had when starting this subject. It isn't to fight over universal healthcare or any number or other political issues that we can agree or disagree on. It was about the underlying outlooks and arguments of left, right, and center.

That said, I will answer your question.

<<Are you able to, without qualification, categorically state you fully support a government run, universal health scheme covering all Australians so they can access free, quality medical health care?>>

I want to support universal healthcare, but when you add "without qualification" that forces my hand to a "no" answer. There are several concerns with universal healthcare that come to mind, even though yes I would want everyone to have access to healthcare when they need it, or even to prevent something from becoming a health issue.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Making it affordable without it collapsing is one of the major issues. Issues like overuse by one family, rehab needs for drug overdoses or drug uses have already been brought up and are worth the qualification measuring the universal healthcare system. One more is that if there are two options that are both free one more expensive and more lab testing, the other less expensive. Then the more expensive approach will be used more often then not. It comes down to the patient wants the best care available, and the doctors often will want to get paid more for a more expensive procedure. Without adding issues of drug use or taxes used per patient, this alone can burst the system of free universal healthcare. If it's free and universal, there needs to be something in place to make it dependable and sustainable so that when people do depend on it, it's still there when they need it.

Once again though healthcare is not the primary point I was trying to address in this topic. Though it is an example of left supporting it by the idea of it without qualification of how it will work or function. Which was part of the points that I made of a weakness of the left.

Paul1405,
I think you'd make a great example for highlighting the need to improve education & mentality.

Indy, is that the words of a smoker?

You want those you don't agree with, those being illegal drug users, put on a user pay system of heath care. When I point out there are smokers and drinkers who are not covering the full medical and social cost of their addiction you are happy to pay for them. Is that not a double standard on your part?

smokers and drinkers who are not covering the full medical and social cost of their addiction
Paul1405,
Clasping at straws is not a viable base for debate. Smokers & drinkers are at least contributing to the costs, drug abusers are not. The alcohol & tobacco industries are massive economic drivers, drugs destroy everthing a decent society is all about.
I'm not saying smoking & drinking should be fostered. They should be educated out of the system, do-gooders merely excuse them. Perpetual excusing is a really bad way of working for a solution.
There are many smokers & drinkers who don't go ape$hit when having a smoke or a drink, drug abusers go off the rails. Answer this question; would you rather see people stoned out of their senses & be of no use to anyone or anything or would you prefer smokers & drinkers working & contribute to your wages ?

Hey Paul1405,
Apparently not only are smokers covering the costs of their addiction, they're making up the difference so non smokers get medicare too.

I remember Lleyonhjelm stating that smokers were paying 17 times the amount that they cost the community.
(Although I couldn't find his article stating it)

Not saying he's right or that you are right (different paid studies will show different results) but I'd like the facts.

Cigarettes are $1.25 each now and there must be 20 or 30 billion sold annually in Australia.

Your numbers don't seem realistic when compared to the facts.

What about the smoker that smokes for 40 years and then dies of a non-smoking related illness; all you did was steal their money.

What if we just paid a health insurance cost out of every pack sold?
Even if we did I'm sure there'd be plenty of cash left in government coffers.

If not they'd be going mental.

Paul,

It has been shown that because smokers' lives are shortened that on average they don't cost the taxpayer as much as someone that lives to the average age.

That the smoker pays a fortune in taxes means that that the unfortunate individual is a cash cow for the rest of us.

What if we just paid a health insurance cost out of every pack sold?
Armchair Critic,
Spot-on. User pays, what's more fair than that ? Pay for the services you require not for the services you don't use. Health is not like an Internet Service provider where you pay up front & you only recieve some of the service.
Recreational drug users/abusers should not be treated in de-tox clinics unless they have private health insurance.

//But perhaps you are an American, if so that would make your position a little more legitimate.//

Aye, he hails from Colorado. As an earnest tory bible-thumper, it's little wonder that he's a bit cranky these days. According to wikipedia:

"Unlike its neighbors to the north, west and east, Colorado is recognized as a strongly socially liberal state overall. Same-sex marriage in Colorado has been legal since 2014, and it was the first state in the U.S. to legalize recreational cannabis, and one of the first jurisdictions on Earth to do so by popular referendum. The state is known for its progressive views on abortion and assisted suicide; Coloradans rejected a 2008 referendum that would have criminalized abortion, and approved a measure in 2016 that legalized assisted suicide in the state, and remains one of six states (along with the District of Columbia) to have legalized assisted suicide. In 2018, Colorado became the first state in the United States to elect an openly gay governor, Jared Polis, in the 2018 gubernatorial election."

I reckon he should

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBjMRvOB5M

to Utah, which seems more his kind of state. Life is peaceful there.

Either that or get into some of that sweet, sweet legal grass and chill the out a bit. So your Governor prefers the romantic company of gentleman... whoopdee-frigging-doo. Worse things happen at sea, mate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpS4ebEtLUE