Short Answer. I think realistically speaking, Goverment needs to be involved in some level in transport, hospitals, water and electricity, The basics of civilised human life. However its more important for the people to be active in their government, rather than leaving it to monitor itself. A big government being well monitored by the people is more desirable than a small un-monitored government IMO.
A persons health is more important than the associated cost, there are things that are more important that cost effeciancy and health is hands down the most important. I would much rather our version of medicare than Americas system.
Not at all. I'm familiar with both systems and ours is way better. Doesn't mean there isn't room for better options. But if it's a case of their system or our system, it isn't even a choice!!!
There is a group of "anarchists" in my neighbourhood who stick posters on walls proclaiming things like "Smash Capitalism, Anarchy Now" and have anarchy meetings. Of course all of these "anarchists" collect the dole and have hot showers and smart phones and run to the police like babies if anyone says boo to them. Anarchy is a complete breakdown of the social order and the rule of law. It is inherently unstable and so rarely lasts for a long time until the biggest dog takes over to become the next oppressive government. For those who prefer anarchy to an oppressive government I would suggest that if you lived through anarchy you would not. Anarchy always ends with a more oppressive regime taking over to restore order under it's own rules. Anarchy means that you live in a place where within a few weeks there are no telephones, no food in gutted shops, no electricity and no-where to buy a candle, bodies in the streets, burning buildings, no transport private or public. anarchy is where you come home from scavenging for food to find that your house had been taken over by a gang that an hour earlier pack raped your sister and cut her throat. Seriously, I think that for a privileged person who lives in a country like Australia to even think that anarchy is a good idea just means that they do not know what anarchy means. And in the end for all of the horror of a society descending into anarchy the end result is an even more totalitarian unelected "government" so after all of the horror you gain nothing and lose everything.
Well that's not the topic of conversation is it? Choosing between one highly socialist sytem (ours) and another slightly less socialist system (US) is hardly the begin all and end all of what the best way forward is is it? Unless you're a committed government loving statist...
with my expression of Anarchy as a preferable alternative to oppressive democracy? :lol: In a minute I'm going to have you criticising me as a supporter of big government while Jonesy will be having a chop at me for supporting absolutely no goverment. LOL
all this means is your postion appears to be a little contradictory at times. there is nothing worthly of applauding when it comes to our coercive "health system"
If YOU were given the choice (and no other choice) between the US health care system and our current system, what would YOUR choice be? (perhaps related to our respective governments). Serious question. As per my first post, and in line with the thread topic, I do not ascribe to the "democracy is the best thing since sliced cheese" line. More-over, while anarchy is not an ideal social state, it is one means by which an overly oppressive government (particularly one masquerading as democratic) can be brought down or a preferable alternative along the way to forming something better.
Okay so the guy with his cute little sign is saying that there was a civil war that started to topple an oppressive military socialist government and was replaced by a bunch of regional governments. These regional governments which had strong local clan-based support managed to exert a degree of authority over certain regions of Somalia allowing them to establish working administrations and eventually coherent states, and actually managed to restore some order to parts of their regions. Unfortunately, this semi-stable small-Government arrangement didn't work however, as the regional governments claimed ownership over some common territory which led to them restarting warfare with each other for the purpose of trying to exert their power over the whole country. These regional governments were backed (i.e. funded) on and off at various times by various other governments including Ethiopia, Kenya, and the US not to mention the tens of thousands of African Union and UN peacekeepers funded by yet more international governments and continues to this day as the technocratic government gradually acquire more and more troops from outside of Somalia in order to kill any remaining members of the evil insurgents. So clearly, what they need is more Government involvement in their day to day lives funded by coercive taxation The guy shows such a great understanding of the intricacies of society in just one little sign.
Why is the choice between big government and total anarchy?? how about we have a small limited government? - to actually fulfill the purposes of what government is supposed to do!? there is a middle ground - but this is hardly mentioned by statists
okay... well to be honest I reckon i'd choose the US system - simply because it's not gone quite as far (yet) up the socialist/big government/high taxation path that Australia has... It is that little bit closer to a free society/free market than Australia is. Of course a much better choice is the US of the 19th and early 20th century - with it's very limited government and associated individual freedoms. Unfortunately I dont believe Australia has ever had that level of freedom for its citizens... so naturally they are totally clueless and in fact are generally openly hostile towards libertarian ideals.
Education - Community schools that teach a curriculum relevant to the region it is in, not something standardized that someone in an office far away thought up. This would also encourage creative teachers to stay in the industry rather than become demoralized and quit, leaving the dregs or burned out yet quality teachers behind. Parents pay for kids to attend. Parents pay for books and materials. I imagine some would be non-profit organisations and others would be private businesses. Transport - Long term we should be travelling shorter distances. Live in the CBD, work in the CBD and eat in the CBD. Food can't be grown in great enough quantities, but it's much more economical trucking food in rather than having people drive an hour each way every day to tap on a keyboard. Imagine socializing with your neighbours? I find it ridiculous when I drive 50 minutes to go and see my friends yet I don't know the new people that moved in down the street. Cheap fuel has given us this lifestyle. Long term we need to give it up and be satisfied with Skype IMO. I imagine the private industry will pick up the slack when we have a need to travel greater distances. Health - Yes the if you wanted to pay cash for Private it is ridiculous NOW, that is because they can make a mint from Medicare. Scrap Medicare and everyone would stop going to the hospital. Surely prices would plummet? Great, now we can go to hospital when we actually need to, rather than every time we get a sore throat. Graffiti'd bus stops - In somewhat of a reform of society, I'd hope that we get a bit of common sense back. My dream is that when you catch someone's kid breaking something that isn't theirs, you'd grab them, walk them home to their parents, and they'd be in the shit with the old man. In a world without litigation, maybe we could even give them that smack around the head. Sometimes I reckon it may work better than mandatory counselling.
as long as our taxes are automatically going to this parasite, things will never (substantially) change. Reconfiguration will only come from crisis. And then creep back to where we are now, all in good time. Repeat cycle.
