[youtube]Bx51eegLTY8[/youtube]

Fuck you've tied yourself in knots to argue that.

"People collect from it not vice versa"....

How can they collect from it if it's not collected dumb arse. If you lived in a purely capitalist society you'd pay no tax and pay for absolutely everything you ever used.

FFS.

It's a form of socialism. We live in a socialist society. Don't be so ideologically blinded to not call it what it is.

What you are really arguing is what degree of socialism should we have in Australia.

Some tolls and facilities like electricity utilities are privately owned ...but the machinations of the political parties here lean heavily towards a socialist agenda

Edited by Socawho: 24/6/2016 12:42:29 PM

Of course but there's only one person on here shouting down other people as 'communists' and that's you.

No one is arguing for communism. You are engaging in nth-degreeism.

Arguing about the good and bad is 'politics'.

And there's private schools and private hospitals. It doesn't change the fact that we live in a socialist style democracy in Australia.

The very same people who advocate things like a safe schools program designed by a communist:lol:

Socialist society? That'll do me :lol: Is that what you marxist weirdos try to convince yourselves to shield from your failed ideology?

"How can they collect from it if it's not collected dumb arse..."

I could ask you the same thing :lol:

We are a predominantly capitalist society. Taxes are not incompatible with capitalism, if they are used to protect individual rights, private property and facilitate economic expansion. Institutions like Medicare and public education could only be called socialist if they were funded by centralised wealth creation, but if they come from private sources of wealth then they exist within the capitalist framework of our society.

Arguing the country is socialist is like arguing if you put Ford wheels on a Holden it becomes a Ford.

+1
If Tough Love was right, everything we touch would be owned by the government.
His example is more aligned with The Chinese model...where citizens can only lease...not own things like land and property

Edited by Socawho: 24/6/2016 01:25:11 PM

See, there you go again. Not once did I say anything of the sort. No wonder no one engages with you in a serious discussion.

I said Australia is an example of a society that lives with a degree of socialism. That's all.

Don't think there's any parties in Australia that meet that description.

-PB

Rusty, I am far from a 'marxist weirdo'. I don't have a 'failed ideology'. I was simply explaining to the intellectually challenged that we live, to a degree, with socialism right now. All you and the other here are arguing is to what degree we should be.

As for taxes, if they're not a redistribution of wealth, then what is?

Just for starters there's the Secular Party and the Science Party. Look for those on your senate papers.

http://www.scienceparty.org.au/
https://www.secular.org.au/ (One for you BETHFC)

Backtracking now :lol:

Indeed, taxes allow lower income people to access services they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.

A degree of socialism is necessary.

As I explained , we don't have socialism. Labor and socialists didn't create and build Medicare and public school, taxpayers and their privately generated wealth did. Australia is a capitalist country with some parts of it having a socialist esque institutions but the fact they are funded by privates wealth precludes them from being described as socialist. As someone who is pro capitalism I believe funding public schools and universal access to healthcare is necessary to create a society that contains equality of opportunity but not necessarily equal outcome.

This debate has just degenerated into pointless arguments about labels and definitions. Lets get back to first principles:

- In a purely "capitalist" economy, you would have no govt, aside from perhaps voluntary decision making tribunals funded by parties to a contract.
- In a purely "socialist" or "communist" economy, you would have no private property. Everything is owned by the govt.

The reality is, every OECD country is a "mixed" economy. A country may lean more towards capitalism or socialism. But by and large, elements of both systems exist within each economy.

All we are doing is arguing over degree.

So you're ok with 'socialism' as long as you don't call it 'socialism'. "Socialist esque' is a new phrase but if you want to call it that then that's OK by me.

Which brings us back full circle.

We live with a degree of 'socialist esque' ism in Australia. What you are really arguing is to what degree we should be doing so.

Which is why I butted my head in in the first place.

If you say so Russ.

*Commonwealth* of Australia, innit?

Most Australians don't even know the ramifications.

They have been insular and secluded but one day it will hit home very hard.

That is exactly what it is.

Destroy the nuclear family and make people weak and unable to counter any resistance to the impending NWO.

They just took a big hit with BREXIT, but they will continue to come and we must continue to be vigilante to the danger.

I believe some Australians ...especially those who vote for the Greens have this romanticised view of what Socialism is. We've seen the ugliness of both spectrums in the Right ie Hitler and the Left ie Stalin / Mao..

Exactly.
The Socialists have this defining theme that everyone should be equal...as long as they are poor and miserable and be dependent on government.

Muhhh roadsssss

So LNP members would be free to vote regardless of a plebiscite outcome?

So what's the point?

-PB

Well, looks like Turnbull has won the election.

He might as well come out now and make his election victory speech! :lol:

Nearly all Liberal MP's will support whatever the outcome of the plebiscite was- with the possible exception of a few rogues if SSM is legalised who will not be enough to make a difference.

Interesting some polls say 7 out of 10 public want the plebiscite. On the assumption that pro-SSM do not want a plebiscite at all, that would imply SSM is not likely to get over the line if a plebiscite happens.

How is this even an argument? Its not just the OECD countries, its basically every organized government in the modern world, perhaps with the exception of North Korea.

Australia is an interesting case though. Both sides of government borrow heavily from neoliberal discourse, especially in regards to the housing system, but we still maintain a large and varied welfare system.




Edited by sydneyfc1987: 24/6/2016 11:36:54 PM

It's only an argument for people like Rusty and Socawho who think that communism is only 5 minutes away from becoming the entrenched system here.

Apparently 'safe schools' is a stepping stone towards said communism.