100 radical ideas to transform Australia

[AngloSaxon]

I think we're going around in circles here. You're taking my quote out of context Big AD and making assumptions, even further than when I pulled you up the first time.

I don't adhere to the socialist mindset and don't want to get bogged down into semantic arguements.

Your final point though :

Gina sides with one party - it doesn't really matter which one - swings the election in their favour and gets literally everything she wants for the next 3-4 years. She pays the most tax so she gets the biggest say in how the government runs.

Is the point I'm getting at :

As I said before however, your assumption is ironic given that the CURRENT system we have is influenced most by those who actually contribute the least.

You see the problem as much as I do, but don't seem to understand that the way out of the situation means abandoning the current model.

ie You want your slice of cake (on the idealistic, socialist mindset) and to eat it too (political and economic reform)

It's just not possible.

It looks like you have the same content but BigAD refuses to see that content in your context. While you understand his context entirely.

I had a similar discussion as all this with a group of friends a few years ago. All in the group working people who believe the system is broken and are sick of handouts to the unproductive. Or at least guarantee their continued unproductive status. One proposal was to give voting rights only to those who owned real estate. The rest of the group shouted that down after a little debate. But it was a great topic of dinner conversation. The difference was we all knew the same content AND understood everyone elses' context.

 

[bordsilver]

I wish people would give up on this idea of democratic government. It's not some great system. It's not even a logical system. It's this fu**ed up system that we've inherited from history.

The sooner people give up on the idea of it, the sooner we can figure out something that actually makes sense.

100% agree. The issue is to properly function without a government entity we need more educated, rational people who think about it (preferably globally not just in one small region).

For all it's evils a government of some kind allows you to rapidly get some economies of scale w.r.t. the initial defence from external aggressors function. As I said, historically ones founded on liberal democratic principles have then gone on to foster a culture that allows development and progress for longer with the US Protectorate model being the best example which survived a couple of hundred years until the various attacks on anything resembling sound money started the internal decay and rot that eventually led us to the situation today.

Edit: In summary, given the choices I'll likely see in my lifetime I'd hands down be willing to go to war to protect a liberal democratic system (like so many of our founding fathers were) but I'd have to be forcibly conscripted against my will to go to war to defend other, way more screwed up, systems like pure democracy, social democracy, people's republics, communism, etc.

 

[hawkeye]

If you want to read a good book on democracy this one is good

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Democr...d=1352791229&sr=8-2&keywords=beyond+democracy

Why democracy does not lead to solidarity, prosperity and liberty but to unrest, runaway spending and a tyrannical government.

Democracy is widely considered to be the best political system imaginable. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy has become a secular religion. The largest political faith on earth. To criticize the democratic ideal is to risk being regarded an enemy of civilized society.

Yet that is precisely what Karel Beckman and Frank Karsten propose to do. In this provocative and highly readable book, they tackle the last political taboo: the idea that our salvation lies in democracy.

With simple, straightforward arguments they show that democracy, in contrast to popular belief, does not lead to freedom, civilization, prosperity, peace, and the rule of law, but the opposite: to loss of freedom, social conflict, runaway government spending, a lower standard of living and the subversion of individual rights.

They debunk 13 great myths with which democracy is usually defended. What is more, they offer an appealing alternative: a society based on individual freedom and voluntary social relations.

Do you wonder why government keeps growing bigger and the public debt keeps getting higher, while your freedom and prosperity look ever more threatened? After reading his book, you won't wonder anymore - you know why it is happening and what can be done about it.

Beyond Democracy is a groundbreaking and fascinating book for everyone who wants to better understand current social problems and the economic crisis.

 

[bordsilver]

Gah! Dude! Why didn't you post this in your Reconfiguring Government thread ages ago?

Am I correct in assuming that it relies on a bunch of like minded, rational people cooperating? And what does it say about setting up the initial fundamental national defence function?

 

[DanDee]

give voting rights only to those who owned real estate.

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

 

[bordsilver]

give voting rights only to those who owned real estate.

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

White males born in this country of suitable standing that own real estate without debt

 

[DanDee]

give voting rights only to those who owned real estate.

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

White males born in this country of suitable standing that own real estate without debt

Ooops, I'm out.

 

[bordsilver]

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

White males born in this country of suitable standing that own real estate without debt

Ooops, I'm out.

Thank god! If not we'd have had to add "born between 2:32am and 2:42am on 12th March 1962". Actually, on second thought, that could work for me...

 

[Dogmatix]

Big A.D. has a good point.

Auspm is essentially advocating discrimination based on income.

On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but then the following people would get no say, and therefore probably no support:

At that rate you'd may aswell just prohibit diversity too.

It's not the solution you're looking for. The solution is for the Govt and media to man up and stop pandering to welfare recipients. Or you could have your oligarchy.

As opposed to discrimination on what, 'personal need'?

Here in lies the path to socialism, collectivism, protectionism and eventually fascism.

The CURRENT system is oppression of the working class and innovation, capitalism and personal liberty.

You're advocating the demands of those who don't financially contribute are worth more than those that do, which I am totally against.

I agree that the current system is pretty awful.

I disagree with your bolded point - no-one is worth 'more'. I'm not even advocating or proposing a system, just rallying against your idea.

Generally I agree with gist of most of the things you say on SS, but not on this. I think your idea has merit, but is likely an emotional response to your personal encounters.

Whilst Big A.D. did appear to exaggerate the point a little - ironically the same thing you did to me - he pretty much echoes my thoughts on this topic.

Just because the current system is a big pile of buffalo excrement, does not mean that taking basic rights away from people is the solution.

What we need is a Govt that will act in the longterm interests of Australia and it's people. What we're getting is a populist, corrupt, reactionary and generally stupid Govt.

In my opinion, your idea will not bring us to a 'good Govt'. Think about what the worst possible outcome of your suggestion would be - an oligarchic mess.

Ironically I think by making everything about 'money', you're actually supporting the very thing you rally against - human control. Humans are easily controlled by money.

 

[bordsilver]

^ How about just no net recipients of govt cash (or similar)? As per Big A.D.'s example if you have 5% unemployed and 10-15% pure pensioners (plus others) then there's a large voting bloc whose self interest for voting away other people's freedoms that is biased (not accusing any such people of voting one way or the other just pointing out a bias).

Was going to raise this before - Scientists? Really? (And prisoners are already excluded from lots of things, which is only right.)

 

[mmm....shiney!]

How about just voluntary voting?

If you care = vote.

If you don't care = don't vote.

 

[Dogmatix]

^ How about just no net recipients of govt cash (or similar)? As per Big A.D.'s example if you have 5% unemployed and 10-15% pure pensioners (plus others) then there's a large voting bloc whose self interest for voting away other people's freedoms that is biased (not accusing any such people of voting one way or the other just pointing out a bias).

Was going to raise this before - Scientists? Really? (And prisoners are already excluded from lots of things, which is only right.)

Just because we have a pensioner and welfare recipient issue, does not mean they should necessarily be excluded from voting.

Let's say we currently have a situation whereby welfare recipients of various sorts tip the voting scales and makes them over-represented, which causes big problems with populist voting. Doesn't Auspm's idea just do exactly the same thing - cause an over-representation - but in favour of people who pay tax?

When I wrote that list, including scientists and prisoners, I wasn't coming from a position of whether they deserve to be allowed to vote, or any kind of judgement at all. It's merely a list of people that would have their vote excluded - that judgement is for others to use.

(Scientists on the Govt or university payroll perhaps? Not sure maybe they should not be on there.)

 

[bordsilver]

The difference is I don't see a problem of over-represntation of the tax payers/customers. If the service isn't working they can more easily vote to wind it back.

 

[Big A.D.]

When I wrote that list, including scientists and prisoners, I wasn't coming from a position of whether they deserve to be allowed to vote, or any kind of judgement at all. It's merely a list of people that would have their vote excluded - that judgement is for others to use.

(Scientists on the Govt or university payroll perhaps? Not sure maybe they should not be on there.)

Defence Force pay is tax free.

 

[AngloSaxon]

give voting rights only to those who owned real estate.

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

Aahhhh I didn't say or imply that.

We have universal suffrage including native and foreign born people and women where the conditions are: 18+ and are citizens of sound mind. This proposal just included one more condition, that of property ownership.

 

[Big A.D.]

How about just voluntary voting?

If you care = vote.

If you don't care = don't vote.

You think things would get better by inviting people to care less about their government?

 

[DanDee]

give voting rights only to those who owned real estate.

huzzah!! At last!! A sensible suggestion, but I'm sure you meant only Males that own real estate.
(helps to keep things in context)

Aahhhh I didn't say or imply that.

We have universal suffrage including native and foreign born people and women where the conditions are: 18+ and are citizens of sound mind. This proposal just included one more condition, that of property ownership.

Ooops! there another one that counts me out.

 

[Auspm]

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Don't give up so easily mate.

Who's talking about giving up?

I'm just saying that the current system is broken and you cannot possibly hope to find a real solution in the existing framework or honestly, it would have already been done.

An old quote from a great mind rings true for me here :

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." - Albert Einstein

I personally think it would be folly to try and conceive a solution to the problem born from the same consciousness that spawned it.

Just because we have a pensioner and welfare recipient issue, does not mean they should necessarily be excluded from voting.

Let's say we currently have a situation whereby welfare recipients of various sorts tip the voting scales and makes them over-represented, which causes big problems with populist voting. Doesn't Auspm's idea just do exactly the same thing - cause an over-representation - but in favour of people who pay tax?

By what measure do you assume the right of a non-contributor exceeds that of those that do when deciding how to allocate public funds?

Do you honestly believe that people who are voting for how their own money is to be spent would represent a poorer climate than the one we have now where they have no say at all?

Perhaps if you were a leech on the system, it would be poorer for you.

But what's the cost otherwise? Continue to enslave and punish the most productive people in society instead?

Don't you see where that path leads?

Back to your point Big AD - "Don't give up so easily mate." would assume you still think there's an equitable compromise in this situation that benefits everyone.

There isn't and this is my point.

You cannot possibly create a system by which you can confiscate wealth from one individual and allocate it independently (by any means) so that it represents a 'fair' model.

The current system beneficiaries are voting on their right to take possession of the proceeds of crime (theft), without any recourse.

It's impossible to maintain their expectations and not continue to victimise those who are being robbed in the process.

All you end up with in the end is social divide, dwindling economic freedom, crushed innovation and increased totalitarianism to pay for the promises made by those doing the stealing.

Communism and socialism does not work gents, no matter how you want to dress it up.

 

[Auspm]

If you want to read a good book on democracy this one is good

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Democr...d=1352791229&sr=8-2&keywords=beyond+democracy

They debunk 13 great myths with which democracy is usually defended. What is more, they offer an appealing alternative: a society based on individual freedom and voluntary social relations.

Yes, it's called the Laissez-faire model, of which I'm a staunch advocate in as much as I am in support of individual freedom and personal liberty.

But we've had discussions on Laissez-faire here on SS before and it's been shot down time and again, usually those who support the collectivist mindset.

Which in turn brings me back again to the point in that whilst we share a common bond being stackers, for most of us, that's where the similarity in the thought process ends.

Indeed, many of us don't even stack for the same reasons anyway.

So ideological confrontations like this are simply going to be par for the course in a public forum melting pot.

 

[Dogmatix]

@Auspm

I'm not sure why you keep thinking that I am suggesting that welfare recipients deserve 'more' vote than 'contributors' (as you call them). At the moment we all get an equal vote (apart from the marginal seats issue).

So that's twice in a row now I've had to dispute that point.

That Einstein quote is one of my favourites, but it applies to most of our current problems, particularly economic. The current electoral system has been around longer than the ruling generation, so Einstein may be irrelevant in this case.

Hawkeye has made some great comments about alternatives to Govt - so your way is not the only way at all.

I give you credit for thinking of possible solutions - but I am arguing against your proposal as it involves impinging on the freedom and rights of others in order to bring forth a solution that meets your needs.

A solution to cold feet is to put them in a fire. This is not a 'good' solution though, particularly as it creates a new problem that is equally as urgent to solve.

And no I'm not a socialist or a communist fanboy.