HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Democrats' Economic recovery Plan
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:23:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.052834.7406@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.043757.9283@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.004402.8458@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris
>O'Neill) writes:
>>>In article <5429@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Appart from the inflationary affect of this excise (in addition
>>>>to your previous levy I assume), this "revenue neutral" increase
>>>
>>>Revenue neutral means it causes no inflation.
>>
>>No it doesn't, it means that they will spend all that they receive,
>
>It means that they will spend all they receive on abolishing two costs,
>registration and compulsory third party insurance.  The inflation caused by the
>increase in petrol excise will be neutralized by the deflation caused by the
>removal of registration and insurance fees.  Any common sense definition of
>inflation would have to show revenue neutral measures as not directly causing
>any inflation, i.e. inflation definitions have to be weighted according to
>revenue.  What other weightings would not be open to abuse by Governments?


It shouldn't be this difficult to explain ... now lets assume
that the government implements a revenue nuetral registration option,
and that the running of a truck is made up of 5% registration and 95% petrol.
whereas for a family it is more like 25% rego, 75% petrol. And for
those that rarely drive  (50/50). Can you not see that a 25% increase
in the price of petrol will cause a huge increase in the costs of running
a truck? Can you not see that this will lead to a general increase in prices
due to transportation charges? Can you not see the difference between
inflation and cost of living? Can you guarantee that the impact of these
across the board commodity price increases will be nuetralized by my
rego reduction? What happens to those people (many pensioners) who
are going to have to pay the increased prices and cannot afford a car
and so get no benefit from the rego reductions.

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:42:27 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Jul30.020929.24446@cs.su.oz.au>
yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>So we compare the industrialisation of Hong Kong and Singapore,
>and their huge increase in volumes to the value added marketplace
>against a country that is only beginning down the road of
>exploiting its natural resources (probably via a multi-national).
>Ok, hands up all of you who have a product produced in Botswana,
>or even know a shop that sells one.

Me sir! The only Botswana product I own is muddy stains on my backpack after
crossing it in the wet season but I know lots of shops that sell
Botswanan exports.  Botswana is one of the world's leading diamond producers.

A very rich diamond find was made by De Beers prospectors in the Kalahari
just after Botswana's independence. It is mined in partnership with De Beers
and accounts for a large fraction of Botswana's economy.

Nice country but, as Ray suggests, hardly an useful economic example.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.general,soc.culture.australian
From: kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:09:23 GMT

>Doesn't sound like a very practical strategy to rig the result. A FoE
>would need to find out how a person intended to vote, it would need to
>find a lot of them, and then it would need to make it all look
>accidental so that the disenfranchised couldn't claim foul play. Presumably,
>it's illegal to prevent someone from voting.

On an individual level, it's not effective but it can be effective when
applied to large populations whose general voting disposition is known.

In Canada, one political party calls elections during peak snow periods
as the snowy roads will discourage the rural voters from bothering to go
and vote. Presumably rural voters don't support that political party and
presumably voting isn't compulsory.

If we had non-compulsory voting in Australia, the timing of elections
could become very significant. Calling one on a long weekend should
keep the voters away (although I don't know which party would be most
affected). How about the Victorian State election on VFL final day?

This is the reason that I support the current Australian situation,
i.e. you must go to a polling booth but you don't have to submit a valid
vote. Your right to vote is protected while defending your right not to
vote.

Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.general,soc.culture.australian
From: u734120@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (John Lamp)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:57:07 GMT

taso@munnari.OZ.AU (Taso Hatzi) writes:

>accidental so that the disenfranchised couldn't claim foul play. Presumably,
>it's illegal to prevent someone from voting.

Ask the people who dynamited the bridge in to Jackey's Marsh in Tasmania
to prevent greens voting in the local government elections a few years ago.

--
John Lamp                   e-mail: u734120@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Comcare Australia
GPO Box 9905                Phone:                +61 02 23 1366
Hobart TAS 7001             Fax:                  +61 02 34 5685
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Monash University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:33:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.071528.9216@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul27.031358.2911@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>>That wasn't my assertion, and I certainly don't see compulsory voting as
>>>offering any advantage to either side of politics.  What it does do is
>>>prevent either side from taking an advantage by a choice of date.
>>Well, in the first sentence you have just shot down the main
>>argument of those for compulsory voting.
>
>Perhaps you could read what I wrote.  Compulsory voting does not _offer_
>any advantage to either side of politics, it prevents either side from
>_taking_ an advantage and thereby provides a benefit to the people as 
>a whole.  I did not claim this was the only benefit of compulsory voting
>(in fact, I believe that Australia does have a higher level of political
>knowledge and involvement than the UK, where voting is not compulsory),
>I merely corrected an incorrect assertion (yours, I believe) regarding
>the failure to impose compulsory voting _in_ _the_ _UK_.
My apologies if I incorrectly associated your comment with the ``if
we didn't have compulsory voting then the Labour party would suffer
because they have a large percentage of poorly educated voters''
line. I don't know which assertion you are calling incorrec{. So 
I can't comment.
>
>>The second "advantage" can be gained by far simpler and less intrusive
>>means.
>
>True.  For example, we could remove from governments their current
>discretion over the timing of elections.  However, this has other
>consequences, which could be discussed in a separate thread.
And also by the other proposals I have made: make abstension
a well publicised and officially sanctioned option by placing
a ``vote for no-one'' option on the ballot paper. Improve
the provisions for absentee voting.
>
>>It also leads to me wonder why, in view of your first line, you insist
>>on shadow-boxing.
>
>I insist on trying to correct ignorance where I find it.  I'm probably
>wasting my time.
How noble. If it matters, you have mis-construed
my comment. I was refering to your penchant for imagining scenarios
where compulsory voting defends the level playing field rather
than your actual participation/motivation for engaging in the discussion
as a whole.
d.s.

Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:48:15 GMT

In article <Brs9Fo.42w@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond) writes:
>If we had non-compulsory voting in Australia, the timing of elections
>could become very significant. Calling one on a long weekend should
>keep the voters away (although I don't know which party would be most
>affected). How about the Victorian State election on VFL final day?
>
>This is the reason that I support the current Australian situation,
>i.e. you must go to a polling booth but you don't have to submit a valid
>vote. Your right to vote is protected while defending your right not to
>vote.
WHAT???????? How does making voting (i.e., turning up and marking
a paper) compulsory - defend your right to vote? That's absurd.
Next you'll be supporting legislation making it compulsory
for all people to write a letter to the editor of the AGE
(s/AGE/your newpaper/) in order to defend their right to
freedom of expression.
If I think that contemplating my navel all day on voting
day is more important than voting - who the hell are you
to say otherwise? Ditto for those who don't care how the country
is run so long as good old collingwood wins the '93 premiership.
Your right to vote is defended without infringing my
right to stay at home if I so please, period.

In any case, any government that so blatantly attempts
to ``rig'' the turnout would be risking the very ire
of those footy mad morons. Any government setting an election
on a long weekend monday is guaranteed to be out of office
(compulsory voting or not). If you really think that's
a problem then let's legislate for the voting day to be drawn out
of a hat or to be a fixed day. Seems to me a far more sensible
(and less costly) alternative than the current madness that only
encourages the reluctant to drag their feet to the polling booth
and vote at random.
Let's not invent scenarios.
d.s.
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:53:31 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <miw.711865247@cc.uq.oz.au>, miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 
>>            You seem to have some sort of blind spot regarding Stalinism.
>>Stalinism is the mirror image of nazism. It is extreme right-wing politics and
>>is diametrically oppossed to socialism. I don't know how many times I have to
>>say it: USSR, China, Cuba, the Eastern Bloc, North Korea, Vietnam. None of
>>these countries are or ever have been socialist.
> 
> Yes, but they are what happens whenever someone tries to install
> socialism. Whether or not they *are* socialism is irrelevant. Whenever
> someone tries to set up a socialist state they create an utter disaster.
> You can imagine whatever virtues for socialism you like, but you can't
> get there from here.

         But the idea that socialism can be "installed" is one of the
conerstones of Stalinism. Marx's conception of socialism was that it could only
be achieved by the self activity of the working class, which under advanced
capitalism is the overwhelming majority of the world's population. 

         Really the key difference is between the idea of socialism from above
(Stalinism, Social Democratic (Labour) Parties), and the idea of socialism from
below (Marxism, Trotskism).

         The difference between the two strands of "socialism from above" is
that Stalinists seek to impose it by force, and the Social Democratic (Labour)
Parties thought that it could be achieved by a gradual process of parliamentary
reforms (not that they pretend that they are for socialism much these days).
History shows both to have failed miserably.

         There are objective material conditions why the working class in
Russia failed to create socialism, the most pressing being that Russia had a
small working class in 1917 and it was almost destroyed by WWI and the civil
war that followed it. In China, Cuba, Vietnam it wasn't the working class that
created "socialism", it was imposed from above by the leaders of peasant
armies.

         My whole contention is that in today's world the possibility of
socialism (from below) being achieved is far greater and even more pressing. 
The working class on a world scale is much larger and stronger than at any 
other point in history. Despite what the apologists for capitalism say, you 
only have to look briefly at the situation the world is in today to see the 
tremendous crisis. And you only have to briefly examine capitalism 
historically to see that today's crisis is in no way an accidental or a 
one-off event.

                            Tony Hartin
                            International Socialist Organisation

P.S: Thanks for trying to have a sensible discussion at least
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: The exploited class
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:05:56 GMT

in article <1992Jul22.101335.89478@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au says:
> capitalist society... are class socities, divided between the exploited and
> the exploiters.

So tell us Tony, are you exploited?
 
How come I don't feel exploited, when I'm part of the "exploited class" (ie,
not an employer)??  How come I actually enjoy life?  Have I been duped?  Or
could it be that I actually accept responsibility for my own life rather than
blame others (which you do Tony, by blaming the "class" society)?

I must say that this rhetoric becomes incredibly amusing and stereotypical
after a while.  Still, more points to you Tony for being so socialistically
stoic in the face of such an unprecedented international swing towards
capitalism and rejection of the philosophies you so earnestly promote.

> Tony Hartin
> International Socialist Organisation

I must say all this ideology is even more amusing when you consider the
beautiful stouches, internal wrangling, and very much less-than-uniform
opinion that is expressed within these socialist organisations.

They preach concepts of workers paradises where there is a uniformity of 
purpose, and yet they can't even get their own organisations to work that way.
I bet there are power struggles even within the "International Socialist
Organisation".

I mean, you *hate* (your words) Trotskyists, so no doubt you vigorously try
to shout down people in the ISO that do not conform to your beautiful
philosophies.  You can't tell me that's not a power struggle.

The socialist paradox is that it is a philosophy that can only function if
there is a uniformity of purpose, but the essence of human nature is to have
a diversity of purpose.  Ergo, pure socialism cannot possibly work on any
scale.

Tony Hartin has proved that himself.  Tony, your own philosophy does not
provide a mechanism for making socialism work in the presence of those who do
not wish to follow it, and yet you do not wish to accommodate Trotskyists
(I presume that's what "hate" means).  What do you do?

You either make socialism work by eliminating all those who do not conform
(this has been attempted by various tyrants in history), or else socialism
will fail because of the presence of those who do *not* wish to conform (as
has happened with various attempts at national socialism).

QED!

Face it.  Socialism is a paradox.  If you can't get even get your back yard
in order, what hope would you have in getting the world to work that way?

Precisely zero.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | What does
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | your
Services R&D   |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-FAXX   | company
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | export?
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:11:41 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Jul21.104627.4616@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>, bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

> 
> Capitalism depends on promoting the well-being of society.
> Capitalism requires consumers and markets. Capitalism mostly
> works.

       Capitalism is based fundamentally on profit, not on people. For the vast
majority of the world's population capitalism does not "work". Capitalism is a
world system and part of its nature is to penetrate everywhere. It has, and the
result has been war through the drive to open up and compete for new markets, 
exploitation of the third world, recessions, unemployment, fascism, etc.
Capitalism will not survive. It will either end up in barbarism or socialism.

> 
> Please do not ignore that there are many examples of
> societies where individualism and initiative were suppressed
> by socialism. Without exception, those societies as a whole
> have suffered.

            You seem to have some sort of blind spot regarding Stalinism.
Stalinism is the mirror image of nazism. It is extreme right-wing politics and
is diametrically oppossed to socialism. I don't know how many times I have to
say it: USSR, China, Cuba, the Eastern Bloc, North Korea, Vietnam. None of
these countries are or ever have been socialist.

                                Tony Hartin
                                International Socialist Organisation
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: primitive communism 200 years ago?
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:13:34 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <annick.711624562@cortex.physiol.su.oz.au>, annick@cortex.physiol.su.oz.au (Annick Ansselin) writes:
> In <1992Jul20.161345.89463@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 
>>            Capitalism has only existed for about 200 years. For the vast
>>majority of time that humans have existed the type of society that dominated
>>was primitive communism.
> 
> Would you call the societies say around Julius Caesar's time primitive
> communism? what about the other older one  - Egyptians? Genoeans? (Minoans?)
> Japanese? Chinese? these were sophisticated trading cultures existing several
> thousand years ago? Slaves were captured and used, trade was for profit
> carried out by merchants. The historical events described in the old
> testament and other records of ancient history hardly describe a form of
> communism, unless there is a version of communism I am not familiar with.
> The poor remained poor, they were hardly supported by the 'State' or given a
> job by the 'state' unless they were slaves - not what I would call primitive
> communism.

     The societies you describe are slave societies and have a commonality with
capitalist society in that they are class socities, divided between the
exploited and the exploiters.

     The difference between the different forms of class society (slave
society, feudalism, capitalism) are based on the forces of production 
(i.e the way in which wealth is produced) and the relations of production 
(i.e the realtionship between the exploiting class and the exploited class, and
their relationship to the means of production).

     So for example, in slave societies the slave owner owned the goods
produced by the slave because the slave was the personal property of the slave
owner. In feudal society the serfs owned their own land and what was produced
from it, but in return for their own land they had to work a certain number of
days a year on the land owned by the feudal lord. Under capitalism the boss
neither owns the worker or is entitled to physically punish the worker who
refuses to work, but because the capitalist controls the means of production
the worker is forced to work for a wage that is set at less than the value of
the goods they produce.

      In each case the exploiting class controls all the wealth that is left
over after the elementary needs of the worker are met, i.e. the exploiting
class controls the surplus that society produces.

       However, for the bulk of human history (from about 100,000 until about
5,000 years ago), the means of production weren't sufficient for society to
produce a surplus. All members of these hunter/gatherer societies cooperated so
that all members could survive. This is primitive communism. Class societies
developed when the forces of production were sufficient to produce a surplus
for that society.

                              Tony Hartin
                              International Socialist Organisation
From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 10:46:27 GMT

In <1992Jul20.094533.89457@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
   phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>In article <1992Jul19.040722.952@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>,
>bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>> I know of no system which is totally egalitarian. Besides,
>> the ideal presumes that all people are the same ...

>> Any political system or ideal which denies human nature is
>> destined to failure and preservation in dusty paper pulp
>> volumes.

>   Yes, but in my opinion human nature is social; that is to work
>together and cooperate for the common good.

As you say, that is *your* opinion. If you wish us to infer
that "human nature is socialist" then you'll have hundreds
of millions of people arguing with you.

Yes, humans share a "pack mentality" where what they do is
directed towards the benefit of the pack. However, one must
not ignore that all in the pack are not equal, there are
those who lead, there are those who follow. There are those
who are better off because their personal attributes give
them the ability to do better in their environment. The
contribution of the *variety* of individuals ensures the
survival of the pack, and were it not for incentives, then
the expression of individualism would be suppressed.

>   In our society, the ideology of capitalism dominates; the ideology
>of individualism, competition and divisivness. It is this which distorts 
>human nature, and leads to nationalism, wars, racism and sexism.

Individualism and competition are not anti-social or
divisive in themselves. In fact, it is equally valid to say
that individualism and competition benefit society more than
egalitarianism, by providing incentives to do better and in
so doing, raising the standards.

I find it difficult to believe that there is any incentive
to improve on the status-quo in an egalitarian society, and
hence it will most likely decay and fail.

Capitalism depends on promoting the well-being of society.
Capitalism requires consumers and markets. Capitalism mostly
works.

Please do not ignore that there are many examples of
societies where individualism and initiative were suppressed
by socialism. Without exception, those societies as a whole
have suffered.
-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Newsgroups: aus.politics