Somebody had to I guess. Here in the colonies, the liberals do not call themselves liberals any longer, but "progressives
But which ones are the liberals who call themselves progressives????
And he makes a great save! really, good point. And I will not take your analogy to mean that all BB is evil.
Thankyou. I was worried for a sec.
So we look for a way to revoke that power, and therein lies the problem.
Yeah, fair point I guess. To some extent it comes down to who you want to trust. Both are fairly untrustworthy in a lot of ways.
A product that no one wants, or uses.
If this were true, your point would be relatively valid, but it's not. The native food industry in Australia, which is in some cases a fantastic employer of indigenous Australians, is one of the fastest growing in the country. Maori tourism in New Zealand is so popular, it's become tacky and cliched in some parts of the country. Indigenous Australians are involved in businesses like producing tea tree oil based on traditional knowledge about tea tree production. Scientists are slowly discovering that a number of Aboriginal medicines work because there actually is an active ingredient in Australian native plants. The kangaroo meat industry is one I believe the Government should be heavily backing as an environmental measure and I think this could be an excellent oppirtunity for indigenous Australians. It just needs some help getting off the ground.
In which ways are the less neo-liberal than the US and how did those differences directly (or indirectly) affect or effect their better standing in this comparison?
Our industrial relations system is certainly more regulated than the US' for a start. So is our banking industry and lending industry (do I need to mention APRA again? I really don't like giving credit to Costello over and over again). We have a health care system that you would consider Communist, but which even our neo-liberals won't quite destroy because they can see that far more people get treated in our health care system. For IR, we don't have a working poor and still maintain a very low unemployment rate. In banking and lending we have AAA rated banks and weathered the GFC best, partly because we didn't too badly on the lending front (Fannie Mae ain';t Aussie).
you would have to explain how governments cannot abuse their power over corporations
Sorry, what I meant was that I think the businesses have more power than the Government because they fund the election campaigns.
I found Robert Nozick's to be an excellent continuation of Locke's philosophy.
I'll have to look him up. Thanks.
Then call them "people".
Sorry, people with a big business impairment have more power than people with a Govern-mental illness.
If people cooperate and/or work hard and thus wield greater economic power than others, why isn't that exactly what should happen?
I thought I made that point. I don't think they got there through a meritocratic system.I know you disagree, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this point because it's a question of values, not lack of logic on either of our parts.
What you are doing is watching at the end result of a football game when one team has won (and thus has a clear advantage over the other team) and shouting that this is unjust. But since there was a fair and just way for the winning team to gain that advantage, your shouts are the real injustice because you are shouting against people playing the game according to the rules and winning (which is possible).
This, this was very funny.
Using your logic we could use government against people who buy red cars on the basis that I don't like red cars.
[
This too. I think I've answered your questions now right?
This is like "free healthcare". It's only "free" if you book all the money it really costs as profit despite the fact that it is a loss.
Again, question of values. I prefer the more widespread healthcare we enjoy in Australia. You regularly hear the phrase in Australia (from people of both persuasions) "we don't want to end up with a healthcare system like in the US".
The costs of 70 thousands dollars are incurred anyway, it's just that somebody else pays them. You would have to explain why it is more efficient for society to have somebody else (workers) pay for the education of those who spend ten years studying rather than working. But you haven't done that.
That is a fair point. I would argue that society benefits from having a portion of people well educated because of what they do with it. Also, as I said in the article, I think there are good reasons for providing good education to all, regardless of financial position. Both for themselves and society, who could miss out on some great workers.