Bam wrote on Aug 20
th, 2014 at 12:27pm:
aquascoot wrote on Aug 20
th, 2014 at 10:13am:
Bam wrote on Aug 20
th, 2014 at 9:29am:
aquascoot wrote on Aug 20
th, 2014 at 7:44am:
Australia Pty Ltd should indeed hold elections but they should be held on the basis of the shareholders having a vote at the AGM.
Who are the share-holders?
Well they are the contributors to the business Australia Pty Ltd.
they are the small business people, farmers, miners, those who pay tax.
Ah, one of the born-to-rule mentality, proposing a government by the moneyed elite, for the moneyed elite. How surprising. It is a preposterously stupid idea.
It has never worked. It will never work.
It would not be long before your foolish scheme would be broken forever. It would accelerate the harmful concentration of wealth in the hands of too few and would give the wealthiest too much power. Once a small number of the wealthiest people have the majority of the votes, only those people would have a say. The five million who would still have a vote cannot have a say
de facto, and soon
de jure after their vote is stripped for not having enough money. Australia would become an oligarchy (temporarily of course).
This is simply not true.
there are people who are good at leading and decision making and they should be allowed to lead and make decisions.
the military work in this way.
there is no "right to vote" by the privates.
Yet the whole unit operates efficiently with great comraderie and with a real sense of purpose and brotherhood.
So you want to model your New World Order on a military dictatorship. Right.
Quote:it is indisputable that business owners possess more skills in the area of leadership then 80 yo nursing home patients.
Skills like corruption and lining one's own pockets? ICAC. Look at all the business figures who have been implicated in corruption. I would rather the country wasn't run by a group of people who have spent their working lives making decisions with the aim of lining their own pockets with as much as they can get away with.
Quote:We should be allowed more power for the common good.
Ah. "WE". Now the truth comes out ...
Quote:those with less capacity to make good decisions could sign over an "enduring power of attorney " to allow people such as myself to make decisions on their behalf. this would be the equivalent of the company "proxy' vote.
Born to rule mentality. It's the only reason why you insist on posting this rubbish.
Do you really think that putting more plutocrats in charge won't be detrimental to society? Where is the diversity of views? Do you really think that the narrow interests of the business plutocrats will be magically set aside so they can make decisions for the common good? Or is it more likely that they - like everyone else - will look after themselves and their own first? How can anyone whose soft hands have never known the calluses of hard work be expected to look out for the interests of those that work for a living?
We have enough plutocrats in Parliament already. If anything, we need
more diversity in Parliament, not less. More people from a range of occupations, rather than an endless parade of wealthy lawyers and well-connected staffers.
this is where you go wrong.
its not that rightards have a "born to rule ' mentality at all.
its that they have a 'skills to lead" skill-set.
this is undeniable.
a businessperson must have leadership skills to succeed. it is the very nature of success, the ability to lead and make the right decisions.
a leftard welfare recipient requires no such skills. his skill set for life may be no more then trying to remember to put the milk in the fridge or not to burn the house down whilst smoking in bed.
No successful organisation would allow those at the bottom an equal say to those who have got to the top (as those at the top have only gotten there because they have superior skills).
Collingwood would not give a pot smoking boozing fan an equal say to Nathan buckley in developing the list.
A university would not allow a gardener a say in developing curriculums to the same extent as a professor.
this isn't about left and right or born rich or born poor.
it is about who has the skills in leadership.
if we believe Bill Clinton (and I do) then "Its the economy stupid "
and rightards who have succeeded in said economy MUST by their own success be the leaders who should be given control at the helm.
if we are to have a democracy (and I couldn't really see the numpties handing over power, even though it would be in their best interest) then we should establish an advisory board with people like Twiggy and OMG Clive and Reg Clairs and Gayel Kelly and Dick Smith and Ziggy Swiskowlski and Doug Murray to set policy or at least have a very strong say in it.
Forum
Pages: 
