Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Australian Greens party

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Obvious point but apparently only Greens and Labor politicians can be hypocrites, the wrecker is as pure of the snow..........for gods sake man get with the program

BTW like the tone of your posts 90% of which you will have to appreciate will go over the top of most of the Sarah Palin groupies heads here.

Never mind. IslamoMarxists breed like flies. Your day will come when the "wreckers" are in Gulags, where they belong.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

BTW like the tone of your posts 90% of which you will have to appreciate will go over the top of most of the Sarah Palin groupies heads here.

1/ It is a mistake to underestimate your political adversaries, unless of course that was just a gratuitous insult. Either way, all the work you have done on this forum to seem reasonable is now lost.

2/ It is a low probability that people who are not paid up members of the Fabian Society are in fact Palin groupies.

Socialists fancy themselves as intellectuals yet readily take the low road with pejoratives. How about arguing on the merits of policy rather than casting aspersions. :rolleyes:

RandR,

I'm still waiting for an answer.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

May I have an answer to this question please?

Of course you can,

Equality to me is social equality. Things like education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender ... etc. I believe the furthering of equality is an important advancement among every nation on this small planet. I believe we've been making good progress, but as yet still have a long way to go.

What does equality mean to you ? Do you believe the furthering of equality is a good thing ? Or not ?
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Of course you can,

Equality to me is social equality. Things like education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender ... etc. I believe the furthering of equality is an important advancement among every nation on this small planet. I believe we've been making good progress, but as yet still have a long way to go.

What does equality mean to you ? Do you believe the furthering of equality is a good thing ? Or not ?

OK good answer, but to me those things come under equal opportunity rather than outright equality.

I also believe the furthering of these things is good, but am very uncomfortable about how this is being attempted. However I stop there and don't believe any sort of state enforced equality is a good thing at all.

My observation is that social democratic administrations overstep the goal of equal opportunity and 1/ Try to enforce equality in things that can never be equal 2/ Create unequalnesses(?) in enforcing purported equal opportunity.

The statist approach always created further imbalances.

:2twocents
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

OK good answer, but to me those things come under equal opportunity rather than outright equality.

Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.

My observation is that social democratic administrations overstep the goal of equal opportunity and 1/ Try to enforce equality in things that can never be equal 2/ Create unequalnesses(?) in enforcing purported equal opportunity.

The statist approach always created further imbalances.

:2twocents

Which social democratic administration have you observed ?

By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.

Your right in asserting that there are indeed problems and hurdles involved with any aspect of creating any equitable society. But I believe every hurdle to be eventually surmountable. Just small steps.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.
It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same. Two equal people might for example be "two men of the same age with the same wealth and same occupation and same appearance and same attractiveness of wife", for instance. Two people with equal opportunities might be "two men who have equal freedoms and equal protection under the law". In the latter case, the men can have any level of success in life, depending on their predetermined characteristics and their choices.
By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.
Ah yes, the old 'the reason the USSR failed was too much capitalism / too little socialism'. Kind of like 'my car did not win the race because I did not let enough air out of the tires'. It is interesting to note the similarities between socialism and hard-line religions: in either case they both have an infinite burden of disproof, and simultaneously claim to be legitimate belief systems.

RandR, please state the test situation that disproves the superiority of socialism over capitalism, and the test situation that proves the superiority of socialism over capitalism (including definitions of socialism and capitalism).
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.

There is a huge difference. There is a difference between an equal opportunity to create wealth and the enforced redistribution of wealth for instance.

Which social democratic administration have you observed ?

Many western nations have embarked on social democratic experiments. Australia and Canada included, but most notably from my perspective the UK prior to Thatcher rescuing her.

By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.

Your right in asserting that there are indeed problems and hurdles involved with any aspect of creating any equitable society. But I believe every hurdle to be eventually surmountable. Just small steps.

The UK and most of Europe are statist, indeed the EU is statist.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same.

Your right there not the same thing by a literal definition ... but the two are entirely intertwined, you cant have equality without equal opportunity, and you cant have equal opportunity without equality.

If 1000 people are born equally in every aspect of there lives eg ....education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender


.... is this not equality, and does this not also present equal opportunity ?

There is a huge difference. There is a difference between an equal opportunity to create wealth and the enforced redistribution of wealth for instance.

It sounds like your saying the two are not compatible ?

... yet we have the two co-existing in this very country.

Our taxation system is designed in part to be an enforced mode of redistributing wealth.

and it is possible for the majority of people in this country to also have an equal opportunity in regards to acquiring that wealth.

But these are both things i think can be improved upon, and indeed need to be improved upon for us to continue to advance, as a people, nation and society.

Many western nations have embarked on social democratic experiments. Australia and Canada included, but most notably from my perspective the UK prior to Thatcher rescuing her.

Indeed the two bolded i would probably consider the most succesful. Which isnt saying alot at all is it.


RandR, please state the test situation that disproves the superiority of socialism over capitalism, and the test situation that proves the superiority of socialism over capitalism (including definitions of socialism and capitalism).

Im not going to disprove or establish the superiority of either ... because i believe them to both me compatible.

In any case i think it would be impossible to provide you with the test situation your asking me to compare, because there is truly not one 'pure' example of either i could provide you with.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I went to a Green meeting before the last election.

It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals.

Not a worker in sight. Full of hormone problems, the males too much testosterone and the females too little oestrogen.

They are not the Full Monty and will disappear as the Dems did.

I've had a Green partner, some years ago, thank god she shaved her legs.

gg
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.

Hear hear Doc. They know what they are agin, but have no idea where they are going, a bit like a fundamental godbotherer on a nudist beach.

gg
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

It shouldn't be too hard.

In a global currency terms, there wouldn't be too many digits before the decimal piont by the time they're through.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Your right there not the same thing by a literal definition ... but the two are entirely intertwined, you cant have equality without equal opportunity, and you cant have equal opportunity without equality.
Completely incorrect.
You cannot have equality with equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
You cannot have equal opportunity with enforced equality. Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.
You obviously didn't think this through.
If 1000 people are born equally in every aspect of there lives eg ....education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender
.... is this not equality, and does this not also present equal opportunity ?
Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander. A mans right to make decisions as to who he will associate with and trade with, and who he will not, are at the core of his freedom, and yet this is discrimination - which you say should be banned. You speak of equal opportunity, and yet some will have their education/healthcare/social security provided for them, and some will have to bear the burden of providing it to them - reducing the opportunity for gain for the latter and increasing it for the former.
It sounds like your saying the two are not compatible ?
They are not. Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'. There is nothing socially, economically, philosophically, or morally compatible about the two. The only reason we exist somewhere in between is a lack of consistency, resulting from a left and right of near equal power. If people were unable to maintain that '2+2 can equal both 4 and 5', as you can, they would have to choose - freedom or state control.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same. Two equal people might for example be "two men of the same age with the same wealth and same occupation and same appearance and same attractiveness of wife", for instance. Two people with equal opportunities might be "two men who have equal freedoms and equal protection under the law". In the latter case, the men can have any level of success in life, depending on their predetermined characteristics and their choices.

Completely incorrect.
You cannot have equality with equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
You cannot have equal opportunity with enforced equality. Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.
You obviously didn't think this through.
Exactly. tothemax, you've expressed this more adequately than I managed to in my earlier allusion to inherent inequality when asking RandR if he believed all people were created equal, a question he has chosen to ignore.


Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander. A mans right to make decisions as to who he will associate with and trade with, and who he will not, are at the core of his freedom, and yet this is discrimination - which you say should be banned. You speak of equal opportunity, and yet some will have their education/healthcare/social security provided for them, and some will have to bear the burden of providing it to them - reducing the opportunity for gain for the latter and increasing it for the former.
Again so true. RandR your rhetoric simply doesn't match reality.

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
Dream on. If we had an objective media, they might actually be asked to do this.
We should not hold our collective breath.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

It shouldn't be too hard.

In a global currency terms, there wouldn't be too many digits before the decimal piont by the time they're through.

Quote of the year , doc, apart from the incohol adduced musspell.

gg
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I went to a Green meeting before the last election.

It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals.

Not a worker in sight. Full of hormone problems, the males too much testosterone and the females too little oestrogen.

They are not the Full Monty and will disappear as the Dems did.

I've had a Green partner, some years ago, thank god she shaved her legs.

gg

Just who are you trying to troll ?

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies

I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....

They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.
You obviously didn't think this through.

Completely incorrect.
You cannot have equality with equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
You cannot have equal opportunity with enforced equality. Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.
You obviously didn't think this through.

Yes, i did think this through. As have you.

Were just contradicting each other, and following two different trains of thought.

Your theorising (correct me if im wrong) that it is completely and utterly impossible to have equality at all ... on the basis that everybody is different, which is obviously quite true.


Im saying forget that everyone is different, and focus on the fact that it is possible to create social equality ie - education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender

and if you create social equality, its perfectly reasonable to suggest that people in this system have equal opportunity.

Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.

Basically your describing the very system of taxation that we have here in Australia ....

Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander

The ability to speak freely does not condone the discrimination of anyone, this is not double speak on my behalf, but simple common sense. Not to mention just basically morales that people in this country are taught from pre-school.

Your making a lot of good discussion, dont ruin it by being bringing up crap like that ;)

They are not. Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'. There is nothing socially, economically, philosophically, or morally compatible about the two. The only reason we exist somewhere in between is a lack of consistency, resulting from a left and right of near equal power. If people were unable to maintain that '2+2 can equal both 4 and 5', as you can, they would have to choose - freedom or state control.

You say they are not compatible ... and yet every nation on this planet has a system of governance that is a hybrid of the two, and so i believe they are compatible, and indeed the only way to progress further is to refine the method in which we do integrate both principles. Because we already know one or the other is a disaster if pursued singularly.

Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'

you know its perfectly reasonable in a socialist sense for man to posses property. Indeed, in a socialist society theres nothing stopping one from accumulating more wealth and property then another. There's merely a greater level of redistribution from that person to those that dont have that same level of wealth.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....

They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.

Exactly as said, troller. They can never implement policies. They are without any strategic plan to improve the lot of Australians. And as for implementation, they would spend a month of sundays agreeing on the simplest of policy decisions.

Troll somewhere else mate.

gg
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Exactly as said, troller. They can never implement policies. They are without any strategic plan to improve the lot of Australians. And as for implementation, they would spend a month of sundays agreeing on the simplest of policy decisions.

Troll somewhere else mate.

gg

Exactly as you said ? bahahahha ..

actually ... you actually said this ...

I went to a Green meeting before the last election.

It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals.

Not a worker in sight. Full of hormone problems, the males too much testosterone and the females too little oestrogen.

You contributed much to the discussion.
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Exactly as you said ? bahahahha ..

actually ... you actually said this ...



You contributed much to the discussion.

I contributed facts, trolley boy, you contribute opinions.

gg
 
Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I contributed facts, trolley boy, you contribute opinions.

gg

During my brief flirtation with journalism, I discovered the importance of distinguising facts from opinion...

... But the beauty is thats all entirely subjective !

Maybe you can dispense some more of your facts ... and i could reply by not utilizing words at all, and merely post pictures of dinosaurs. Then we'd both be trolling :p
 
Top