Democracy has been destroyed by globalisation!
The massive growth in size and power of monopolistic organisations, and collusion over issues like prices and interest rate fixing, means that commercial interests now have more power than governments.
The inducements they are then able to offer – which extend to cosy sinecures post-politics for many senior Ministers – almost inevitably result in an increasing level of corruption in government.
The stubborn refusal of leaders like Morrison to introduce any version of integrity oversight – let alone a truly effective one – is even more alarming, when you examine the extent to which individual rights are being eroded and penalties increased for whistle blowers.
Julian Assange is wanted by the USA because he revealed the venality and illegality of their actions, while Witness K and Bernard Collaery have embarrassed former Coalition politicians by showing that they sought commercial advantage over the world’s poorest new nation under the cloak of national security!
Many of the wars in which we tagged on the tail of the USA, were at the behest of the munitions industry in the USA.
Countries like Saudi Arabia are allowed to – literally – get away with murder because of their importance to the oil industry.
If governments were doing the right thing by taking action on climate change, oil would lose its importance, as would other fossil fuels – and there would be a much greater chance that women in the Middle East might have the opportunity to move into a modern world environment!
COVID-19 might be a virus which is causing major disruption all round the world, but it truly pales into insignificance when you compare it to the adverse effects, world-wide, of the greed associated with globalisation, and, in particular, the worship of fossil fuels!
China might seem to pose a threat, but look more closely at Amazon, Google, Facebook and all the oil and gas conglomerates and ask yourself – how can the environment and society survive unless something changes really soon.
Is allowing the Australian government to see its term in office all the way through, really an option, or do we need to be using people power to bring on desperately needed policy change?
What do we want?
ICAC!!
How do we want it!
With real teeth!
When do we want it?
NOW!!
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
[/textblock]
Despite the obvious flaws in our politicians, our compulsory voting system gives us a passable version of a democracy. Most times the winning parties get a majority of the votes. Even when they don’t, it’s not a huge gulf.
The US version of democracy is a joke. The Electoral College nullifies it immediately. An Australian fan of Trump said to me that Trump was saving Democracy for the world. I said ‘Which particular democracy? The kind that makes it difficult for minorities – especially African-Americans – to vote? The ‘hanging chads kind of democracy? The Electoral College kind of democracy? The ‘choose your own judges and stack the Courts’ kind of democracy?’
I got no answer, except what school teachers call ‘dumb insolence.’
And what about UK democracy? First past the post means that a candidate who gets one more vote than any other candidate wins the seat, even if he or she gets only a quarter of the vote. Maybe even less, if there are numerous candidates. No preferences system is at play, so that fail-safe of ‘at least we got the least objectionable candidate’ doesn’t apply.
Our democracy is probably okay; the problem is the gobshites we vote in.
One way to restore democracy is to join groups that are working to change this broken and corrupted political system we are living under at the moment. If enough people stand up and demand better we have a chance to bring about positive change.
One group working to bring about change is Australia’s Future: It’s up to you!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/australiafuture/
And here is our YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/channel/UCrtb7TKY8LD6RiNZ4fFxvuw
Any like minded people are welcome to join.
I would politcely disagree with and avoid this describing it as a ‘libertarian trap’:
‘Democracy has been destroyed by globalisation!
The massive growth in size and power of monopolistic organisations, and collusion over issues like prices and interest rate fixing, means that commercial interests now have more power than governments.’
First what is the definition of ‘globalisation’? Many people have different definitions and one could argue that it has been round forever, especially linked up with migration of people and ideas. The latter is used by white nationalists and/or nativists to criticise modern day non European immigrants while demanding low growth, closed, ‘balanced’ and self sufficient autarkist economies for ‘sovereignty’ aka Brexit, Trump, Putin, Erdoagn et al.; often presented as sustainable, environmental and common sense but merely supports the status quo and global players who already benefit from ‘globalisation’.
Think fossil fuels and auto players who are global and can play nations off against each other e.g. demanding tax breaks, rebates, avoid tax and regulation etc., importantly, also avoid threat to future income streams by not having new competitors enter markets.
An objective of many corporate entities, radical right libertarian think tanks and right wing governments is to restrict globalisation (especially of services), restrict native industries and business to their own backyard, leaving the field clear for their own influence, supported by conservative governments.
” If voting would change things they would make it illegal “Bertand RusselL
Machiavelli..:
” And this conclusion can be drawn, that where the people is not corrupted, tumults and other troubles do no harm; but where corruption exists, well ordered laws are of no benefit, unless they are administered by one who, with extreme strength, will make them be observed until the people become good [cured]; I do not know if this ever happened, or whether it be possible that it could happen; for it is seen (as I have said a little above) that a City coming to decadence because of the corruption of its people, if it ever happens that she is raised up again, it happens through the virtu of one man who is then living, and not by the virtu of the general public, that the good institutions are sustained: and as soon as such a one is dead, they will return to their pristine habits, as happened at Thebes, which by the virtu of Epaminondas, while he was alive, was able to maintain the form of a Republic and Empire, but after his death returned to its first disorders: the reason is this, that one man cannot live so long that the time will be enough to bring a City back to good habits which for a long time has had evil habits. And if one of very long life or two continuous successors of virtu do not restore it [the state], so one which lacks them (as was said above) is quickly ruined, unless it should be made to be restored through many dangers and much bloodshed. For such corruption and little inclination for a free society result from an inequality that exists in that City; and wanting to bring them to equality, it is necessary to use the most extraordinary means, which few know or want to use, as will be described in more detail in another place.”
Jack Cade:
When the Nats get as many reps as they do compared to the Greens, given the vote each party attracts, that is not a real democracy. Proportional Representation would be far better.
Compulsory political and economic literacy would be an even bigger improvement, but our misgovernments prefer to lower educational standards rather than raise them. They want good little worker ants, not thinking people.
Leefe
I am well aware of the scandal that are the Count remembers. I was at pains to avoid the number of seats won – that is a proportional representation issue. That notwithstanding, the Coalition plus it’s camp followers got more votes overall than the ALP and its theoretical ally the Greens got. So like it or not – and I do NOT! – more Australians voted for a large group of lying robber barons than voted against it. Generally speaking, state or federal, the elected governments win by virtue of head counts as well as seats.
Here is an interesting comment form a person in regional Australia.
There are more Greens voters in NSW than there are voters in the eight (8) NSW electorates west of the Great Dividing Range.
Jack Cade
The fact is that more than ten percent of the electorate who vote for the Greens only have one voice in parliament whilst five per cent of the electorate who vote for the Nationals have ten MPs to argue their cause. There are at least 100,000 fewer voters for the Liberal National Party of Queensland than for the Greens yet they have 23 votes in the parliament. Does that not strike you as obscenely unfair?
It isn’t an issue of who wins government. It is an issue of fair representation. Why aren’t a million and a half Greens voters entitled to be fairly represented? Why are 600,000 National voters entitled to ten times as much representation?
Doesn’t it occur to you that this misrepresentation of voters is the root cause of so much corruption and ill management in government as both Labor and the Liberals pander to the interests of these privileged minorities? Why do you think there is no genuine action to address Climate Change for fear of offending communities addicted to coal mining and land clearing and stealing water to grow inappropriate crops?
If Greens voters were fairly represented neither Liberal nor Labor could form a majority government and thus they would have to be more accountable to parliament lessening the corrupting effect of their backers.
Tasmania which has a smaller population than Newcastle has the same number of federal senators as our most populous states . In a tightly contested senate a wild card like Jacqui Lambie can decide which bills from the house of representatives pass. This from a person who when first elected as a menber of the Palmer united party admitted she did not know there was a difference between the senate and the house of reps .
“…admitted she did not know there was a difference between the senate and the house of reps .”
A true representative of her constituency, then – as well as most of the general public across the country.
Jack sprat the arch catholic senator harradine a long term arsehole Lambert shines way above him. Remember when the loonies had a role in balance?? Remember Brandt blackmail threats
Are they different?
Leefe,
perhaps leafie? the loonies have people in 150 seats usually pretty well unsupported to attract a % of extremists‘ first preferences for which they get amply repaid that is true but apart from the melb latte set (buoyed by the lack of effort by tanner) no loonie can attract enough votes to win a seat whilst the nats can and do win enough votes to be elected. The nievity that allowed the grass root loonies to accept boobby’s excuse for voting down climate action during the 10 years before his apology is alive and well using stats suggesting a comparison of a 150 (most unsupported) green candidates to the nats.
Still fair assessment has suffered since the rabbott whose understanding truth and fair play ruined the concept for us all and when trump mounted the stage any chance of honesty, fair treatment and decency in society disappeared.
2020 Antisthenes rules or should rule somewhere but I am a cynic. So let’s go with scummo whose God helps those who help themselves and let those hurt in the crush be rewarded in heaven unless you are a virgin who must be raped so she can’t get there is that true did I just dream that how can bonking happen in heaven oh well