stoush.net

Another Friday afternoon, another weekend poll. This one is inspired by the long-running thread on the Venezuelan Government that included an interesting discussion about what constitutes democracy.

Australia is a sort of democracy… but i don’t quite agree with any of the above!
We’re not the first option (any more - ministerial accountability is a prerequisite and Howard has abolished that for political gain);
I don’t think the second is quite right either;
There is nothing inherent in australia’s make up that we are a 2 party state (given that there are three parties that make up the traditional government/opposition, and there could at some time be four), and;
Capitalism isn’t necessarily undemocratic, it’s just not necessarily right either, and so i go for other…

How can you say that capitalism is not undemocratic dibbo? The control of the means of production and private capital concentrated in the hands of a few undermines the very operation of an allegedly democractic society.

How can you say that capitalism is undemocratic, Larrylaffer? The economy is not the same thing as the government; that’s a Marxist illusion.

Oh please Evilpundit. The notion that the economy is (or should be) somehow distincty seperate from the Government is Ayn Rand claptrap.

it’s democratic in that people vote for their government, and that you can’t buy votes - one person one vote. i did add that it’s not necessarily right - meaning that i don’t think it always does what we want, and that there are other ways of organising society that might be better, but it’s not undemocratic.

We have a veneer of democracy, in-so-far-as; members of parliament are democratically elected.

We don’t have a true democracy because not all people are represented equally, with parliamentarians pandering to the interests of their own party and to the most powerful interest groups fist and foremost.

Democracy? “idiots are given the vote and than you are surprised when they elect idiots”

Democracy is thrarwted unfortunately by the manner in which the media presents information. Everyone who cares thinks that they are an expert on everything when really the formulations and conclusions created by them are entirely forseeable based on the nature of how the media presents information.

Two-party system=Murdoch methodology for stability thus creating the right conditions for his empire and prosperity to grow.

SMH=Cheap tabloid that creates an audience by attempting to destroy “Australian” Celtic culture. So many anti-Celtic racists out there.

oh god, patrick, I was interested in what you were saying until I hit the word “SMH” and my eyes glazed over.

http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac;jsessionid=D7253AB0C331EAF11FDB6857111C889C?page=1&sy=smh&sp=nrm&so=relevance&dt=selectRange&kw=Murdoch+and+Labor+Party+and+1952&dr=10years&pb=smh&rc=10&sfx=headline&sfx=text&sfx=author&submit=Search

copy and paste this onto the web address.

Rupert Murdoch was at one point a Labor man.

Interesting about democracy, that.

Why?

It tears apart the grand conservative schemes that Murdoch has been so often linked with.

There is esentially nobody influential in society who believes in ideology any more, it is just a novelty for fools to help sustain interest.

Business interests are paramount and the conditions which create economic growth are the only purpose of government anymore.

Democracy has become a farce, but a farce which maintains a posperous society.

…The cracks are beginning to show as well…

How many people can afford the houses of their parents based upon a one wage income?

How many potentially prosperous jobs are there that are not based around being a manipulating bastard like a real estate agent? Or doing a mundane job with declining real wages?

The very seams of society are changing in their structure and democracy is barely keeping up.

Growing amounts of unmarried men, unseen in these proportions since before the first world war.

An attack on masculinity which creates and emboldens gangs of young men causing havock for no purpose other than amusement, so alienated by the attacks on their culture.

Considerable amounts of discernable anti-Celtic racism.

Assaults on the culture of our ancestors for no real reason.

Patriots abused.

None of these things constitute or fall within the comphrehension of the “detached” business interests.

For how long can the two-party system produce an effective government when it is essentially neuterred by business interests?

Perhaps another 50-100 years, and than what? By that time, are we supposed to have become the men of marxist vision? Or will a disturbing Nationalism emerge which exploits all these problems?

But what hope does democracy have when we look at how there is so little free speech among the major parties?

For us to grow as a people we need to try and maintain a system of constant dynamism which pre-empts problems and solves them.

But than look at the Greenhouse effect that has been ignored for no reason other than greed. Other forms of energy production could be achieved with a similiar investment as that of the Manhatten project but who is willing to stand for it. Certainly no party in Australian democracy.

This constitutes decadence to some extent which must be avoided.

You can’t deny it, arleeshar, he’d make a far better columnist than Michael Duffy or Paul Sheehan.

Now here is me as an inner city comedian:

“John Howard is so evil”-gets laugh, waits a moment

“George Bush is so stupid”-laughs continue, than after another moment

“John Howard is so whitebread”-Laughs from crowd become delirious.

Repeat 50 * times per show

and wait for t.v. contract,

Read in smh that you are a revolutionary and original new comedy act. SBS says you are standing up to the war on terror and the ABC loves you.

Channel 9 gives tempting offers to go mainstream, act becomes “Dole bludgers are so lazy”

"Politicians are such arseholes"


Repeat 50 *

Career made.

You must understand “it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys”