thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 12:04pm:



The 3rd world conditions you speak of in Australia regarding Aboriginals have been created by the choice of the people living in it.

Honestly you must never look at anything coming out of these communities without rose coloured blinkers on.

The condition of the housing has been reached by their neglect.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 8:53am:


Your question shows a misreading of my observation, which is, to repeat:

"Albo thinks the voice will change things; he is wrong,  but at least the existence of an enshrined voice will finally reveal we have a systems problem"

indeed, the decisions of an enshrined voice will presumably be arrived at by consensus among aboriginals out-side of parliament, and these decisions will be passed onto parliament, as a 'voice' to speak for aboriginals.

So in a sense it is a 'third chamber', despite denials by supporters of the voice.

Bur my point is that neither the presence of this separate voice to parliament, nor its absence, will deal with the systemic problems resulting from our 'survival of the fittest' neoliberal economic system.   

Currently many people think that a voice will solve the problem of aboriginal poverty. They are wrong, but they will be enlightened when the voice IS  enshrined in parliament (which I think it will be,  judging by the latest polling) ....and then soon discover that the voice DOESN'T  solve the problem of aboriginal poverty.

That's when supporters and haters of the 'voice' alike  will discover we have a neoliberal systems problem.

Gnads wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 9:07am:


Correct  - but the problem of aboriginals loving in 3rd world poverty, and the very real and shameful  existence of 'the gap',  is a national disgrace which must be solved.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 1:09pm:


How will it do that any better than the over-representation aborigines already have in parliament?

How do you propose to reach consensus among Aborigines? Do you consider them somehow so genetically inferior that they are not intelligent enough to disagree with each other?

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 9:27am:


Wrong, it's the neoliberal 'survival of the fittest' economic ideology - based on self-interest alone - which  I despise.

I actually have no problem with a  competition between political ideologies, namely, a 'democratic' adversarial 2-party system, or an 'authoritarian' consensus one- party system.   

Indeed I think such a political competition (of political ideologies) is useful  for furthering the 'science' of good governance, to judge the advantages and disadvantages in each system.

Whereas the base-line for any economic system ought to be above-poverty participation for all ..as already enshrined in UNUDHR, article 23.   

Gnads wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 9:33am:


..and disproved in #113.

Gnads wrote on Jul 31^st, 2022 at 12:35pm:


Because whats been done so far has failed

divide - so anything that 'brings down the 'system' - whether it be neolib or patriarchal or whatever, is good, regardless of the genuine harm it causes?

I warned yez all not to vote for Labor - and I'd never vote for the 'others' either.... but you went ahead in your foolishness.... now you carry the can for it... the future generations will be the ones to bear the loads of your destruction of our society and its enslavement to ideologies half-baked and half-thought through, but convenient to the shallow mind.

I'm planning to sit back on the sidelines and laugh while it all falls to pieces around you..... replace one form of despotism of a self-appointed elite with another.... even more draconian since they will have used the 'democratic process' and 'laws' to gain their control over YOU and not just have control over the cash ......

I cannot help you, though I've tried...