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.
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.
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 ?
OK good answer, but to me those things come under equal opportunity rather than outright equality.
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.
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.Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.
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.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.
Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.
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.
It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same.
There is a huge difference. There is a difference between an equal opportunity to create wealth and the enforced redistribution of wealth for instance.
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.
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).
I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
Completely incorrect.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.
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.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 ?
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.It sounds like your saying the two are not compatible ?
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.
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.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.
Again so true. RandR your rhetoric simply doesn't match reality.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.
Dream on. If we had an objective media, they might actually be asked to do this.I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
We should not hold our collective breath.
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.
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
I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies
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.
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.
Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander
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.
Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'
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
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?