I agree the yes campaign was a poor one. Also, there were 2 opposing messages being put forward simultaneously:

1. The voice is a big leap forward and will improve the lives of indigenous people.

2. The voice is just an advisory body with no real power.

I voted yes, but didn’t think the voice was an impressive proposal. I just thought the outcome of a no vote would be worse. The fact that so many people didn’t understand what was proposed is partly a media issue, and partly a government incompetence issue. But it also raises the question of why so many people will feel passionately about a position they haven’t even fucking bothered to research. We can’t have democracy unless citizens put in a bit of fucking effort to understand the society they live in, which includes political proposals.

Then why didn’t you do some research to inform your position? I don’t understand people who form political opinions without backing them up with research. A lot of people in Australia are borderline illiterate, and are at the mercy of the media. But the educated ones should at least exercise their privilege and read before making decisions. My dad is a lawyer, but wouldn’t even read the uluru statement from the heart. Voted no based on spite, which is shameful. Couldn’t even justify his own position intelligently.

Well AIDS was scary as fuck but Australia didn’t have to worry too much about the cold war. Life in the 80s was generally pretty cruisy.

It’s true. But I think the point is that more opportunities were available to that generation. For example, both my boomer parents grew up in poverty. Dad was an orphan. They moved to the city with no money and made careers for themselves. Housing was cheap. That’s not possible today without family wealth (in Australia at least). I’m a software engineer with an electrical engineering degree and I’ll never own a house or retire. They bought houses on public service wages without degrees.

I don’t have anything against OF or sex work, but I’ve always though that negative judgements against clients suggest a negative judgement against the service provider. If the act of providing the service is OK then surely the act of receiving the service is also morally sound? Unless the service provider has a morally ambivalent attitude to their own work? I say this as someone who had a long term partner doing sex work. Contempt for clients seems unfair and possibly hypocritical. Just people trying to satisfy a biological and emotional need.

Do a barrel roll!

I don’t think you can generalise white collar jobs that way. I’ve done both, and writing software all day takes way more out of me than when I did manual labour. But some white collar jobs don’t require much effort at all. I wish it was easier to balance using your brain and your body for work.

I don’t know how the USA can fix its shit political situation. You guys should have had a chance at voting in Bernie in 2016, but you didn’t have the chance. Australia isn’t as far down that path yet, but at least we have mandatory voting, so have a better chance at achieving a good result through political education, which will only occur through discussions with our social circles. I don’t think accelerationist ideas will achieve a positive outcome though. It’s first about imagining a better alternative, and being vocal about it. Every person who works for a living should have affordable housing and healthcare, for example, without incurring a 30 year debt or going bankrupt. It happened in the post WW2 era, it can happen again if enough people demand it.

Absolutely, and that sheds some light on the commonality between our countries, even if the politics are a bit different. Major parties have abandoned the working class. Which requires better political engagement so we can vote ourselves out of this situation to get a fair deal and avoid what looks like the inevitable rise of right wing populism, which won’t help progress the situation at all.

The government spends money, and takes that money back through taxation. If the government spends money, incurs debt, and doesn’t get the money back, it’s due to a failure of taxation policy. Government money spent on services that are valuable to the public is not wasteful, which is the key point you are not understanding. They don’t need to generate a profit, like Apple does. They need to ensure that the wealth flows through the appropriate channels, which they have neglected to do since the advent of neoliberal policies. The government has no imperative to further technological innovation, like Apple does. It’s not their business. They are in the business of maintaining a basic quality of life for the population.

The key thing to recognise here is that we’re not talking about high income earners. We’re talking about people who are wealthy due to owning massive amounts of assets which generate passive wealth, and they acquire that wealth because they belong to wealthy families. They don’t contribute to the dynamism of the economy. These people don’t earn money from working, they suck up all the money from the productive workers. If you’re grinding it out and earning 200K that’s fine, more power to you. Those people aren’t the people I’m talking about.

So advocate for better government services, taxing the ultra wealthy to pay for it, and recognising that private industry is incentivised towards benefiting shareholder profits instead of the public good. If we can drive down wealth inequality through fair taxation policy, everyone benefits and society becomes healthier and the economy becomes more dynamic. Winner winner chicken dinner.

“government funded services tend to lead to monopoly” I don’t think you understand the concept of monopoly lol. We are talking about a service provided by the government, not a privately owned service subsidized by the government.

Look, I’m not going to argue with you on this anymore since you seem to be fairly dead set on this idea of private industry and market forces being superior, which they are demonstrably not. The overarching point is that basic human needs like health care, aged care etc. should not have a profit incentive. The only way to remedy that is to invest properly in government services and also hold the political class to account when those services are not adequately delivered.

deleted by creator

Dude, the last 30 years in Australia have proved that private industry does not handle public services better than the government. Since you do not live in Australia, you cannot claim to be as informed on this as a local. I wish Americans would stop chiming in on the state of Australia as though they are experts. Your country has the worst healthcare system in the developed world.

Taxation is not theft if the money is spent properly on services that benefit tax payers. Poor taxation policy is theft, since public service quality will diminish over time. Like what we are currently seeing with lack of investment in public services, combined with an asset owning class that doesn’t pay tax on its passive wealth, using that wealth to purchase more assets, which drives up prices and shrinks the middle class. If these people had better critical thinking they would rebel against that instead.