The definition of progressives, liberals

[The Bear's Key]

The right's machinery tries (via con jobs) to define the left. But their made-up definitions either fall way short of reality, or compare them (dishonestly) to unrelated systems in nations lacking our Constitutional protections, freedom of expression, adequate system of defense lawyers, or healthy separation of powers -- at the very least.

 

In the real definition of progressives and liberals, these groups don't fit it: militant rebels planting bombs to fight oppression; tyrants proclaiming to be communists yet nearly identical to tyrant leaders in right-winged nations lacking our free press and civil rights; many political groups with a narrow axe to grind.

 

Certainly they're not the left....

 

• 
   
  
• Protecting the environment AND
  
• striving for quality of jobs AND
  
• civil rights AND
  
• transparent government AND
  
• freedom of press AND
  
• the legal wall protecting us from religious and government dominance into each other's workings AND
  
• removing the profit of war by private interests AND
  
• fair exposure to opportunity AND
  
• widespread and improved access to fruitful education AND
  
• no monopolies of products that are essential to a vast number of people, business, and our economy AND
  
• fair representation of the people in government AND
  
• optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively AND
  
• providing basic needs to those of us with problems helping themselves or to victims of market/economic failure AND
  
• taxes based on drain of raw material and natural resources + use of infrastructure to faciliate acquiring one's wealth + the number of livelihoods at stake and level of upheaval on economy if that busines fails AND
  
• reasonably limited copyright durations AND
  
• basic human rights aren't lost by incarceration or trouble with the law AND
  
• inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers AND
  
• rights to decide everything about the functions of your own body that doesn't physically impact the world outside it AND
  
• our individual freedom to enter and leave the nation (and travel within) AND
  
• having sex with consenting adults however they damn well please AND
  
• freedom to look at vulgar sexual images AND
  
• privacy rights AND
  
• getting married to whatever sex one desires AND
  
• protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images) AND
  
• do whatever you like so long as it doesn't trample/deny rights for others AND
  
• kids protected from critically unsafe homes or a parent who hits them violently in frustration as a hobby AND
  
• clear away government debt AND
  
• striving to ensure the justice system doesn't regress back to the "guilty without evidence" dark ages.
  

 

That's liberals and progressives.

 

In a nutshell, clean government.....for the people.

 

What does this all mean? I'm going to vote tomorrow, and made a commitment to take 20 people eligible for voting. And to do so, I had to turn down a paying gig, can't really afford to, but the nation can't either if the wackies get in so....I might decide to help out longer, perhaps the entire day. This from someone who never bothered to vote for any of the "corrupt" parties before 2004. Well one thing I've learned, vast differences in severity of corruption exist within our government today.

 

So, what?...I'll not just stand by and let a deceptively named "tea" party -- whose leadership's been infiltrated by the type of people the original Boston Tea Party fellas revolted agianst -- sneak into power that easily. It's reverse deja-vu. The *fake* tea party's infiltrators are recycled con people we find sprinkled throughout history: imposters who've struggled 223 years to make a come-back from their kind's loss in 1787, when the colonies here voted for a strong central government to represent the people (via district), with the Constitution, against the objections by those who likely preferred division, although....they've managed to somewhat divide us now, and have somewhat retaken our government for themselves via waves of congressional lobbyists.

 

But all their grand effort reflects a simple picture: them in desperation. The world's social and technological variables are quickly moving in a direction hostile to them: unity.

 

Yes, people have drunk the coolaid and the bad tea. So? Many of us also drink good tea, I like mine straight. And here's a couple pictures I like....

 

 

 

 

 

Both of the images are by Jonathan Kay/National Post

 

 

*and by "random", I'm meaning....

....usually in connection with either racism or (school) bullying as a threat (menace/demand in one's voice, bodily cornering a victim).

 

It's mostly about degree/extent.

 

On the streets, for instance, if person B said "hi nigger" -- either in a lighthearted tone (singsong voice?) or with clear menace -- to a strange black person, just one time isn't harrassment even if person A responded unnerved or angry, so...probably it wouldn't land person B a citation or fine, although there's still a wee chance of it -- especially because a real and sufficient quantity of black people have consistently or violently been harrased by random others and it's widespread in society, enough so that the victim may reasonably feel nervous that the same fate might befall them -- additonally, the more person B did it the higher their chances of getting slapped with a legal penalty.

 

So that's why, if someone of a race forming the majority claims "there's a double standard when it comes to discrimination" it'd be pure rubbish. For there isn't a double standard when using the criteria above.

 

By itself, any racial slur that one's normally able to shrug off would instead become a threat as if by weapon if there's a fresh history of cross burnings, violent assault, kkkillings, justice system that imprisons mostly your race, etc, connected intimately to hateful use of the slur. It's like how you can get arrested for threatening anyone by poking a finger under your shirt to resemble a gun -- even if you just said "may I check out your wallet and money please? Ooo a hundred bucks, can I keep it? Thanks, my kind fellow".

 

It's still robbery, because the finger under shirt usually implies that quick, lethal violence is able to follow. Just by common association. The same goes for a certain variety of hateful words, the association with intended violence and common persecution matters.

 

Therefore if random victims of a majority race were being harrased or persecuted in fairly sufficient numbers, with enough outcomes in violent assault/death to create a reasonable fear of it happening to them in such circumstances, a person from the majority thus discriminated against would likely be protected more since their dilemma fits the criteria (which'll trigger such an increased protection by legal channels).

 

Even so, I'm not the type who's as bothered if the prejudiced were to freely call out "nigger" or "spic" or whatnot to others, as I think it's wiser for us to recognize a potential enemy instead of not seeing them behind a veil of sheep's camouflage. Yet I also do think it should be illegal for them to do so in a threatening, intimidating, or publicly humiliating manner. But realistically, after a point when the law has successfully cut abuse, it'll become less effective (in cutting it further down) than the social conventions it helped build/fortify. In other words, the law after a certain point is less effective against prejudicial slurs because the risk of a person becoming unpopular starts outweighing the legal risks -- unless they don't care what anyone else thinks, obviously.

 

 

(Fox is the shit, literally)

[JohnB]

Well TBK, your liberals /leftists are very different from ours.

[Moontanman]

Well TBK, your liberals /leftists are very different from ours.

 

 

Well, lets hear about your liberals...

[The Bear's Key]

Well TBK, your liberals /leftists are very different from ours.

Keep in mind a few items on the list might sometimes confict with other items.

 

 

For example...

 

•optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively AND

 

•inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers AND

 

•protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images)

(this last one because of costs by justice system)

 

 

....might conflict with...

 

•clear away government debt

 

 

And so they must balance getting results in the most optimal way possible for all the items conflicting at the time with one another.

 

.....

Edit: Plus keep in mind we're talking about philosophy, not the leadership style of various political hacks who claim to be liberal/progressive but are instead corrupt/thieves. Same applies to the original conservative philosophy that isn't equal to actions by the political hacks who've strategically corrupted/obscured its real philosophical foundations.

Edited November 4, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[nec209]

The right's machinery tries (via con jobs) to define the left. But their made-up definitions either fall way short of reality, or compare them (dishonestly) to unrelated systems in nations lacking our Constitutional protections, freedom of expression, adequate system of defense lawyers, or healthy separation of powers -- at the very least.

 

In the real definition of progressives and liberals, these groups don't fit it: militant rebels planting bombs to fight oppression; tyrants proclaiming to be communists yet nearly identical to tyrant leaders in right-winged nations lacking our free press and civil rights; many political groups with a narrow axe to grind.

 

Certainly they're not the left....

 

• 
   
  
• Protecting the environment AND
  
• striving for quality of jobs AND
  
• civil rights AND
  
• transparent government AND
  
• freedom of press AND
  
• the legal wall protecting us from religious and government dominance into each other's workings AND
  
• removing the profit of war by private interests AND
  
• fair exposure to opportunity AND
  
• widespread and improved access to fruitful education AND
  
• no monopolies of products that are essential to a vast number of people, business, and our economy AND
  
• fair representation of the people in government AND
  
• optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively AND
  
• providing basic needs to those of us with problems helping themselves or to victims of market/economic failure AND
  
• taxes based on drain of raw material and natural resources + use of infrastructure to faciliate acquiring one's wealth + the number of livelihoods at stake and level of upheaval on economy if that busines fails AND
  
• reasonably limited copyright durations AND
  
• basic human rights aren't lost by incarceration or trouble with the law AND
  
• inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers AND
  
• rights to decide everything about the functions of your own body that doesn't physically impact the world outside it AND
  
• our individual freedom to enter and leave the nation (and travel within) AND
  
• having sex with consenting adults however they damn well please AND
  
• freedom to look at vulgar sexual images AND
  
• privacy rights AND
  
• getting married to whatever sex one desires AND
  
• protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images) AND
  
• do whatever you like so long as it doesn't trample/deny rights for others AND
  
• kids protected from critically unsafe homes or a parent who hits them violently in frustration as a hobby AND
  
• clear away government debt AND
  
• striving to ensure the justice system doesn't regress back to the "guilty without evidence" dark ages.
  

 

That's liberals and progressives.

 

It more complex than that.I will reply when I get my thoughts on paper on this subject.In Cabada the liberals have move to right and are not that differ from conservative.The liberals differ on social issues and some are neoliberalism and others support some parts of socialism.

 

 

There differnt types of liberal thought.

Edited November 4, 2010 by nec209

[JohnB]

Don't worry TBK, it was philosophy I was thinking of.

 

Moontanman, I've been thinking about your question all day and I thinnk I have an answer and explanation. We have a different political spectrum and voting method compared to the US and especially I think the point of our left/right divide is in a different place.

 

Firstly our political spectrum is different in that the extreme religious right and communist left have virtually no power at all. So the right hand end of the spectrum stops just short of your religious right and the left hand side goes out through to the "Green" left watermelons. The effect of this is to put the left/right split in a position somewhere in the middle of where your Democrats are. What you would call a moderate Democrat, we would call a slightly left leaning conservative. Which is why I can call myself "right wing" and "conservative" and still agree with many Democrat ideas, like UHC.

 

One major result of this different split point is fiscal acumen. From what I can see, and ignoring all the hype, your moderate Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and do a reasonable job of balancing the budget. Because of the different split, our right isn't too hot on "Social Justice" but is extremely good at managing the economy. Our left is very idealistic and ideological about social justice, but has the fiscal ability of a newt. The State of Victoria was something like 3 weeks away from being declared bankrupt a few years ago, the Federal govt had to bail them out by some $billions. And I do mean "bankrupt", not the hyper way the word is usually used. I mean "Cannot meet it's financial obligations and will have the IMF come in and set fiscal policy" type bankrupt. It would have been historys first Democracy to be in that position. South Australia was in the same boat shortly afterwards.

 

Federally in three years we have gone from virtually zero national public debt and an annual budget surplus of $9 billion to a deficit of $3 billion and now have some $300 billion in public debt. In Australia, high unemployment and high inflation and interest rates go hand in hand under left wing govts.

 

Where you have two major partys to cover the spectrum, we have four. Moving from right to left we have the "Nationals", notionally a party to represent the "Man on the Land", it's name was originally the "Country" Party and had it's powerbase in the regional areas outside the cities. Politically, they start roughly where your "Religious Right" end and cover the bit from there to "moderate Republican". Next we have the "Liberal" party, our main conservative party. Born in the city and representing businesses, large and small. Politically they cover from moderate Republican through to moderate Democrat. The first of our "Left" wing partys is the "Labor" party. Their powerbase is the unions and until relatively recently, the unions called the shots. Labor claim to represent "The Working Man" which is odd since in a recent election of 29 Labor Senators up for re-election 27 of them had never worked outside the Unions or the Party. They went to school, then Uni, then got a job at party or union headquarters and then got on the Senate ballot. Both Liberals and Labor claim to represent the "Family". Lastly are the "Greens". I'm not too sure where the divide between the "Greens" and "Labor" would be on your spectrum, but I suspect somewhere around "Socialist Left". The Greens go all the way out to humanity hating watermelons.

 

Where this has an effect is that under our system (Preferential Voting) and where the political divide is, it has become increasingly necessary for Labor to rely on Green "Preferences" to gain or hold power. This has meant doing deals with the Greens, sometimes policy sometimes jobs, a very dangerous situation. Moderate ideologues with little fiscal knowledge are having to do deals with extreme ideologues who have no fiscal ability and don't care. Nor will those extreme greens let the facts get in the way of a good story. If some Australians are forced to exist in Third World conditions due to their policies, they don't care as it's for the "good of the future". If hundreds of Australians die because of their policies, its somehow not their fault.

 

So, generally down here the Right got all the business acumen and knows how to run a country and the Left got all the ideologues who have great visions. Strangely enough, in some areas this has worked out rather well for us. Take Universal Health Care for example. This was first introduced by the Left Australia wide. (As a side note, Queensland which is possibly the most conservative State in the country had free public hospitals for decades before the rest of Australia thought it was a good idea. It was brought in under conservative govts and paid for out of gambling taxes) Anyway, Labor based the original Medicare on a Canadian system that the Canadians were in the process of throwing out due to it's horrendous expense. So we got UHC, but at great cost. When the conservatives came to power, it would have been electoral suicide to chuck it out, so they changed it and made it workable. With a couple of rounds of to and fro we now have a very good UHC system that gives better results than your healthcare system at roughly 1/3 the cost per head of population. Both sides think that expanding it to cover dental and optical is a good idea but disagree on the timing, the right would rather the national debt was knocked off (or mostly got rid of) first.

 

An area currently being "negotiated" are unfair dismissal laws. Prior to the Hawke/Keating Labor (Left) govts, we had pretty crappy unfair dismissal laws and the bosses had it pretty much their own way. Labor came in and changed the laws, but went too far. I'll give two examples that I know of and you judge whether the dismissal was unfair or not;

 

1. A woman working in the pay office of a department store embezzled $22,000 to fund her love of the horse races. She was caught and fired. It was ruled an unfair dismissal because the employer did not "counsel" her on her gambling problem.

2. An employee in a paint factory couldn't wait for his scheduled break to have a smoke, so he went and had it in the "Thinners Storeroom", against all warning signs and common sense since he was in a room with thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquids. He was discovered and sacked on the spot. Ruled an unfair dismissal because he wasn't given 3 warnings.

 

When the conservatives came to power, they rolled back these laws, but in some cases a bit too far. Now we have Labor in power again and both sides are looking for a compromise. Mainly because if they find one, then the constant toing and froing ends and they can get on to other business. So it sort of works for us.

 

So, with that background, on to TBKs list and how things are different down here;

 

•Protecting the environment. Even if this means that humans lose their lives or health, the "environment" is sacred.

•striving for quality of jobs. Provided the Unions agree and the jobs are suitably "Green".

•civil rights. Definitely better than the right on this, but often goes overboard. I am a white, middle aged, straight male and as such am part of the only group that can be legally discriminated against.

•transparent government. Not a hope. Talks the talk but always makes sure there's a back door. But then, so does the right.

•freedom of press. Until you're too much of a PITA and then you find that you're not invited to press conferences. The right does this to, but to a lesser extent.

•the legal wall protecting us from religious and government dominance into each other's workings. Religious yes, but the left believes that the govt always knows best and people should do as they're told. It's for your own good, after all.

•removing the profit of war by private interests. Definately. Why do you think we invent great weapons systems and then give them to you to make? (And then buy them from you.)

•fair exposure to opportunity. With preferential treatment for those who "need" it and so long as it doesn't interfere with internal party politics.

•widespread and improved access to fruitful education. Definitely, but the right believes the same. Both sides always claim to outspend the other on education. Which one actually does is hard to find out due to very convoluted accounting.

•no monopolies of products that are essential to a vast number of people, business, and our economy. Yes. I note you didn't say "products and services". If you include services, then Union monopoly is always good but business monopoly is always bad. I happen to think that both are always bad.

•fair representation of the people in government. Yes, even students of the right ethnicity here on student visas deserve representation in our govt. (Melbourne)

•optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively. "Optimal" meaning no new highways, dams, rail lines, major bridges or power plants.

•providing basic needs to those of us with problems helping themselves or to victims of market/economic failure. True for both left and right here, the difference is "cut off" points. e.g. How many children of an never married mother should society foot the bill for? We're still working on that one.

•taxes based on drain of raw material and natural resources + use of infrastructure to faciliate acquiring one's wealth + the number of livelihoods at stake and level of upheaval on economy if that busines fails. We have higher taxes than you do, as well as all sorts of levies and charges and royalties on raw materials. Both sides like the money, but the left would tax resource production into extinction.

•reasonably limited copyright durations. Not a lot of difference here. Neither side want copyrights to last too long.

•basic human rights aren't lost by incarceration or trouble with the law. Your Patriot Act is far more draconian than anything our right would ever suggest. It's much harder for us to suspend Habeus Corpus.

•inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers. What? Big Brother knows what is best for you and is your friend?

•rights to decide everything about the functions of your own body that doesn't physically impact the world outside it. Very much a left issue, but most on the right agree.

•our individual freedom to enter and leave the nation (and travel within). Not really an issue here.

•having sex with consenting adults however they damn well please. The left yes and except for the old fuddy duddies and the more religious Nationals, the right yes too. The argument is now about "Marriage" rather than homosexuality.

•freedom to look at vulgar sexual images. Yes, contrary political views or other things the govt deems "bad", no.

•privacy rights. About the same on both sides.

•getting married to whatever sex one desires. See a couple of points up. We're still working on that one. Marriage is a Federal responsibility, not State. While we don't have gay marriage, we do recognise lawful gay marriages from other nations. I don't know whether the recognition was brought in by left or right, but I suspect right. If before 1996 it was the left, if after 1996 it was the right.

•protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images). Yes, so long as you agree with what the left is saying, otherwise you should just shut up.

•do whatever you like so long as it doesn't trample/deny rights for others. And so long as you don't want to remove dangerous trees from your property or do anything else the left deems "bad for the environment".

•kids protected from critically unsafe homes or a parent who hits them violently in frustration as a hobby. Not necessarily, it's important a child has a bond with its mother, even if she is a heroin addict. Everything depends on the prevailing ideology.

•clear away government debt. See essay above.

•striving to ensure the justice system doesn't regress back to the "guilty without evidence" dark ages. Not a major thing here as our legal system is very dfferent from yours.

 

I'll add a few specific to Australia.

 

Aboriginals to have a say in the use of traditional lands. So long as they only ever say "No" to any form of development.

Aboriginals to have free use of traditional lands. So long as they do not swim or fish in the rivers or build a dwelling wihin 1 mile of the river.

Roll out of a high speed broadband network. But ISPs will be required to block access to any site on the web the gov designates.

Support of "Fuel reduction burns" to prevent wildfires provided certain conditions are met. But the conditions are such that in something like 12 years, the conditions have never been met. Hence the direct responsibility for more than 200 deaths in the recent Victorian fires.

Support of "Environmental" legislation and regulations so framed that "the environment" is more important than human life.

 

Like I said, our left is very different from yours.

Edited November 4, 2010 by JohnB

[The Bear's Key]

Awesome post, JohnB. I do wish you'd have been less sarcarcastic overall so I can learn more about your system Down Under and so it's easier to tell in some areas if you're kidding.

 

1. A woman working in the pay office of a department store embezzled $22,000 to fund her love of the horse races. She was caught and fired. It was ruled an unfair dismissal because the employer did not "counsel" her on her gambling problem.

2. An employee in a paint factory couldn't wait for his scheduled break to have a smoke, so he went and had it in the "Thinners Storeroom", against all warning signs and common sense since he was in a room with thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquids. He was discovered and sacked on the spot. Ruled an unfair dismissal because he wasn't given 3 warnings.

Both those employees very much deserved it, big time, unless we're missing some context not revealed by the story. But otherwise, if no such context exists, to defend that behavior against firing is obviously inexcusable.

 

 

Much of what your post says is a good reason why a party's agenda should never be to destroy/replace the other's agenda. However, your system is a lot more reasonable and centrist than ours, granted with its faults apparently, including sometimes by your left who'd seem to be following the "destroy opposing agendas" path in regards to the environment, according to your post. I'd have to know the specifics better, as we get fewer Aussie news than you do from us.

 

Remember too, my list has the word "AND" capitalized in each line for a reason: you can't sacrifice one item for another. The most you can do is have to adjust the two conflicting items. A reasonable system would have a detailed guidance system written out for doing such adjustments between two conflicting items.

 

So if your protection of the environment's killing people -- so long as it's not business/whatever interests purposely creating the situation (for example building houses near areas of dangerous wilderness in order to get permission to bulldoze that area when people start dying to attacks by wild beasts) -- then in reality you're failing the list as a whole.

 

But if you're also destroying the environment to favor another item on the list, then again you're still failing the list as a whole. That's the reason a guideline must be written out beforehand, so these political decisions are better informed and less ad-hoc when a conflict arises.

 

By the way, the list isn't a description of how U.S. left politicians do act, but rather it's my personal observation/research of what the ideology strives for.

 

Also, the items aren't exclusively on the left, and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm sure we'd find repeats of certain entries in the right's own list.

 

 

So, with that background, on to TBKs list and how things are different down here;

 

.....

•civil rights. Definitely better than the right on this, but often goes overboard. I am a white, middle aged, straight male and as such am part of the only group that can be legally discriminated against.

........

•protection from consistent threat/intimidation/abuse by random (or familiar) people*(see below images). Yes, so long as you agree with what the left is saying, otherwise you should just shut up.

Did you read the part at bottom from the asterick? I describe how/why protections that are (meant to be) universal occasionally seem compartmentalized.

 

 

•freedom of press. Until you're too much of a PITA and then you find that you're not invited to press conferences. The right does this to, but to a lesser extent.

What's a PITA?

 

 

•the legal wall protecting us from religious and government dominance into each other's workings. Religious yes, but the left believes that the govt always knows best and people should do as they're told. It's for your own good, after all.

If that's what such politicians really believe, they should have no problem exposing all the details and planning of laws in the works, to complete public scrutiny, eh? I mean, if there's nothing bad to find in their "perfect" legislation/governing, why the cover-up?

 

 

•no monopolies of products that are essential to a vast number of people, business, and our economy. Yes. I note you didn't say "products and services". If you include services, then Union monopoly is always good but business monopoly is always bad. I happen to think that both are always bad.

I take the same view, except I only care if the product or service is essential/critical to people, business, the economy. For instance, if chewing gum or firecrackers were monopolized via natural competition, so what? But if technologies for communication, travel, or internet-access devices were monopolized, that'd have a very different effect on society. No fewer than 5 major competitors should hog the pool of goods in that case, with no anticompetitive restrictions for the small businesses community to enter the market.

 

 

•fair representation of the people in government. Yes, even students of the right ethnicity here on student visas deserve representation in our govt. (Melbourne)

By fair I didn't mean ethnicity, only fair representation against control of government by powerful interests and $$.

 

 

•optimal infrastructure for business and civil society to operate most effectively. "Optimal" meaning no new highways, dams, rail lines, major bridges or power plants.

Actually, optimal means that we'd have fewer new bridges or energy plants that need building, as the infrastructure's in an optimal state of balance. If you must continually build at a higher rate than rebuilding and maintenance, then the system's off-balance. Plus, remember you can't sacrifice any item on the list for another.

 

 

•providing basic needs to those of us with problems helping themselves or to victims of market/economic failure. True for both left and right here, the difference is "cut off" points. e.g. How many children of an never married mother should society foot the bill for? We're still working on that one.

........

•kids protected from critically unsafe homes or a parent who hits them violently in frustration as a hobby. Not necessarily, it's important a child has a bond with its mother, even if she is a heroin addict. Everything depends on the prevailing ideology.

Regarding both your answers, the second item covers the first one. As for your second point, it's a difficult area, where the importance of bond at some point gets overidden by the scars a child would have for life. There's grown people I know who'd love to have been given different parents, for the abuse/neglect they received, memories still difficult to completely recover from. And some malnutrition's difficult to recover from bodily.

 

There's always good parents seeking to adopt, but you can't let the process go too far in the "protective" direction either.

 

 

•inspection and monitoring of products likely harmful yet unknown to customers or physically affecting even non-customers. What? Big Brother knows what is best for you and is your friend?

I meant to say unknown to the typical customer. For example, if many people weren't aware of harmful byproducts or ingredients/additions to a common spray product, unless they were the informed kind of customer. Or if people who didn't buy some other product were continually affected by its use, for example acid rain killing off a crop when you don't even buy the product causing it.

 

Or mercury poisoning of fish in streams, when you don't use anything related to the product that's leaching mercury into the environment and streams. Now you can't eat it.

Edited November 4, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[JohnB]

Fair enough TBK. Most of the "essay" part was pretty straight, although a bit simplistic in areas. I'll expand. ( A PITA is a "Pain In The Arse")

 

Firstly about our system of voting. A lot of places (and I believe the US) use the "First past the Post" system, he who gets the most votes wins. We don't, we use the "Preferential" or "Run off" system. For practical purposes, the voter is saying "I want this person, but if I can't have him, I'll have that one" and so on down the line. In a ballot the person with the lowest number of Primary votes (number 1 next to his/her name) gets his votes sent to the other candidates on the basis of who has 2 next to his name on the ballot. The process continues until there are only two candidates left and the one with the highest vote count wins.

 

This means that a person might not win on "Primary" vote count (how many people put 1 next to his name) but can win on "Preferences". Because of the system, each party on polling day hands out "How to vote" cards which list the way that party would like you to number the candidates on the ballot. This leads to back room "Preference Deals" being done between partys, a "We'll put you as number 2 on our cards if you put us as number 2 on yours" type of thing. These deals mean absolutely nothing unless you slavishly follow the "How to vote" card. What matters is how you actually number the little boxes, not how the partys would like you to number them. Strangely enough, a lot of Australians don't understand this.

 

Preference deals can also be done on the basis of policy. As happened in Queensland, the State Labor govt passed laws to suit the Greens in return for getting the Green preferences at the following election. Those preferences were the only reason they retained power and I'm not sure even those will save them next time. For all the faults though, Preference deals encourage partys to co-operate and come to compromises. I really think that this is a major reason why we are nowhere near as partisan as you are. (Generally speaking)

 

Policing. (Not that it's come up, but shows the difference in the way we think about things.) There are only two types of police officer here, Federal and State. The Australian Federal Police look after Federal offences and the State police look after everything else. You don't really see the AFP boys, so it's fair to say that all cops you meet are State Police. They are employed by the Police Department and can be transferred anywhere in the State as needs be. Separation of Powers to us means that the law must be kept away from politics, so there are no elections for judge, or sherrif in any way. Parliment writes the laws, Police uphold the laws and Judges rule on the laws and these lines must never be crossed. In practice, they are crossed many times, but always on minor things like a Police officer deciding to give a verbal warning rather than writing the ticket he is quite entitled to issue.

 

Politicians are the servants of the people and Police and Judges are servants of the Law. The Law is not a popularity contest.

 

State/ Federal relationships. You are a Union, we are a Federation. At Federation, the founding colonies decided that the Federal govt should have the "big picture" focus and therefore gave up some rights to the Feds, things like Customs and Excise. The various rights and responsibilities of the twp levels of govt are very strictly defined in our Constitution, which BTW, cannot be changed without a direct Referendum of the people, but it does lead to some odd mixes.

 

Health care is a good example. We have "Universal Health Care", but the areas of responsibility and funding differ. Doctors, including many that work in Public (free) hospitals, are "Private Practice" and business men in their own right. Medicare is our "reimbursement" fund. I go to my local GP and pay $60 for the visit, then go to Medicare and get $40 reimbursed. I pay some, the govt pays some and if I can't afford the Drs fees, then I can go to one that "bulk bills" Medicare and pay nothing or I can go to a Hospital for free. Certain drugs are on the "schedule" and I buy them for lower prices. Drugs on the "Schedule" are far cheaper because the govt either pays a proportion or has negotiated bulk purchase discounts with the drug companies. There are limits imposed. The anti smoking drug "Champix" costs about $260 per course, but I get it for $30, but only once a year. If I don't quit smoking, I can either wait a year or pay the full price. (All this is paid for by a 1.5% levy included in our Federal taxes)

 

So the Feds look after the reimbursement fund. They also provide a lot of money for the hospitals. State govts administer the free public hospital system using their own and Federal funds. It's Federal money, but the State has the responsibility to spend it wisely. Federal money can also be used as a one off grant to build a new hospital somewhere, but the State will be responsible for the ongoing costs of running it. This can be done by the Feds saying "We'll give you $600 million to build the hospital and $20 million a year towards running it."

 

This is where the "big picture" comes into things. We have local govt "Shires" that are bigger than most US States, but the populations are tiny, many under 10,000 people. Imagine Montana with 10,000 people spread out over the entire area. So the Feds will build the Clinics etc, but the State will staff them. There isn't a large enough taxpayer base for the local council to afford it, and even the State doesn't have a large enough base to fund all the Clinics needed, so the people of the Nation will foot the bill.

 

Add to the mix that we do have Private Hospitals and Health Insurance. Private Hospitals charge and make a profit, just like yours. They are however required by law to accept emergencies for stabilization. Which basically means that the ambulance goes to the nearest hospital with critical patients, private or public. If the patient has private insurance, they will stay, if not then after stabilization they will tranfer to a public hospital. The private hospital then sends the bill to the State govt. The real difference between public and private is that with private you get to choose the hospital and doctor whereas with public you don't. Big whoop, they all recieve the same training and many surgeons etc split their time between the public and private hospitals. Is it really that important to be able to choose which of the 7 highly qualified and experienced thyroid surgeons does the operation?

 

All this follows from a philosophical base. When the UHC thing was in full swing in the US, I didn't understand and I still don't. UHC has nothing to do with socialism. I live in a developed and rich nation. If we were to list the things that separate a developed nation from a third world sh*thole, the list would include; reasonably honest politicians, just laws, uncorrupted police, a military that doesn't oppress the people, good hospitals, efficient ambulance and fire services. These are the benefits of living in a rich, developed nation and the things you would expect to see when you visit one. The difference is that most of the developed world has one more thing on that list than the US does, Universal Health Care. Philosophically to us, there is no difference between the police and the hospitals, it's just a benefit of living in a developed and rich nation.

 

The key is moderation. We are looking at expanding our Medicare to cover Optical and Dental as well. If we take optical as the early version the poms (with NHS frames) used was a disaster. I go to the optometrist and pay say $80 for the eye test, I then get $50 back from Medicare. For the frames it will probably be something like 60% back up to $300. So if I choose a set of frames that cost $200, I'll get $120 back, $300 frames and I'll get $180 back. But, if I'm a wanker who wants to wear $2,000 frames, then I'll still only get $180 back. I can be as extravagant as I like with my money, but the govt won't be as extravagant with it's reimbursement. See? Moderation.

 

All the above is from the POV of an Australian conservative. An important thing to consider is that to a conservative down here, "lowest cost" is less important than "value for money".

 

As I said in the previous post, I think the Left/Right split is in a different position to yours and because of that the Left here is much more controlled by the Ideologues. Having an ideology isn't bad per se, but it can lead to people blowing hot and cold on things due to a lack of consideration for consequences or for human aspirations.

 

Many of our outlying Aboriginal communities are in a dire state. They need more water, power, schools and police. But most of all, they need jobs, regional economic development and hope for a better future.

 

The push for Land Rights was to allow the Aboriginal communities to have a say in the development of traditional lands. This was embraced by the Left, "Land Rights" they said "Give Aboriginals control over their future" they said. To a great degree the fight was won and so the Left moved on to their next great crusade, "Going Green". But going Green means not cutting down some of the forests and not mining the minerals. This is 100% opposed to the development that the Aboriginal communities wanted. So the Left govts passed laws that stripped the communities from any say in the development of tribal lands unless they want to say "No". They stripped communities from even fishing in rivers on tribal lands. When the communities asked "Then where will our economic development come from?" the govt answered "Here, we'll give you this "green" cheque." But green cheques and promises won't build an economic base and a future for their children, only economic development will do that.

 

In this particular case and in general, the leftist philosophy will create a sub society eternally dependent on govt handouts, with no hope and no future. The people concerned want a future without handouts, a future for their children, a future of development where they can hold their heads high and be dependent on no govt for their survival.

 

The American Left oftens complains that Bush had no "exit strategy" for Iraq. The vast majority of plans from our left have no exit strategy. A subset of society has trouble paying its bills? Throw some money at them so that they can. This doesn't solve the problem, it only creates a subset now dependetn on the handouts. The plan needs an exit strategy. By all means throw some money now to fix the immediate problem, but combine it with a plan to allow them in future to not need the handout. It's symptomatic of a lack of forward planning.

 

Our left also has a major disfunction when it comes to the concepts of authority and responsibility. In my City of Brisbane we have VPOs, or Vegetable Protection Orders. These are local Council orders pertaining to the cutting down of trees on private property. These can be imposed by Council Inspectors who simply decide that the tree should be protected. I as the home owner am responsible for the safety of people in my yard, but if there is a VPO I don't have the authority to remove it. The Council has the authority to make the tree stay, but is not responsible if it falls and injures someone.

 

Similarly in Victoria. Local (and State) laws required permits to remove a native tree that was further than 10 metres from the dwelling. The original idea was to stop mass clearing of trees, but it's been perverted. Eucalypts, or "Gum" trees as we call them easily grow to 20 metres high and have a rather nasty feature. If the fire is hot enough and conditions are right, they explode. Not "explode in a ball of fire", they go "Bang" like a bomb and rain burning shrapnel down over a wide area. Not really what you want near your home, but people were forbidden to remove them. People were forbidden to remove large rocks from fields. Fire services were forbidden from using fuel reduction burns. All this and more were in the name of "the Ecology".

 

As you probably know, we regularly get bushfires. Each time we get a big one, we have an inquiry into how to reduce the damage. There have been about 5 in the last decade and every single one has recommended fuel reduction burns. Every single one was presented to a left wing govt and every single one was ignored. This culminated in the horrific fires in Victoria that killed over 200 Australians in one day. Large gum trees fell on houses and destroyed them. Fire trucks couldn't get to the fire front because of the rocks in the fields. And the disaster response of the Victorian govt was a complete shambles. On the day those people died, the Victorian Police Commissioner had on her schedule, a hairdressing appointment, a long interview with her biographer and dinner down the pub with friends. While people were dying she was at dinner. But she had her mobile phone with her "In case something important came up".

 

The Victorians had a "Royal Commission" into the disaster. I don't think you have an equivilent to our "Royal Commissions", but I'll try to give you an idea. Take a Supreme Court Judge and give him the power to question anybody about anything that pertains to the subject. Give him the power to tell the President "You will appear before me at 10 am next Wednesday, or else", the "or else" being summary incarceration for 24 hours. Refusal to answer questions gives summary incarceration until such time as you answer the questions, and NO 5th Amendment. Royal Commissions mean business.

 

The Commissioner found and put in his report, not once but 3 times, that the laws had to be rewritten to place human life above the "ecology" or "conservation". As they stood, the laws said that a tree or a wombat was worth more than a human. Humans were to be put in danger so that a kangaroo isn't. I've read his report and the testimony that led to it. The sheer number of "Green" policies and practices that led directly to the deaths of so many Australians is heart breaking. And as usual, the Green left are backing away going "Oh no, it wasn't us". Pathetic.

 

Ignorant and cowardly ideologues that live in a city writing regulations for people who live in the middle of highly flammable territory, all the while ignoring any facts or evidence that doesn't agree with their tiny minded fantasies. But hey, they have University degrees in "Land Mangement" and so they must know a lot more about bushfires than the people who've fought them for 30 years do.

 

If I seem very down on the Green left, well now you know why. I wouldn't p*ss on one if he were on fire.