HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:28:32 CST
Distribution: aus

dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:

>I'm more interested in advancing the liberal position for now, since
>frankly I can't see much hope for anarchism in the near future.
We are seeing the results of economic anarchy right now.

>Care for the physically or intellectually disabled.  There are ample
>ways of dealing with this through voluntary means.  Families,
>friends, charitable agencies, compassionate people.  If people are so
>cruel and uncaring that they're not willing to help them, what makes
>you think they will support a government which makes them do it?
And why should it be the family of the "victim" who are
forced to volenteer for this simple because of a genetic or
trafic accident?

>Pay for schooling for everybody.  I believe in an unhampered free
>market for education.  To put it bluntly, I don't believe in paying
>for schooling for everybody.  Consumers will make their choices about
>the value of education compared to other things, and the provision of
>education (and all other things) would be carried out accordingly.

So it is OK for the poor not to be able to AFFORD a good
education in the first place and so become successively more
poor in each generation. Great system. It is one thing to
have a system based on survival of the fitest (which I still
have problems with) but it is grossly offensive to have a
system which penalises people for being born into a poor
family which MAY NOT HAVE THE CHOICE of being able to forgo
other things (LIKE FOOD) to provide a decent education. You
are proposing a poverty trap.

>I'm used to going much, much further than most people.
Where are you going?

>>Would we still benefit if all this taxation was voluntary?

>That would differ among different people, as you observe.

>>Of course the answer is no.  Some would benefit, but many would not, and this
>>is what you refuse to accept or have any moral conscience about.

>I accept perfectly that some people benefit (in their own judgment,
>of course) from state action.  The difference is that in a market
>transaction, both parties benefit in the sense that they prefer the
>expected consequences of participating in the transaction to the
>expected consequences of not participating.

>OK, that's enough for now.  Let the fun begin.

I think you ought to read up on the "Tragedy of the commons"
and see where individual price bargaining would get you.


--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
DSTO ITD/SE 171 Labs          		Fax: +61 8 259 5589
PO Box 1500				Telex: AA82799
Salisbury SA 5108, Australia		michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Organization: Monash University
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 01:26:04 GMT

In article <11400@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>Proposition: The waiting lists in public hospitals are because of the
>monopolistic practices of the AMA. The number of doctors are strictly
>rationed to maintain the standard of living of the chosen few. The
>existing body of doctors largely prefers to concentrate their scarce
>resources on the more lucrative private market.
>
>A good solution to the current problems is to double the medical school intakes.
>And also to allow a wider cross-section of the community to enter by
>widening the narrow academic qualifying standards (by which I don't mean
>any form of affirmative action, rather I mean a more vaocational
>approach, taking into account the genuine interest in caring for the sick).
>Lets face it, general practice and even surgery is not really one of the more
>intellectually demanding vocations. Many people could handle it who are
>currently rejected from our medical schools.
This undoubtedly, point the way to a partial solution. All professional bodies/
unions tend to want to "look after their members" by ensuring there is a 
restricted supply of qualified people. The AMA seems more successful than most
(I think it almost hysterically funny that they jump up and down about
the need to reduce medical student numberrs and restrict overseas people
from being accredited). However, I am sure that the waiting lists
could not be reduced totally by these measures alone. Even the outgoing
Labor govt here conceded that our puiblic hospitals could do with a shake
up in some of their practices to avoid wasting money/resources.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: CSIRO DIT (Melb.)
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 03:26:46 GMT


In article <dyfl.724557507@phobos>, dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
|> brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May) writes:
|> 
|> >Please don't insult our intelligence. You seriously believe that placing
|> >societal control in the hands of business (via pure consumerism) will
|> >result in a fairer, happier etc etc society? Who controls most governmental
|> >policies in the current day?  _Business_. Ooooooh, conspiracy theory.
|> >Better get out of here, you never know who might be reading this thread.....
|> 
|> "Pure consumerism" is a very apt label to describe the sovereignty of
|> the consumers which prevails in a market society.  Direction of
|> production will not be in the hands of business, but of the
|> consumers.  Entrepreneurs only succeed by correctly anticipating the
|> wants of the consumers and satisfying them.

Have you ever bothered to ponder the situation that a business can and will
manipulate what people 'want'. That is the basis of advertising. Your 
unwavering belief that a business operates on a pure reactionary basis to
consumers needs shows a naieve trust.

For god's sake - go watch "Manufacturing Consent". It's serialised on
channel 2, 8:30PM Tuesdays - you did miss the introduction this week though.
If you still have the same views after watching that, further discussion is
pointless as you're always going to have this myopic political viewpoint.

brian
--
| Brian.May@mel.dit.csiro.au |           Open Systems Program           |
| CSIRO/DIT, 723 Swanston st | TEL +61 3 282 2613 -- FAX +61 3 282 2600 |
|Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia|          Experimental Scientist          |
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:47:59 GMT

In article <1gk50nINNfbr@werple.apana.org.au> speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>Original Message From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
>Original Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
> 
>Anyway, my main "problem" with the Fightback package is its assumption
>that the savings in fuel, reduced manufacturing costs etc etc will be
>passed onto the consumer. If at the present time I am able to quite
>easily sell my goods at the X price, then why not continue to sell
>at X rather than Y. If I am in direct competition with an imported good
>then I will have to pass on the saving, but otherwise how can I be made
>to pass on the saving. Believe it or not there are still quite a few
>products which could fall under this scenario. Even the humble farmer
>could not be blamed for pocketing the difference in order to catch up on
>that mortgage.

Have you heard of the term "competition"? Apparently it still occurs,
which is why prices have actually fallen in some areas during the
recession as suppliers attempt to foster demand by cutting their margins.
All it takes is for one vendor to pass on the drop it his costs of production
and the others will need to follow to stay in business.

>But wait, that's not all. What of the "proposal" to eliminate payroll
>tax. How do they propose to achieve this? Correct me if I am wrong but
>the tax is a state tax and unless they use the foreign affairs section
>of the constitution (is there an international treaty on standard taxes
>???? :-> ) they cannot force the states to drop payroll tax.
It has already been outlined that they will need to use some constitutional
powers to get this up, but the states have for years been arguing
that they would prefer a formula funding model rather that things
like payroll tax. It is also important to note that the 2 biggest
states are Coalition controlled (and maybe WA and SA by the election)
so it is upto the Feds to make the payroll compensation fair.

>The real problem (to me) is that the Fightback package relies heavily on
>everything integrating perfectly. It relies on micro-economic reform
>(jeez I hate that term! - Why do I use it?), industrial reform,
>reduction of tariffs, co-operation of the states (taxes) and so on. If
>one of these sectors/sections doesn't come to the party, are we up the
>proverbial creek????

No we aren't up the creek, we just aren't going to get the best out of it.

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)
Subject: Re: Brendan Jones in the red corner, Daniel Lam in the blue corner
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.115758.22178@prl.dec.com> boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts) writes:
>In article <dyfl.723948077@munagin>, dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>> 
>> BTW, does anybody even remotely agree with me?
>> 
>
>No.
>
>
>Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com
>
>``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''

YES!

-- 
===========================================================================
lawriew@runx.oz.au              |Friend is sometimes a word devoid of
Lawrie Waller-SYDNEY AUS        |meaning;enemy,never.(Victor Hugo)
============================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:26:41 GMT

harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood) writes:
>What debunking are you talking about?
>Laissez-faire capitalism directly led to the impoverishment of workers
>during the industrial revolution. It was not until the organisation of 
>labour, and the intervention of government that some sharing of wealth
>and prosperity occured -- well after laissez-faire went out the window.

Let's take the second part of this assertion first.

The intervention of governments and labour unions did not lead to
improvement in the living conditions of the workers.  For most part
they merely legislated what the accumulation capital goods had
already brought about -- an increase in the marginal productivity of
labour and hence wage rates, therefore a reduction in the necessity
for long hours of work, atrocious working conditions and child
labour.

Now to the first part.  Capitalism did not lead to the impoverishment
of the workers.  In the precapitalist era in England there were
numerous penniless flagrants in the countryside who, although
able-bodied, were not able to contribute to the welfare of society
because of the prevailing social system.  Capitalism and the factory
system enabled these people to earn a living by becoming wage
earners.  Yes, by current standards their pay was very low, hours of
work very long, and conditions very bad.  But there was no other way
to improve things other than by producing, saving, and capital
accumulation.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: adamt@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:38 EST
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Consent: film on Noam
Nf-ID: #R:rand.mel.cocam.oz.au:1602:peg:996200278:000:468
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!adamt    Dec 14 15:38:00 1992


A documentary titled 'Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the media'
will be shown in three parts on SBS beginning Tuesday Dec 10 at 8.30pm.  The
first part runs for 55 minutes.

   ,-_|\     Adam Tiller                  Phone:  +61 3 286 3603 (was 280 2322)
  /     \    Co-Cam Computer Group        Fax:    +61 3 416 2985
  \_,-._/    Abbotsford, Melbourne        Work:   adamt@mel.cocam.oz.au
       v     AUSTRALIA                    Play:   adamt@peg.apc.org

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:48:18 GMT

brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May) writes:
>|> 
>|> Aren't you clever Brian!  You've seen through the basis of
>|> advertising!  I trust that you will act against the evil manipulators
>|> by only patronizing businesses which don't advertise.

>Yes, I live in a cave, eat grass & drink rainwater.

>Point one - your above statement agrees my point of business' manipulation
>	    of consumers (halleluljah - I saw the light)

No, it doesn't.  It was a sarcastic statement, designed to throw some
light on the indispensable function of advertising in a market
economy.  Business cannot manipulate the wants of the consumers.  On
a really high level, consumers only have one want: to remove
uneasiness and increase satisfaction.  You advertise to try to
convince consumers that use of your product is a good way to remove
uneasiness and increase satisfaction.  If a consumer feels more
satisfied (as a result of advertising, perhaps) by possessing a piece
of crystal imbued with magical powers, who are you to tell him he's
wrong?  You may dispute the reality of the magical powers, but you
cannot dispute the fact that he is made more happy by the crystal, as
you are not qualified to pass judgement over what makes other people
happy.

>Bullshit - Business does manipulate it's consumers.

Yes, you were right to label your statement "Bullshit."

If you call providing information in a persuasive manner
manipulation, then right now you and I are manipulating each other.
If manipulation involves making consumers more happy, then I am all
for it.

Of course, people like Mr Chomsky and Mr May see through the
manipulation of the advertisers, so they have nothing to fear from
advertising.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:18:34 GMT
Distribution: aus

A few have already responded pretty well to some of your rebuttals, so I'll
keep it brief.

in article <dyfl.723949468@munagin>, dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) says:
> Social bonds will be contractual rather than hegemonic in character.

Sorry, but social engineering in the past has failed pretty regularly.  You
can't stop people having human characteristics and having desires to be led
(by governments or others) rather than make *every* decision about every
conceivable aspect of their life for themselves.

> Even police services and laws can be brought under the sway of the market.

Do you really *seriously* think this is practical?

> I trust that by now I have convinced everybody I'm not joking.

This seems to be what amazes most of us.

> Care for the physically or intellectually disabled.  There are ample
> ways of dealing with this through voluntary means.  Families,
> friends, charitable agencies, compassionate people.

So, will you volunteer?  What happens if not enough people volunteer to do
work you may consider beneath you?

> To put it bluntly, I don't believe in paying for schooling for everybody.

No doubt this is stated from you having the privileged position of already
having an education, and possibly wealthy parents to pay for it.

> You are the only person capable of judging whether some thing benefits you
> or harms you, or of two things, which one benefits you more.

The more you post, the more egocentric your attitudes appear.

The problem you unceasingly fail to recognise is that not everyone has the
capacity to make value judgements like this.  Not everyone is as brilliant
as you, Daniel, in being able to unfalteringly assess every aspect of their
whole life in terms of cost and benefit and make decisions accordingly.  You
would condemn them those who can't, through no fault of their own, to a life
of misery, stress, and/or poverty.

Again, you seem to not have the slightest twang of social conscience about
this, and that's what's *really* frightening.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:46:39 GMT

In article <1gajovINN69i@newsman.csu.murdoch.edu.au> sorensen@csu.murdoch.edu.au (Peter Sorensen) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.212516.1884@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>>A system that I would be happier with would be something of the order
>>of people with taxable incomes below $X (I would say 15k) pay 0.
>>From that point on everyone has an excess i.e. you pay the first
>>$N where N is a proportion of their income above X, lets say $1 for
>>every $20 that they exceed X, or a higher figure with the average taken
>>over a few years.
>
>Surely this opens as many holes as it was meant to close.

Normally, when faced with such an overwhelmingly researched rebuttal
I am reticent to get my fingers burned, but dare I ask, what
holes are you talking about?? Please try and restrict your reply
to your top ten or twenty.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:38:00 GMT

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

>Proposition: The waiting lists in public hospitals are because of the
>monopolistic practices of the AMA. The number of doctors are strictly
>rationed to maintain the standard of living of the chosen few. The
>existing body of doctors largely prefers to concentrate their scarce
>resources on the more lucrative private market.

False. There are plenty of medical practitioners in Australia as it is. Have
you ever had any trouble gettig a doctor's appointment? What we are
short of is gear and hospital beds, etc.

>A good solution to the current problems is to double the medical school intakes.

Yes. I think we should strive to have a system more like Italy's. I
think we should spend even more of our health dollar educating medicos
who will be forced to make a living by overservicing. Of course we
shouldn't spend it on ensuring that there are enough intensive-care
stations in Sydney to handle the average Friday-night road toll. They
are all drink drivers who deserve it, anyway.

>Lets face it, general practice and even surgery is not really one of the more
>intellectually demanding vocations. Many people could handle it who are
>currently rejected from our medical schools.

Hmm. You're probably right. However, I would still rather be treated by
someone who is really *good* at the job rather than somebody who can
just *handle* it. 

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:03:33 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <miw.724045080@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

|Yes. I think we should strive to have a system more like Italy's. I
|think we should spend even more of our health dollar educating medicos
|who will be forced to make a living by overservicing. Of course we
|shouldn't spend it on ensuring that there are enough intensive-care
|stations in Sydney to handle the average Friday-night road toll. They
|are all drink drivers who deserve it, anyway.

Hilarious Mark.

My point is not that we need more doctors so much as we need differnt
ones. We don't girly swat, social rejects with a big TE score or stuck
up brats with an overinflated drive for success. Judging a persons
ability to excell in medical practice on their TE score is just
ridiculous. The recent moves to graduate courses in medicine are a very
positive thing, increasing the number of people with a shot at doing
medicine must increase the standard of the output, both from a technical
and from a human stand point.

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:36:17 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au


Original Message From: curmi@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Jamie Paul CURMI)
Original Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
 
 
>> <Lots of stuff about how good the Liberal party and Hewson is, and
>how bad the Labor party and paul Keating (and "Ocker" Bob) is...
>deleted)
>
>It would be great Chris if you argued this with little political bias
>rather than your obvious "one-eyed"-ness for the Liberals and Hewson.
 
The original poster (Andrew Gollan) was hardly unbiased in his
presentation so drop the "don't be so one-eyed" bullshit. Politics is
made up of self-opinion and ideals. If you don't like someone's view
then skip to the next article or at the very least argue your point, but
surely keep this "one-eyed" bullshit out of it.
 
>>I also think John Hewson is perhaps the greates leader this country
has ever
>>seen - he will bring back some dignity to the role of prime minister that
>>Bob "Ocker" Hawke and Paul "Republican" Keating have destroyed.
>
>....I mean...get serious!!!  Dignity!!!  I personally liked the sound of
>an Ocker than some toffy-nosed-git.  Dignity!!!  HA HA HA! You made my
>day! ;-)
 
See how hard it is to remain unbiased? Your subjective appraisal of
the prime minister's most admirable attributes is no better than that
of Christopher's.
From: sorensen@csu.murdoch.edu.au (Peter Sorensen)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 17:39:43 GMT
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: spider.csu.murdoch.edu.au

In <1992Dec10.212516.1884@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>A system that I would be happier with would be something of the order
>of people with taxable incomes below $X (I would say 15k) pay 0.
>From that point on everyone has an excess i.e. you pay the first
>$N where N is a proportion of their income above X, lets say $1 for
>every $20 that they exceed X, or a higher figure with the average taken
>over a few years.

Surely this opens as many holes as it was meant to close.

Peter Sorensen                 sorensen@spider.murdoch.edu.au
Murdoch University
South Street
Murdoch, W.A. 6150, Australia.
--
Peter Sorensen                 sorensen@spider.murdoch.edu.au
Murdoch University
South Street
Murdoch, W.A. 6150, Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.politics