World Politics

[auscyclefan94]

Correct. We here in England pay a more than in europe. Its £3300 a year + the 4000 or so for accomodation. If your a european citizen. About 10 000 if your not and thats what euro citizens will have to pay in 3 years time. I considered going to europe to have a better experience and because uni was cheaper but stayed because the uni i got into is quite good.

Even so with those figures, university is way cheaper. Your socks would be blown off if I told you how much I pay.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Once the coffee starts to kick in I will give a more extended response.

Hint: Re-read my posts. Then get back to me where it says I advocate violence during protests. Perhaps at times the violence of some (compared to, for example, the military violence of the State when applied) seems to me at the very least comprehensible, given the deaf ears the just cries have always fallen upon among those, who, for baseness and in the name of self-interest and that of a select minority (which means the direness of the circumstances) have always chosen to neglect: but personally it's not my style.

The reason I asked that question again was that I wanted to clarify it so I was definite on where you stood because I was a little shocked by your response.

Or, I could turn the questions toward you.

Do you advocate the violence of war fought merely for economic interests masked behind ideology? (Now that, yes, is what we call destructive power - and certianly far supperior to a few over-zealous protesters)

Do you advocate the exploitation, rape and pillaging by industry and finance of 80% of the global population against the minority 20% that benefit from such exploitation? (Allthough, as the student protests remind us, within that priviledged 20% are an ever increasing more wealthy, powerful and insidious minority elite. Washington's soft response, both by the right and left, to the Wall Street debacle lets us know just how true this has become within today's developed world.)

In short, are you for tollerating the intollerable?

No to all questions, It may seem that the government is exploiting people by increasing the cost of education but please correct me if I am wrong, but in the past university fees were very cheap in Britain and the government payed for it a lot of the costs. You have to think that it takes a lot of money to pay all the teachers, admin staff, fascilities, general amenities & the common things like electricity & water which none are cheap either. The actual increase may seem over-the-top but that doesn't mean it shouldn't increase

As for paying those tuition costs. I'm glad you haven't grave trouble affording these things, however a growing number of today's youth, even in the priviledged world, are not able to even with great sacrifices. How many people are there in Australia? What is the average monthly wage for people entering the job market after university? Is it enough to reasonably afford a home? Buy a car? Think about starting and raising a family? With the Asian market right out the door to exploit to boot. In short, what are your prospects of finding a job in your homeland and maintain a decent standard of living after graduation? Before you comment upon your willingness to support what is placed upon your shoulders first answer those questions and then try to imagine the same plight with the same unkowns in the future and possibilty of resolving this life's rebus, for your coevals in Europe, the United States, South America (not to mention the worst cases of up and comming generations in the Third World). In Europe, throughout the continent, the wages are insufficent, the State social programs that those of the past so handsomely benefited from are now being increasingly attenuated because of the greed, excesses and mismangement of the previous generations' socio-economic praxis and political leadership. This is where the anger begins and the potential violence foments.

Trust me, when university fees are around double of the figure The Hitch said, it is fricken expensive and I will be apying it off for a while. When studying full time it is pretty hard to fit a job in. My position is that the protest could be carried out in a more calmer therefore effective manner.

 

[Barrus]

Even so with those figures, university is way cheaper. Your socks would be blown off if I told you how much I pay.

Different state, different continent, different economy and thus different standards. University in the UK is way more expensive than in most of continental Europe

 

[rhubroma]

Once the coffee starts to kick in I will give a more extended response.

The reason I asked that question again was that I wanted to clarify it so I was definite on where you stood because I was a little shocked by your response.

No to all questions, It may seem that the government is exploiting people by increasing the cost of education but please correct me if I am wrong, but in the past university fees were very cheap in Britain and the government payed for it a lot of the costs. You have to think that it takes a lot of money to pay all the teachers, admin staff, fascilities, general amenities & the common things like electricity & water which none are cheap either. The actual increase may seem over-the-top but that doesn't mean it shouldn't increase

Trust me, when university fees are around double of the figure The Hitch said, it is fricken expensive and I will be apying it off for a while. When studying full time it is pretty hard to fit a job in. My position is that the protest could be carried out in a more calmer therefore effective manner.

1.) Quite frankly I'm shocked by you being shocked, though at the same time not at all surprised by what you have previously written. This seems typical of those rather disengaged, who have a high sense of complacency and of their State's moral purpose. And being highly conservative, become unsettled by others rocking the boat in a manner of speaking. You are what the Italians would call, and please take this within the socio-critical context for which it is meant, a benpensante: which basically means someone who agrees with the predominant socio-political-economic views because he finds in them a way to gain some personal advantage. A conservative, who, given the chance, will easily someday fit into bourgoies society and hang out at the local country club, no offence. Those who protested are not benpensanti. Get the point? And frankly they enjoy "shocking" people like yourself and indeed succeed in doing so. Though not all (actually most), and this is just as important, would ever do so through violent means. I seem to recall your view in Assange in stating that he meant "just to stir up trouble." You are definitely a benpensante.

In social Europe, where an anti-bourgoies sentiment has always been manifested because they are viewed as unconcerned, egotistical and materialistic individualists, there are simply lots of especially young folks who like a good, wild protest. Something for which the entire purpose is to attack the dominat laize-faire political class and jar conservative, bourgioes society, the benpensanti (literally the plural for "to think well of"), and raddle them to their bones.

2. You can't compare, as Barrus has correctly pointed out, the economic Australian model - which basically means following an American and Anglo Saxon form of neoliberal capitalism founded upon Reganomics and the Thatcherist idea of the State (this is why Britain has witnessed its wellfare state systematically dismantled, which, in part, explains why University costs have gone up exponentially over the recent past), which is what more social minded continental Europe calls the Anglo-Saxon disease. Being American myself, I too had to sustain exorbitant univeristy costs, but this formula can't be applied to France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc., which, following WWII, had laid down the constitutional principles of the social democratic State (where a more humane form of capitalism was supposed to coexist with socialism within a free democracy - what I have previously refered to as Europe's Third Way in another thread). That Third Way has been assaulted increasingly since the fall of the former Soviet Union, by the external forces of a chaotic globalization that has been till now largely driven by the US and British neoliberal capitalist model, which is anti-social, anti-solidarity and allows for the free reign of the individual over collective society. Many in Europe (though it has to be said in England too), certainly those among the protesters, simply find such an economic model unjust and immoral. They therefore denounce the tyranny of the individual over the collective, the private sector over the public (which is why they can't in principle accept the increase in public university costs, which they believe should by based on the social and democratric/egalitarian model that allows everyone the same opportunity and access to study irrespective of income and social status), the rights of the individual over those of society at large. And they are not willing to take on the debt that, for example Americans seem willing to assume, in paying for their education, because it goes in support of the indivdualist, anti-egalitarian and neoliberal capitalist model that says that the State's role is only about enforcing order and each person's right to seek wealth while being unhampered from any responsibilty toward collective society. Society must, therefore, simply take care of itself, whch of course it never can do with all the differnces in earnings and the less well-off among it. Whereas in Europe's Third Way the State's role was supposed to support society while respecting individual rights, but, and this is the key point, make sure that each indivdual assumed his/her responsibility to the collective and thus the rich toward the poor.

It is often said here that my rights stop where yours begin. In America, by contrast, it would be something more along the lines of "My rights are all that matters." Period. And yes the university system has its cost, but government must, in their view, simply give priority to them in deciding how the tax-payers contributions are to be spent. Whereas they squanderd the savings on risky investments, bad business practice and corrupt political praxis for decades.

Then, from a purely economic consideration, Italians, those who actually can find a decent job after they graduate from university, can expect to earn about 1200 euros per month. That's 300 euros per weak. It becomes clearly evident that graduates on those earnings could never be expected to have to repay student loans, allong with health care insurance, then on top of it car insurance, petrol, rent or mortgage, food costs, forget about a night out at the cinema, in a trattoria or football game, etc. And it also explains why Italians don't usually marry before 35, when they can just start to think about moving out of their parents' home. But despite all these practical considerations, the philosophical underpings of a more socially just democratic State than the one which the American and Anglo-Saxon model provides and has been foisted by the superpower upon the rest of the world (which also means them), is held very dear to them. This in conjunction with the greed, hoarding and anti-social economic praxis of the past generations and political class, has resulted in their exasperation and propensity for violence, because it has ruined their future. At least in this I can comprehend their violent reaction, even if my style is different. But, then again, I'm anything but a benpensante.

I leave you with a recommendation regarding a film with English subtitles to get a hold of an watch called in Italian la Meglio Gioventù ("The Best Youth" in English), which traces the lives of two Italian brothers from the turbulant period of 68 and the "lead years" of the 70's down to 2002 when it was made. Forty years of contemprary Italian society and history, which could also be sublimated within the wider continental European theater in terms of social-political and other eminently human concerns. It is pure cinematic poetry and portrays a diffenrent way to grow up, than the unconcerned, egotistical ad materialistic culture I grew up in during the 70's 80's and 90's in America.

PS. This was a letter written to journalist Corredo Augias of la Repubblica today by one of those students who descended upon Rome from Genova (6 hours by bus just to participate!):

Dear Augias, I'm a female student from Genova, who, on the night of 13 Dec., departed by bus for Roma to protest against the governmental reforms of Minister Gelmini for rendering my future more precarious. I walked with the masses, wide-eyed and open-mouth dumbfounded before the scene of two hundred thousand students occupying the piazzas and streets. A unique emotion. Then the violence erupted, perhaps premeditated perhaps not, however in part simply an uncontrolable release against a government that doesn't give a damn about culture, about education, about our future, which is corrupt to the hilt, politicians (from the right and left) with whom we share no common values. I don't justify the violence, and I have never acted so, however somebody has to listen to us. The immages of the violent exchanges between some protesters and law enforcement robbed the scene, highly "photogenic" to the mass media as they were. Yet it must be said that what happened was merely one of the largest and united causes against the injustices of government and the private business sector in recent decades: 200,000 people shouting "no" to this Italy.

 

[auscyclefan94]

1.) Quite frankly I'm shocked by you being shocked, though at the same time not at all surprised by what you have previously written. This seems typical of those rather disengaged, who have a high sense of complacency and of their State's moral purpose. And being highly conservative, become unsettled by others rocking the boat in a manner of speaking. You are what the Italians would call, and please take this within the socio-critical context for which it is meant, a benpensante: which basically means someone who agrees with the predominant socio-political-economic views because he finds in them a way to gain some personal advantage. A conservative, who, given the chance, will easily someday fit into bourgoies society and hang out at the local country club, no offence. Those who protested are not benpensanti. Get the point? And frankly they enjoy "shocking" people like yourself and indeed succeed in doing so. Though not all (actually most), and this is just as important, would ever do so through violent means. I seem to recall your view in Assange in stating that he meant "just to stir up trouble." You are definitely a benpensante.

In social Europe, where an anti-bourgoies sentiment has always been manifested because they are viewed as unconcerned, egotistical and materialistic individualists, there are simply lots of especially young folks who like a good, wild protest. Something for which the entire purpose is to attack the dominat laize-faire political class and jar conservative, bourgioes society, the benpensanti (literally the plural for "to think well of"), and raddle them to their bones.

2. You can't compare, as Barrus has correctly pointed out, the economic Australian model - which basically means following an American and Anglo Saxon form of neoliberal capitalism founded upon Reganomics and the Thatcherist idea of the State (this is why Britain has witnessed its wellfare state systematically dismantled, which, in part, explains why University costs have gone up exponentially over the recent past), which is what more social minded continental Europe calls the Anglo-Saxon disease. Being American myself, I too had to sustain exorbitant univeristy costs, but this formula can't be applied to France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc., which, following WWII, had laid down the constitutional principles of the social democratic State (where a more humane form of capitalism was supposed to coexist with socialism within a free democracy - what I have previously refered to as Europe's Third Way in another thread). That Third Way has been assaulted increasingly since the fall of the former Soviet Union, by the external forces of a chaotic globalization that has been till now largely driven by the US and British neoliberal capitalist model, which is anti-social, anti-solidarity and allows for the free reign of the individual over collective society. Many in Europe (though it has to be said in England too), certainly those among the protesters, simply find such an economic model unjust and immoral. They therefore denounce the tyranny of the individual over the collective, the private sector over the public (which is why they can't in principle accept the increase in public university costs, which they believe should by based on the social and democratric/egalitarian model that allows everyone the same opportunity and access to study irrespective of income and social status), the rights of the individual over those of society at large. And they are not willing to take on the debt that, for example Americans seem willing to assume, in paying for their education, because it goes in support of the indivdualist, anti-egalitarian and neoliberal capitalist model that says that State's role is only about enforcing order and each person's right to seek wealth while being unhampered from any responsibilty toward collective society. Society must, therefore, simply take care of itself, whch of course it never can do with all the differnces in earnings and the less well-off amoung it. Whereas in Europe's Third Way the State's role was supposed to support society while respecting individual rights, but, and this is the key point, make sure that each indivdual assumed his/her responsibility to the collective and thus the rich toward the poor.

It is often said here that my rights stop where yours begin. In America, by contrast, it would be something more along the lines of "My rights are all that matters." Period. And yes the university system has its cost, but government must, in their view, simply give priority to them in deciding how the tax-payers contributions are to be spent. Whereas they squanderd the savings on risky investments, bad business practice and corrupt political praxis for decades.

Then, from a purely economic consideration, Italians, those who actually can find a decent job after they graduate from university, can expect to earn about 1200 euros per month. That's 300 euros per weak. It becomes clearly evident that graduates on those earnings could never be expected to have to repay student loans, allong with health care insurance, then on top of it car insurance, petrol, rent or mortgage, food costs, forget about a night out at the cinema, in a trattoria or football game, etc. And it also explains why Italians don't usually marry before 35, when they can just start to think about moving out of their parents' home. But despite all these practical considerations, the philosophical underpings of a more socially just democratic State than the one which the American and Anglo-Saxon model provides and has been foisted by the superpower upon the rest of the world (which also means them), is held very dear to them. This in conjunction with the greed, hoarding and anti-social economic praxis of the past generations and political class, has resulted in their exasperation and propensity for violence, because it has ruined their future. At least in this I can comprehend their violent reaction, even if my style is different. But, then again, I'm anything but a benpensante.

I leave you with a recommendation regarding a film with English subtitles to get a hold of an watch called in Italian la Meglio Gioventù ("The Best Youth" in English), which traces the lives of two Italian brothers from the turbulant period of 68 and the "lead years" of the 70's down to 2002 when it was made. Forty years of contemprary Italian society and history, which could also be sublimated within the wider continental European theater in terms of social-political and other eminently human concerns. It is pure cinematic poetry and portrays a diffenrent way to grow up, than the unconcerned, egotistical ad materialistic culture I grew up in during the 70's 80's and 90's in America.

PS. This was a letter written to journalist Corredo Augias of la Repubblica today by one of those students who descended upon Rome from Genova (6 hours by bus just to participate!):

Dear Augias, I'm a female student from Genova, who, on the night of 13 Dec., departed by bus for Roma to protest against the governmental reforms of Minister Gelmini for rendering my future more precarious. I walked with the masses, wide-eyed and open-mouth dumbfounded before the scene of two hundred thousand students occupying the piazzas and streets. A unique emotion. Then the violence erupted, perhaps premeditated perhaps not, however in part simply an uncontrolable release against a government that doesn't give a damn about culture, about education, about our future, which is corrupt to the hilt, politicians (from the right and left) with whom we share no common values. I don't justify the violence, and I have never acted so, however somebody has to listen to us. The immages of the violent exchanges between some protesters and law enforcement robbed the scene, highly "photogenic" to the mass media as they were. Yet it must be said that what happened was merely one of the largest and united causes against the injustices of government and the private business sector in recent decades: 200,000 people shouting "no" to this Italy.

Why would I take offence at that? After reading the bold part I honestly could not care less what you have posted. When you make attacks at what I believe in you don't do yourself any favours when trying to put forth an arguement.

 

[Ferminal]

So you are really going to condone violence when protesting? Was never "dissing" protesting. I am prud that I don't have left wing attitudes like you do. I think you having a go at my "conservative" beliefs is very much outlandish. I am a student myself so I think I know what it is like to have to pay uni fees. UNif fees are super expensive over in australia especially when you are doing a course at the 2nd top uni in Australia.

And without Whitlam? (not sure if it was Gough), we would all be paying upfront, I doubt you could afford that. Of course the Whitlam (yes, an evil left-wing politician) reforms came before the HECS/HELP arrangement we have today. Unfortunately neither of the major political parties in Australia are interested in really easing the situation for students (despite the Gillard rhetoric suggesting otherwise). Hence the status quo.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Why would I take offence at that? After reading the bold part I honestly could not care less what you have posted. When you make attacks at what I believe in you don't do yourself any favours when trying to put forth an arguement.

Does this mean you're not prepared to hear any criticism of your beliefs, or have I misunderstood your meaning here?

ACF, you're more conservative than my 80 year old father. It's a bit shocking to me sometimes. Then I remind myself that I was conservative when I was your age and grew out of it just fine.

 

[rhubroma]

Why would I take offence at that? After reading the bold part I honestly could not care less what you have posted. When you make attacks at what I believe in you don't do yourself any favours when trying to put forth an arguement.

Look, the thing is, I put that in to set up an anylsis of the social, cultural and ideological forces at work regarding the Italian student protests (and those in Europe at large). Because if you don't have a certain perspective, and you clearly lack such a perspective, then one lapses into a rather crude polemic of generalized categorizations like "those animals" you made, which in their dismissive and unconcerned aspects adds absolutely nothing to the important social struggle taking place among Europe's youth at the momment. And if anyone has behaved like pack of wild "animals," then it has truly been the politcal and economic establishments that have been raping and pilaging society for decades. And this is the matter.

Your own comments have demonstrated this. Mine were thus an attempt to, in the light of social criticism, place them into a useful characterization of "persona" that was in fact essential to seeing those students actions beyond the mere derogatory acusation of being "animals" as you have called them.

Beyond this, if you don't care to read the rest, well, then, that's your loss not mine. But please don't take things so personal, rather consider the ramifications of your own statements and positions before those who here have simply reponded to what was given (indeed, what you gave them).

Ciao

 

[Spare Tyre]

And without Whitlam? (not sure if it was Gough), we would all be paying upfront, I doubt you could afford that. Of course the Whitlam (yes, an evil left-wing politician) reforms came before the HECS/HELP arrangement we have today. Unfortunately neither of the major political parties in Australia are interested in really easing the situation for students (despite the Gillard rhetoric suggesting otherwise). Hence the status quo.

Yes, it was Gough.

 

[Cobblestones]

The real problem, isn't the chaos of the protesters, but the fact that for the first time in centuries in Europe and the US there advances a "have less" generation. A generation that will, therefore, have less opportunity, less social mobility, will substantially be able to afford less material things - cars and homes being chief among them - won't have state pensions, will have in short less than that which their fathers' and grandfathers' generations had. And this epochal question is enormous just as it is unedited.

This is going to be the dominating problem of the first half of this century. Mostly everybody is made to compete on a global labor market which depresses wages and benefits while the cost of needed local services is exploding. What happen when local health care and higher education becomes unaffordable? Are you supposed to get your cancer treatment in an Indian hospital while you send your children for higher education to a university in a Chinese province town all the while your old parents are cared for in a Mexican retirement home?

 

[PCutter]

I normally would avoid any forum titled 'politics' like the plague - especially on a cycling forum??? But its a slow week in the lead up to Christmas, so.

Gee rhuborma, patronising much? The beauty of the English language is that it allows self-righteous pseudo intellectuals to out themselves through preposterous use of 'non-words' in their "intellectual" arguments. What, did you actually swallow that first year liberal arts text? Is Rik from The Young Ones your role model?

Whilst I won't go on to pick too many holes in your diatribe, I might just point out that a LARGE part of the social benefits that many European nations have enjoyed for the last 50 years have been paid for by their exploitation of both human and natural resources of 'conquered' nations from their respective colonial histories. Do you seriously think the peoples of Africa, India, Asia enjoyed the benefits that their colonial masters did?

That these '3rd World' nations have thrown off the shackles of their past and no longer are burdened with funding the lifestyles of their colonial masters is something you need to get used to. Not to mention that the 1st world lifestyle you enjoy (whether you think you're poor on not - Im sure you earn more than the vast majority of the world) has been at the expense of the environment and now Europe is trying to impose pseudo trade barriers onto emerging economies through carbon emissions policy, effectively telling 2bn Chinese it was ok for us to destroy the environment so that we can enjoy cars, and housing, and flat screen televisions - but you can continue to live on a dollar a day. China is right in pointing out the hypocrisy of Europe as it seeks to maintain its fading place in the world through the continued suppression of "lesser" nations.

But no, your right, Asian and Indian children should continue to exist on a bowl of rice and your pity so that you can enjoy a cheap education. You've turned me, bring back environmental and 3rd world exploitation so that the great European nations of the past can continue to live beyond their means on the sweat and resources of other nations rather than facing the reality that the rest of the world already has.

China is the future, and Asian nations will rightly refuse to bow-down to your first world preachings whilst their people fight to enjoy one-tenth of the lifestyle you already enjoy.

1.)
2. You can't compare, as Barrus has correctly pointed out, the economic Australian model - which basically means following an American and Anglo Saxon form of neoliberal capitalism founded upon Reganomics and the Thatcherist idea of the State (this is why Britain has witnessed its wellfare state systematically dismantled, which, in part, explains why University costs have gone up exponentially over the recent past), which is what more social minded continental Europe calls the Anglo-Saxon disease.

And since you like to add a few "facts" to try and make your argument appear reasoned, you should at least try and get them right. Australia has never applied "Regan" economics, and the vast majority of "Thatcherite" policy was also avoided (the exception being the privatisation of some non-core government services - and the payoff in improved productivity has more than compensated).

 

[auscyclefan94]

Does this mean you're not prepared to hear any criticism of your beliefs, or have I misunderstood your meaning here?

ACF, you're more conservative than my 80 year old father. It's a bit shocking to me sometimes. Then I remind myself that I was conservative when I was your age and grew out of it just fine.

Well when you come out with this rubbish I am not prepared to read the rest of what he has to say

This seems typical of those rather disengaged, who have a high sense of complacency and of their State's moral purpose. And being highly conservative, become unsettled by others rocking the boat in a manner of speaking. You are what the Italians would call, and please take this within the socio-critical context for which it is meant, a benpensante: which basically means someone who agrees with the predominant socio-political-economic views because he finds in them a way to gain some personal advantage. A conservative, who, given the chance, will easily someday fit into bourgoies society and hang out at the local country club, no offence

I have heard enough from Rhubroma and if he feels that he can use fancy words that he pulls out of his **** every two seconds then good luck to him. Though when he completely "barcodes" me as a particular type of person that can never "change" and that someone that agrees with the common views then why should I read what he has to say? I make my opinions up on issues on a case to case basis by thinking about how it affects me & the general society. I also use my moral ethics to help form my opinions on thigs. I don't need a know-it-all like rhubroma who thinks he knows how I think and then tells me how I should think.

btw rhubroma, generally when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right. That is pure logic.


P.S. For the garbage that you have served up, you're on my ignore list.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

btw rhubroma, generally when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right. That is pure logic.

No it isn't. That's majority rule. When most people have a similar opinion of something it has consensus, but it doesn't mean it's right. For centuries, the majority thought the earth was flat. The majority believed Galen's medical theories. The majority made the Spice Girls into a global phenomenon. The majority in any mob situation leads to terrible behaviour and unspeakable violence.

The majority isn't always right, but the majority gets its way.

Plato once argued that true democracy was a fallacy because it gives the most informed and educated of people no more say in how things are run than the wilfully ignorant. And this is true - if I digest and read political texts, follow everything that goes on and keep a tab on the social and political issues of the day, why should all of my effort count for no more than somebody who gets all their opinions from Bild-Zeitung and makes their vote by picking at random?

On the other hand, Plato argued, it would be difficult to create such a system because there would have to be some kind of proving ground where people justified their right to vote. And that this would then be subject to standards and levels that were set by somebody else, and thus purely arbitrary.

We have the systems that we have based on the least worst principle. No political system is perfect; First Past The Post means that a voter for one party in a safe seat for the other party is essentially worthless; but Proportional Representation makes government without coalition difficult outside of bipartite states, and also means that major politicians need never face the populace. Bipartite states simply don't offer enough variety in thought and deed.

Basically, each political system in each country is the least worst they could find. And this will be different depending on the social, political and economic time in which they were conceived. So the criteria by which you judge one country may be totally irrelevant to another country that you're comparing it to.

 

[auscyclefan94]

No it isn't. That's majority rule. When most people have a similar opinion of something it has consensus, but it doesn't mean it's right. For centuries, the majority thought the earth was flat. The majority believed Galen's medical theories. The majority made the Spice Girls into a global phenomenon. The majority in any mob situation leads to terrible behaviour and unspeakable violence.

The majority isn't always right, but the majority gets its way.

Plato once argued that true democracy was a fallacy because it gives the most informed and educated of people no more say in how things are run than the wilfully ignorant. And this is true - if I digest and read political texts, follow everything that goes on and keep a tab on the social and political issues of the day, why should all of my effort count for no more than somebody who gets all their opinions from Bild-Zeitung and makes their vote by picking at random?

On the other hand, Plato argued, it would be difficult to create such a system because there would have to be some kind of proving ground where people justified their right to vote. And that this would then be subject to standards and levels that were set by somebody else, and thus purely arbitrary.

We have the systems that we have based on the least worst principle. No political system is perfect; First Past The Post means that a voter for one party in a safe seat for the other party is essentially worthless; but Proportional Representation makes government without coalition difficult outside of bipartite states, and also means that major politicians need never face the populace. Bipartite states simply don't offer enough variety in thought and deed.

Basically, each political system in each country is the least worst they could find. And this will be different depending on the social, political and economic time in which they were conceived. So the criteria by which you judge one country may be totally irrelevant to another country that you're comparing it to.

Just to remind you...


Generally: usually: in most cases or circumstances


btw, I am not making a judgement call on britain. I am just making the point that I found that a fair amount of people acted like animals when they protested and i found that disgusting. Per year the cost for my course is around $26000 per year. Yes you can't always compare the socio-economics of particular countries but in comparison to the hitch's number, mine is over double his figure. University is pretty darn expensive over in Aus and i see it as more of a hefty expense than as it is over in europe or britain. Maybe it might not seem as much of an expense in comparison to britain especially because of the recession over there and the strength of the australian economy.

19,362 Euros or 16,493 Pounds

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem is that the people have grown up on it being free, or at least relatively cheap. They're paying more than all the countries around them, and now a government which they didn't vote for (though many voted for one of its constituent elements) are tripling the cost of that education (even though that constituent element they vote for had promised in the runup to the election to do the opposite), while all the while the number of jobs available for graduates decreases.

So yes, you pay a huge amount for your university. But judge it on percentages, because it comes down to the protest being because of costs expanding compared to the expectations of the students and what they knew before they started their studies. Three years ago German students were marching through the country because they were being made to pay full stop, because free university education as long as you could afford your rent and living costs has long been a bastion of the German system (hence why many take fewer modules and study over a longer period of time, but earn their money with a part-time job - this is why many female pro cyclists are able to fit their career around university studies). If you knew people, just two years older than you, who paid only $9,000 for their university education, you'd feel resentful for having to pay $26,000. Now imagine you were told that they were going to hike it up to $75,000. How would you react to that?

That's why they're protesting.

 

[Cobblestones]

Whilst I won't go on to pick too many holes in your diatribe, I might just point out that a LARGE part of the social benefits that many European nations have enjoyed for the last 50 years have been paid for by their exploitation of both human and natural resources of 'conquered' nations from their respective colonial histories. Do you seriously think the peoples of Africa, India, Asia enjoyed the benefits that their colonial masters did?

Do you really think that the surplus value nowadays goes to the people of Africa, India and Asia? Doesn't it rather get more and more concentrated in the hands of a few while the 'middle' class in the Western world has been living on credit instead of wages?

ETA: and to the guy paying $26,000/y for his education: I'm sorry but likely you're not getting your money's worth. The education 'business' is just another way to push debt onto the 'middle' class. An educated workforce is in the interest of the state because it can create greater tax revenues than an uneducated one. To privatize education (part of which is the dumbing down of high school, so you have to pay for general education classes in college) is a wrong path which gives a quick profit now while costing the economy much more in the long run. When I compare for instance the math and science curriculum today with just 20 years ago, it's really pretty shocking to see what's going on.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The problem is that the people have grown up on it being free, or at least relatively cheap. They're paying more than all the countries around them, and now a government which they didn't vote for (though many voted for one of its constituent elements) are tripling the cost of that education (even though that constituent element they vote for had promised in the runup to the election to do the opposite), while all the while the number of jobs available for graduates decreases.

So yes, you pay a huge amount for your university. But judge it on percentages, because it comes down to the protest being because of costs expanding compared to the expectations of the students and what they knew before they started their studies. Three years ago German students were marching through the country because they were being made to pay full stop, because free university education as long as you could afford your rent and living costs has long been a bastion of the German system (hence why many take fewer modules and study over a longer period of time, but earn their money with a part-time job - this is why many female pro cyclists are able to fit their career around university studies). If you knew people, just two years older than you, who paid only $9,000 for their university education, you'd feel resentful for having to pay $26,000. Now imagine you were told that they were going to hike it up to $75,000. How would you react to that?

That's why they're protesting.

Yes but obviously it is not going to triple to $75,000. Even if it did I would protest but never get violent. Some of my past posts agree with what you ar saying here. They haven't had to pay for university for so long but eventually the costs become too much for the government to cover. It is surprsing that it would be free in the first place. It would cost those governments a fortune in the first place when they could be spending some of that money on possibly improving primary and high school education standards or better pay for teachers. But I guess Britain and other countries in europe are different to Australia in some political ways.

 

[The Hitch]

btw rhubroma, generally when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right. That is pure logic.

No not generally. I would argue not even half the time. That is a very very dangerous slippery slope.

To point to the fact that others agree with you doesnt even begin to make a proper argument.

I have countless times taken the minority side of a argument in debates and at the risk of sounding narcisistical, won by a landslide (according to judges). the only thing that matters in a debate of any kind is the arguments.

I wouldnt care if i was the only person on earth who believed something, i still wouldnt accept the "but everyone else believes it line". Actually it usually comes in a far more cheap and scumfull form than that. Usually they say sarcastically "oh, you are so special, you are more intelligent than everyone else, and everyone else is stupid. NOT". (im not saying you would say that, just that ive had others say it to me countless times).

I hate to hear it and **** anyone who says it. I mean that.

 

[Cobblestones]

No not generally. I would argue not even half the time. That is a very very dangerous slippery slope.

To point to the fact that others agree with you doesnt even begin to make a proper argument.

Maybe that's just the type of education you get in Australia for $26,000/y

 

[auscyclefan94]

No not generally. I would argue not even half the time. That is a very very dangerous slippery slope.

To point to the fact that others agree with you doesnt even begin to make a proper argument.

I have countless times taken the minority side of a argument in debates and at the risk of sounding narcisistical, won by a landslide (according to judges). the only thing that matters in a debate of any kind is the arguments.

I wouldnt care if i was the only person on earth who believed something, i still wouldnt accept the "but everyone else believes it line". Actually it usually comes in a far more cheap and scumfull form than that. Usually they say sarcastically "oh, you are so special, you are more intelligent than everyone else, and everyone else is stupid. NOT". (im not saying you would say that, just that ive had others say it to me countless times).

I hate to hear it and **** anyone who says it. I mean that.

A bit over the top, Hitch?

I don't think I have explained myself well enough on that point. If it is lineball majority then obviously majority is not nessercarily right. Lets look at the federal parliament as an example. In the recent election labor regained power even though the Coalition had 5.67% majority over labor on first preferences. Does majority rule in that case? No, but wehn you look at two party preffered votes it was very very close, pretty much 50-50. So with a lineball result like that majority does no rule

But when you get a results like 60-40 or greater I think most times you will find that in the end that the 60% are right. Your basically saying even when you are in a very small minority that 95% of people are wrong and their arguments is hollow and you in the 5% are wrong. We may as well not have elections for parliament anymore because of what your saying because majority is generally not right. That is absurd. Your basically saying that all peoples points of view are worthless and invalid which is clearly wrong.

 

[The Hitch]

. We may as well not have elections for parliament anymore because of what your saying because majority is generally not right. That is absurd. Your basically saying that all peoples points of view are worthless and invalid which is clearly wrong.

Acf. You do realise this post gives me great problems. Its going to be very difficult for me to not be patronising when responding to this.

Ill try

Democracy has NOTHING to do with getting everything right.

Have you never heard Churchills line "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".

It is a horrible system of government that leads to lots of misery, but its by far and away the best we have got.

Democracy exists to limit mistakes, limit terror, try to advance mankind, and NOT to get everything right. It exists to prevent tyrany of the minority, autocracy, and things that have been very bad for mankind.

These are 2 completely different things.

And how on earth does the view that people are wrong, lead to "We may as well not have elections for parliament anymore". So because i think people are often wrong (living in a world where twice as many people vote in pop idol than in elections) I must become a supporter of autocracy?

But ill give you some examples to show just how stupid the argument is.

In Arkansas 70% of people believe abortion is wrong. In Vermont 70% believe it is ok? so who is right?


You will also find that in the middle ages a majority believed the sun went round the world. How right they were I mean that wasnt just a 51 49% scrape. That was 100%. And as you say, such a lanslide towards one particular opinion must mean that that argument is right. I could go on.

Never mind the fact that people do not neccesarily vote on whats right but on what suits them. The teacher prefers government cuts to focus on healthcare, the doctor prefers them to focus on education. So if there are more teachers than doctors their position becomes the correct one?


Also while we are at it, I would like some proof that the 95% are always right. No wait, Dont. Im being facetious, because it is just not possible to make a concrete argument based on opinion.

I dont know if you will get other responces to this, maybe people will just dismiss it, but if you do, i can not guarantee that their responces will be as sugar coated as mine.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Acf. You do realise this post gives me great problems. Its going to be very difficult for me to not be patronising when responding to this.

Ill try

Democracy has NOTHING to do with getting everything right.

Have you never heard Churchills line "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".

It is a horrible system of government that leads to lots of misery, but its by far and away the best we have got.

Democracy exists to limit mistakes, limit terror, try to advance mankind, and NOT to get everything right. It exists to prevent tyrany of the minority, autocracy, and things that have been very bad for mankind.

These are 2 completely different things.

And how on earth does the view that people are wrong, lead to "We may as well not have elections for parliament anymore". So because i think people are often wrong (living in a world where twice as many people vote in pop idol than in elections) I must become a supporter of autocracy?

But ill give you some examples to show just how stupid the argument is.

In Arkansas 70% of people believe abortion is wrong. In Vermont 70% believe it is ok? so who is right?


You will also find that in the middle ages a majority believed the sun went round the world. How right they were I mean that wasnt just a 51 49% scrape. That was 100%. And as you say, such a lanslide towards one particular opinion must mean that that argument is right. I could go on.

Never mind the fact that people do not neccesarily vote on whats right but on what suits them. The teacher prefers government cuts to focus on healthcare, the doctor prefers them to focus on education. So if there are more teachers than doctors their position becomes the correct one?


Also while we are at it, I would like some proof that the 95% are always right. No wait, Dont. Im being facetious, because it is just not possible to make a concrete argument based on opinion.

I dont know if you will get other responces to this, maybe people will just dismiss it, but if you do, i can not guarantee that their responces will be as sugar coated as mine.

Make a concrete argument to say that I am wrong?

 

[Spare Tyre]

A bit over the top, Hitch?


But when you get a results like 60-40 or greater I think most times you will find that in the end that the 60% are right. .

And this is where you are wrong. All that is the case is that 60% of the people have adopted similar positions. They might all be acting as sheep, following someone who is leading them in the wrong direction. They might all be drawing their information from similarly inadequate sources. They might be adopting similar ideologies. They might be making the same errors in logic. They may be adhering to the attitudes of their parents.

In short, they might be doing all sorts of things, none of which means they are necessarily "right". If 60% of people make the same error in a maths exam that doesn't make them right.

Mainstream Australians, in general, place absolutely no value on intellectual achievement or academic specialization. We worship footballers and cricketers and life outdoors and, in recent times, shopping instead. We would never react with shock and great sadness to the death of a philosopher. In many areas of life the mainstream is ill-informed and easily led because most of us have no critical thinking skills and/or have never bothered to explore (read up on) the relevant issues independently, or by exploring non-mainstream books, journal articles and other media.

We're definitely not a smart country, which is what Donald Horne was referring to nearly 50 years ago when he called his book about Australia "Lucky Country" .

 

[PCutter]

Do you really think that the surplus value nowadays goes to the people of Africa, India and Asia? Doesn't it rather get more and more concentrated in the hands of a few while the 'middle' class in the Western world has been living on credit instead of wages?

Well, Africa's still a basket case granted, but India and China have the fastest growing middle classes in the world, so no, the improvement in the lives of these countries isn't limited to a few. Nor could it be possible to go from third world to fully developed in a single decade. As someone who's worked and lived in Asia over the past 10 years I can assure you, the improvement in the standard of living over this time has been amazing - and that improvement has trickled down to vast numbers of people, not just the elite. So yes, I can assure you a lot more of the 'surplus value' flows the people than when it was simply shipped back to the motherland.

 

[auscyclefan94]

And this is where you are wrong. All that is the case is that 60% of the people have adopted similar positions. They might all be acting as sheep, following someone who is leading them in the wrong direction. They might all be drawing their information from similarly inadequate sources. They might be adopting similar ideologies. They might be making the same errors in logic. They may be adhering to the attitudes of their parents.

In short, they might be doing all sorts of things, none of which means they are necessarily "right". If 60% of people make the same error in a maths exam that doesn't make them right.

Mainstream Australians, in general, place absolutely no value on intellectual achievement or academic specialization. We worship footballers and cricketers and life outdoors and in recent times, shopping, instead. We would never react with shock and great sadness to the death of a philospher. In many areas of life the mainstream is ill-informed and easily led because most of us have no critical thinking skills and/or have never bothered to explore (read up on) the relevant issues independently, or by exploring non-mainstream books, journal articles and other media.

We're definitely not a smart country, which is what Donald Horne was referring to nearly 50 years ago when he called his book about Australia "Lucky Country" .

Just a few questions then... Which countries are smart countries? I can't really argue against many of your points because there are a lot of hypotheticals used in your argument. With the maths test argument, maths is black and white. You are either right or wrong. Whn you look at an issue like abortion there are many shades of grey in between black and white.

Please remember that I said generally.