freediver wrote on Apr 25
th, 2007 at 2:37pm:
But if you don't then build an economy (trade, industry etc) to suppport it eventually the resources will run out
The economy is to a large extent inevitable, wich is why I used the term evolve. It's the political structure that is built in the sense that it involves conscious decisions about what should be done by the other people. The economy does not guarantee that the resources will run out. The more organised it is, the more likely that the resources will be overexploited. It is the political structure that prevents the resources from being overexploited. I suspect you are confusing the economy with the well the established principles that support it like private ownership.
No one thinks a tree is more important than a family
Where did anyone suggest that?
Maybe not here but it's what makes environmentally obsessed parties loony.
I completely agree with the concept of sustainable environments. But I simply can not accept that economies just happen and we look after the stuff in the ground first. It really is secondary to survival - like it or not.
I think you're courageous, but if I was interested in any kind of new party it would have to face the realities that concern Australians.
Tax, wages, housing, food, immigration, health, education blah blah blah. A fully fledged economy. Trees can wait until the balance is right. And of course now you are up against the best team Australia has had at fine tuning a massively changing economy in a massively changing technological age - the current coalition. You are really up against it.
To be different you really have to be different or you sound like the ALP - a wannabe coalition with a global warming obsession. Now look at One Nation. THAT was different, and that exploded out of the gates.