[...continued]

There are indeed some orders of monks and nuns who live a communal life, although in Australia there are typically only 2-3 of them living together in a given city - they are the exception.

It is natural for people to cooperate and exchange goods, services and ideas: while people may have SIMILAR goals, this does not imply that they have COMMON goals, generally people look after themselves and after their own families. Yes people do help others without asking for anything in return, but they usually do so to improve their own karma.

That being the case even with people who have a religion in common, how more erroneous it is to label the whole population of a country as a "community". That idea is delusional, yet for some it could be wishful-thinking.

As for being controlled by some power elite who call the shots, we are not living in the middle ages when every aspect of life was controlled and where so-called "religions" were incorporated into corrupt regimes - except for some Muslim countries this is now consigned to history, European history.

Yuyutsu,
You're not doing yourself any favours trying match Mr Opinion in matters of indoctrination & how to lower standard of sense to below low.

Dear Individual,

You are wrong to believe that this way you can get away with your anti-democratic views. While there is no such thing as "community", even if there was, your views remain anti-democratic. Moreover, had there been a community, then it would more likely be constructed around the local people of a constituency rather than encompassing the inhabitants of this whole continent, who never even saw or spoken with most others.

«The average voter is as greedy & corrupt as the people they vote in with the hope of finding an ally in authority !»

Quite insulting to the voters, but even suppose that was the case, the implication is that ordinary people are not good enough and must be denied the option to elect their representative who may protect them from the oppression of those in central authority, who are of course so much better and never corrupt... Do you have a picture of Xi Jinping on your wall?

«Most aren't interested in the health of their community as is easily deduced from the many posts here alone.»

Why would anyone be interested in the health of a[n imaginary] body of people who never even asked them whether or not they wish to become members thereof?

«I don't fully agree with the notion that those in Parliament are obliged to work for their community as such.»

You mean that they are obliged to work instead for their own private interests - or for the interest of others that are outside their "community"?

«I firmly am of the opinion that Parliamentarians' primary responsibility is to work towards a common good not just simply aid the greed mongers amongst us.»

The good that is common to whom, if not the good of the constituents who voted them in? Perhaps the good of the Chinese people who are in much greater numbers? Perhaps the good of ants, spiders and cockroaches: greedy and corrupt mankind has been unfairly decimating them for far too long...

your views remain anti-democratic.
Yuyutsu,
I sincerely hope they are because what is nowadays called democratic is in actual fact hypocrisy
in full swing. You say there is no Community, I say there's no Democracy !
How can there be Democracy when money rules everything, even Faith ?
Isn't democracy supposed to mean the majority's policies are accepted ? Why then do minorities constantly de-rail & dispute the outcome of democratic elections ?
There are in fact two communities, the decent one & the one to whom democracy means not to accept a democratic outcome !

Dear Individual,

There are seeds of democracy in Australia, an inheritance from mother England.
They never bloomed into a real democracy (nor in England, due to the faulty electoral system) but this is still better than nothing.

I cannot fathom what you mean by "money rules everything", "even faith"? Perhaps you can explain...

One pillar of democracy is that voters are allowed to make errors and poor choices - and even those ought to be respected. So if people vote on the basis of the amount of money-left-in-their-pockets, then this too ought to be respected, in a democracy. Perhaps you disagree, but then you disagree with democracy itself.

«Isn't democracy supposed to mean the majority's policies are accepted ?»

Nobody is always in the majority - everyone is in the majority on certain issues/policies and in the minority on others. In a well-functioning democracy, people and their representatives negotiate to install the policies that are most dear to their hearts and crucially affect them personally the most, while allowing others to have the policies that are similarly dear to them. This is called "horse-trading" and should be most welcome in a true democracy.

«Why then do minorities constantly de-rail & dispute the outcome of democratic elections ?»

How can they de-rail? By force? I don't see it happening in Australia.
Dispute? Sure, one can always dispute, but it does not make any difference, unless you believe that there is wide-spread cheating within the Australian Electoral Commission.

So my position is that an elected representative ought to be loyal to their electorate and them alone, represent their views as accurately they can and as necessary, forge horse-trading deals with other representatives in order to obtain the laws and policies that are the most dear to their electorate. If an oath is to be given at all, then it must be to serve their electorate faithfully. If one is unable to do this then they should not offer their electoral candidacy ; and if they find out later on that they cannot serve their electorate faithfully, then they should resign.

I don't see it happening in Australia.
Yuyutsu,
You're a lost case along with Mr Opinion, I shall no longer reply to the silly pettifogging ! Over & out.