Boyd Kellner, Newrybar
As the nation trundles along and contemplates another federal election, voters don’t face a real choice between the major parties, both stuck in the mire of zero-sum Capitalism. This pox on both major parties has left many voters disillusioned and fed up with politics as the planet and nation continue to endure many intersecting crises.
Money talks, as both major parties continue to accept political donations from fossil-fuel companies and other big businesses to leverage political parties for their own economic self-interests.
This should speak volumes about how the system is rigged, and essentially how ‘power’ is used for political advantage by the few, over the many.
UAP (United Australia Party) and other ‘right-wing’ parties should ring loud and clear, as it extols its populist hyperbolic views of ‘freedom’ as a catch cry to try to enlist those disgruntled and disenfranchised from society. These self-serving right-wing libertarians opportunistically try to exploit the struggling and exploited to vote for them.
‘Not once has the incumbent federal LNP government, made any reference during the election campaign, and the budget about the unfolding climate emergency. Likewise, poverty, homelessness, housing, rental (un)affordability, yet the recent ‘Budget’ allocated much to the wealthy by way of tax cuts, research reveals that under this plan it’s billionaires who benefit while battlers get slugged,’ said Chief Economist Dr Richard Denniss from independent think-tank the Australia Institute. Person on $200K tax cut of $9K every year, every year gets 35 times more than a person on $16K.
Shouldn’t this be telling us something about politics and those who govern allocate resources, in this case for those who least need it?
Taking our eyes off the political football is effectively not holding those to account who make political decisions theoretically for the majority by throwing away our collective responsibility as voters, as the majority. Should this trend develop further in this era of extreme individualism, we can expect to witness a further decline in participatory democracy.
The emerging trend of voting ‘independents’ has seen a rise of support amongst voters; however, to understand that some of these so-called ‘independents’ are in fact conservative candidates, by virtue of their past association with conservative parties.
To reach an inflexion point in today’s uncertain political landscape requires serious re-evaluation and decisive action based on the principles and values of universal decency and democracy for the majority and the urgent imperative to restore ecological integrity.
Both Capitalism and Communism are zero sum games. Both are designed to create monopolies and eradicate any kind of free market. They are two different paths to the same destination. That’s the point libertarians have been trying to make for 50 years but nobody listens to them.
I don’t think the non-aggression principle can really be called “populist hyperbolic views of ‘freedom’”. It’s just the maximum freedom you can have before you start limiting anyone else’s. People that are frightened by things like Non-Aggression Principle and Universally Preferable Behavior always turn out to want to control others for their own benefit. Are you sure your not just throwing the word Libertarian around as a pejorative? Clive Palmer isn’t one and that should be obvious.
Maybe go listen to some Free Talk Live and hear the hosts talk about the virtues of open relationships while they smoke pot they bought with bitcoin, or how eliminating all national borders is the key to human freedom along with eliminating all police and military. The people who started the Echo had libertarian values and probably had friends that were full blown libertarians. The founders of modern libertarianism wrote books, you should read some.
A lot of right-wingers have abandoned the coalition because oddly enough, they don’t represent the values of the voters as they keep doing what special interest groups and business interests want instead. Thus their people leave and run as independents shockingly enough, and the right wingers vote for them, all the time having much the same complains you wrote about above. Independent just means you aren’t in a political party. It doesn’t mean your a left wing extremist.
If you stop being a bigot for five seconds you may find you have a lot of friends on the right. You both use different words for things, sometimes you define the same words differently, a lot of the divide is a language barrier. Sometimes you have different ideas on how to get to the same place, and quite often think problems have different causes, but you agree they are problems.
Basically the reasons there is limited difference between the major parties are fairly obvious:
A powerful media monopoly that has an agenda for keeping one party in power. (Funny how they don’t seem to twig that there is no difference between them?)
A powerful business, particularly mining, lobby that throws money at convincing the plebs that their best interests lie in trickle down economics.
High levels of amnesia in the Australian population come voting time and a general lack of engagement with the finer detail behind the various political narratives.
All this means the more distributive policies just get voted down time and time again. Then we whinge when this shapes the story of those hoping for government.
I agree.
The resource extraction companies are linked to international banking, you know, where we keep getting all the loans from using our natural resource rights as collateral.
By distributive policies I assume you me anti-monopoly policies that the right keeps demanding. Australian resources should be used by Australian companies for Australian need. But if we don’t let China keep strip mining us we will become a target.
Glad to see you back. I thought that fifth booster had done you in. It got boring around here.
By distributive I was referring to greater equity in wealth distribution which can involve anti monopoly policy but is wider than this.
I haven’t been anywhere – not even to get a fifth booster! I’ve been commenting fairly regularly but I must admit to being bored by some debates. Then I’ve become reluctant to be a party to instigating the sort of exchange that just ends up a disservice to the Echo readers. You know those ones that just escalate to increasingly sensationalist, unsupported claims that seem purely designed to shock and offend.
That and the silly smart arse jibes like “fifth booster” that show zero regard for respectful exchange.
But I find your observation interesting coming from one who has so recently appeared on these pages. Or have you just introduced a name change?
Didn’t you say you wanted me to put my full name?
“equity in wealth distribution” so you mean communism, cause that always works out.
If you take “excess” money away from the productive people and give it to the unproductive people, then why would the productive people bother being so productive?
Our problem is people being able to drain wealth without producing anything. I’m not talking about disabled people or anything, we give them money, they don’t take it from us. I mean usury. Like printing money from thin air and then loaning it out at interest. Or like selling derivatives, ETFs, precious metal certificates.
We could grow and manufacture every wealth we need out of our own resources with plenty to spare for charity. Do you know why we can’t? There’s a small list, see if you can guess one.
I don’t recall asking for your full name but that’s fine. This is very absolutist Christian/Chris(?). I said greater equity not absolute equity. That would be a bit boring.
I always thought communism meant something like state ownership/control of the means of production distribution and exchange. There are endless ways of achieving more equitable wealth distribution – like free education, health care, industrial awards and taxation, things we take for granted – without going the whole hog.
The thing that is the downfall of any system is human nature. Unfortunately we will always have among us people who want to be all take and no give, the greedy and the selfish. These can be the welfare chasers you speak of or they can be the socially condoned rich and powerful elite who make sure others do all the serious work for them while they take the bulk of the spoils.
We need to decide what degree of inequity is acceptable and the point at which reward for effort just means some people have way more than they need/deserve while too many don’t have their basic needs met. It depends on what you see as “excess” redistribution. Questions like these I’d suggest decide where you belong on the political spectrum.
Humans are less than perfect so we cannot depend on the the ideological purism of any absolutist political doctrine (from state monopoly to laissez faire) to be foolproof. I know this is not rocket science and therefore way too unsophisticated for you but there you go. Perhaps you can tell us the answers.
And while I agree that an excess of state intervention has its pitfalls, I reckon China is a reasonable example of where a change of political ideology helped lift a huge population out of poverty. Alas that down side of human nature holds its sway there as well.
I don’t want to play guess what’s on Christian’s mind but I largely agree with you about our potential self sufficiency.
Boyd kellner tax cuts for billionaires ?
This would include Cannon brookes
and Holmes a Court who are funding fake
Independent’s, so much for diversity, all white
Middle to upper class women living in affluent
Areas probably most are privileged millionaires , all are contesting liberal held seats … all are running
With the same narratives Net Zero Renewable energies to mitigate Climate change so Mr Holmes a Court can make Billions from his investments
In new technologies linked to renewable energies .
Independent’s asked ? how will renewable energies
Be cost effective for the average punters.. ?
How will this change the existing cost of living for
Australians ? Not one of them put forward a policy
That would benefit struggling families regarding transition to
Renewable energies.. allthough Ms Spender put forward a idea, the Taxpayer’s could foot the bill
For electric vehicles.. what a joke who can afford
Electric cars ? She was also asked do you have a electric car? No ..do you have solar ? No .. so intent
The independents to get to Net Zero, as with the Greens are clueless on policies to transition
To Renewable’s .. just watch the replay of the ABC’s
Insiders where Mr Speers interviewed Adam Brandt
Was asked the hard questions by Speers something
That the impartial Ms Tingle could and would not !
This interview for Brandt exposed who he is !!
And the Greens as a Party .. !! Watch the interview
“You can’t make this up Liz levy” .. a vote for the
Greens or the Green independents is a vote for Net Zero Jobs , Net zero welfare, Net Zero hospitals
Net Zero infrastructure , the list is endless..
And the scorched earth policy of business as usual will give us …? Net zero Earth?
I watched the interview Barrow, and I must admit, as one who has been a bit dismissive of the Greens, I find Adam Bandt very grounded and impressive. Impressions formed from both this interview and his press club performance. (LOVED the “Google it mate!” and follow up)
Contrary to you, I don’t think David Speers scored any knockout blows and in fact, once he got clarifications he was seeking seemed quite satisfied with the answers he received.
The independents have been sought out by their communities to offer an alternative to the so called “moderates” that tend to get preselection in these inner urban middle class electorates, make the noises their constituents want to hear but vote for the National party climate non action agenda every time. Holmes à Court’s assistance came later. There would be no way these independents would be attracting the levels community support they are if the reverse were the case.
All the ad hominem guff you continually serve up is no substitute for directly addressing the issues. Btw – how are those clarifications of your position coming along?
No these independent’s have not been sought out by the communities at all Liz levy.. these so called independent’s are and will hold the country to ransom..backed by billionaire Holmes a court
Not one of them can admit who the preferences
Will go to ,load of shit that is !.. even Michael Roland
ABC asked the independent contesting Kooyung
Said depends which of the two majors has a plan
For Climate change/ renewable energies..that’s
All they care about Liz levy.. every single one of them have the same narratives/ robot language .
That is incidentally is not the number one
Issue the constituents are concerned with ..
As i said so much for diversity ? Only when it suits .
Oh Liz levy clarifications you ask .. what the same one’s i have asked of you ..what is a women?
Even one of your Guru’s Ms Greer could answer that with clarity.. you women are under attack
From this movement and how .. and before
It’s to late ..speakup for yourselves.. all the pain and suffering you mothers have gone through
To have children will not be recognised banished
Forthwith..
The candidates don’t control your preferences, you do.
They have Barrow – do a bit of background reading on each of them rather than just make stuff up.
We have a democracy – people are allowed to stand as independents, have been doing so in this country since 1901. And guess what, our constitution even lets them stand in otherwise safe Liberal seats! It even lets them take funds from donors just like political parties! It gets worse though – they are even allowed to become serious contenders and threaten the born to rule class. I know – outrageous! Something must be done about it. No doubt there will be moves towards a referendum next conservative term.
As for the tangential question, I asked you first and you wussed out. I’m happy to admit I’m wussing out on the “what is a woman? question/mantra and say it’s not straightforward. That’s exactly my point. Tell me what your pronouncement is about Caster Semenya? Is she a woman?
Liz levy here lies the problem that will not be answered ?.. labor’s leader at the last election was asked to provide some figures/ details/ costings
On how much the Taxpayer’s were going to be slugged ? the proposed emissions reductions ? Bills
Answer ? Well less than what it would cost if we do nothing on climate change.. the rest is history Liz levy.. and this time around it is not different
Light on details/ costing for labor!! .. Mr speers
Could not find any fully costed numbers on the Greens website when he asked Brandt !! On they will be there this week .. really Mr Brandt you confirmed minutes ago they were on your site ?
As for the independent’s Liz levy they to are clueless have no idea or costings/ details/ plans
To reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 .. and this is the No1 policy Pitch all the independents are running with ? All of them have the same mantra
Climate change emergency/ renewables/ net zero
None of these white privileged women have a clue
On going without ,all rich living in leafy suburbs.
No plan , no costings , no details, NO VOTE ..
How are those clarifications going?
What clarifications Liz levy ?
Sorry I forgot that I added a fourth:
“Barrow, perhaps I should have given you another position:
d) the Earth is warming but this is basically causing no problems so we shouldn’t worry about what’s causing it nor try to take any action to both slow the warming and prepare for it.”
I’m sure there are many permutation but just one clearly articulated position, with rationale, will do.
From a little exchange I had with you back in March:
“ OK Barrow, let’s just look at the component parts here.
I was just pointing out that once again you are shifting ground. Ask yourself what you believe:
a) the Earth is not warming, has not warmed by a measurable 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, nor is the rate of warming over the past 40 years more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981. Such conclusions are the product of an international conspiracy of climate scientists to … to your pick i) get research grants, ii) bring down the west …
Or
b) there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change. The climate may be warming but human behaviour is not contributing so we can all just keep doing what we like without making efforts to transition to alternative fuels or take other ameliorative action.
Or
c) anthropogenic climate change is a real issue but Australia contributes so little to the world’s emissions – around 1.4 % of global fossil fuel combustion emissions for domestic use, with fossil fuel exports taking our global carbon footprint to about 5% – that we shouldn’t bother or feel obliged to make any efforts to reduce our emissions.
While you seem all over the place with these, there’s little chance of a coherent discussion with you.”
Then there was the more recent one about Caster Semenyer (Google it mate!). Is she a woman?