What went right for Labor in Batman?

Originally posted by MarsC ↑

Nice to hear some reasoned debate. Your comments about poverty are valid. I don't disagree - and didn't think I had suggested otherwise. I completely agree that we are blinded by our current condition - and the gold fish analogy is a good one.

I don't agree that we can make the absolute claim that the "ideology of our times is decidedly to the right", as this is very much a relative and a subjective values judgement. One could just as easily make the claim that the the ideology of the times is decidedly to the left. Certainly, looking at the great length of human civilisation, it is not hard to form that view. On the other hand, if you were to argue that in recent decades we have moved to the right, then I may be more agreeable.

On your comments about Capitalism - I partially agree. But I think there is a misconception that Capitalism has to be either "good" or "evil". In this regard I disagree. Capitalism is neither one or the other. It basically amoral. However, I believe it is a necessary part of a thriving, society.

How can a society be composed of confident forward looking citizens, that can face the future with a sense of empowerment and hope - unless they are free to pursue their dreams and ambitions? And how can they do so, without the freedom of enterprise? And how can they have the freedom of enterprise without Capitalism?

The trick, which Western Democracies have made great strides in (though I'm not suggesting the journey is anywhere near over), is to harness Capitalism so that its positives outweigh its negatives. The problem is that ideologues who seek to justify it only see the benefits, and those who seek to condemn it only see the negatives.

It will only be as beneficial as the environment in which it finds itself (ie, the National institutions, the level of enlightenment of the citizenry etc). This will ultimately determine whether the benefits go the great bulk of the people (ie, whether it is pluralistic), or whether they go to a narrow elite (as was the case in aristocratic Europe, for example).

But the only way for the benefits to go to all, in an enduring sense which empowers all, is for the citizenry to all have access to the opportunities Capitalism offers, rather than just being subject to the handouts Governments are willing or able to make.

Expand

Yes, good to not be yelled at.

As a general proposition, do you believe we, as a society, should be dialling back the social supports or extending them? I ask because your language, with terminology like handouts, leads me to skew you to the former. If I say handouts to business it would obviously skew me to the left.

Your comment, "is for the citizenry to all have access to the opportunities Capitalism offers, rather than just being subject to the handouts Governments are willing or able to make." is essentially a catch-all statement which could be interpreted either way depending which way you lean. Hockey could have said same during his infamous Age of Entitlement speech just as a warrior of the Left could. There is no harm in just being subject to social welfare just as I feel there was no harm in you being allowed subsidised housing and free education. (god knows why you feel the need to place 'free' in quotation marks. Did you pay for it or not?)

The issue isn't the availability of social supports, its the glaring lack of opportunity for those who need both genuine practical help and financial assistance. Modern political regimes, both left and (very much) right, have chosen to ignore the ugly lower class at the behest of the financially empowered elite. Excepting the nurturing by some of bigoted values which ensures a bountiful harvest from the neglected come election time. Increasingly, we reap the rewards of this neglect in our cities. If the past 20 yrs has taught us anything, the way to solve it isn't more neglect and penalty but a return to what worked prior to 1996.