The welfare state is not merely about social housing, parrot.

As for national sovereignty - your 'ideas' on this topic, and UNSC, are even more garbled and self-contradictory than on the welfare state and 'common prosperity.

United NATIONS. See that second word?  InterNATIONAL law? See the root word?? Dispute between NATIONS? 'ello, 'ello, 'ello, whatsis then? Is that another NATION I see before me?


Which NATION/S would enforce the rule against war? By what means? Arms? That would be....er...... more war. By head tilting and tut-tutting Bbwianesquely? That's the UN now. Subjugating everyone to China and their internationalised "common prosperity" hegemony? Bingo! yes, that's your aim and of Xi Who Must Be Obeyed.

Frank wrote on Dec 26^th, 2022 at 4:04pm:


That's right; it's about other areas of government spending as well, like education and health, all of which are under-funded in the neoliberal era, eg GPs are increasingly abandoning bulk billing because neoliberal economics means the govt. can't properly fund Medicare;  and TAFE was defunded, meaning the country could rely on trained workers from overseas; and the CES was sidelined in favour of private employment agencies which just churn the unemployed without placing them in employment.   

But we do have a housing crisis, courtesy of neoliberal economics, dummy. 

Quote:


ok...waiting for your elucidation....

Quote:


Indeed it is, and if all nations are to be free from poverty and international war, all nations will need to submit to rule of international law (just as citizens must submit to national law).

Quote:


A UNSC whose members were bound by a majority vote of the UNGA and UNSC, just as the law of a nation is decided by majority vote in the supreme court.

Quote:


The UNSC has 99% of the world's military force, which if deployed by a majority UNSC vote, is obviously irresistible. Hence the UNSC could guarantee security for all nations, enabling a general disarmament. 


Quote:


Wrong, as addressed above, it would be a general disarmament among nations who would only need to maintain police forces for internal security, not militaries for external security.

Quote:


It's certainly the UN now...

Quote:


Nonsense.

The US is hoping to provoke war in China, to prevent China's economy from growing bigger than the US. 

Indeed if I were Xi, I would be pressing to get rid of the veto in the UNSC, because the US is obviously hell-bent on making Taiwan a state of the US, armed to the teeth against the mainland, as part of its China containment policy.

Kissinger has hightlighted the danger for the world....

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 27^th, 2022 at 9:50am:

Laughable idiocy. You live in a 5 year old's naive fantasy toy world, parrot.



Who is going to finance the militaries of 5 powers of the UNSC? Those 5 countries or the whole world? How will costs be shared? What happens if someone outside of the 5 powers wants to be a soldier or marine or airmen? Excluded?
Who will command them? Who will decide deployment - the 5 or all UN members? What happens if they disagree (as now)? Would all countries, from Iran to Pakistan, North Korea to Venezuela submit?

What happens about countries internally monstering their own people, from China to Iran?

Well as long as it's only native title to do some things they can already do, there is no problem until someone starts one.

"The decision means Widjabul Wia-bal traditional owners now have the rights to carry out a number of cultural activities on non-freehold land, such as national parks and crown land.

    The right to access, move about and traverse.
    The right to camp and erect temporary shelters but not to permanently camp or occupy.
    The right to hunt and fish for non-commercial purposes.
    The right to access and use natural water resources for non-commercial purposes.
    The right to gather, share and exchange natural resources  for non-commercial purposes.
    The right to conduct and participate in ceremonial, ritual and spiritual activities. 
    The right to maintain and protect places of importance under traditional laws and customs.
    The right to transmit traditional knowledge to members of the native title claim group
    The right to hold meetings."

Now if anyone can tell me which of those they did not already have, I'm all ears..... in a sense this is an insult to those local Aborigines by pulling the wool over their eyes with some false dream that they now own that land.

Again - the only problem with this will be when some decide that they do own it totally, and start a campaign of violence and intimidation to keep others out and abuse their rights to free use of national parks and crown land, or start to block off relevant paths etc on some fake religious grounds, or demand fees for entry when they do not own the land.

Of course, none of this will stop them being lauded as 'the victims' in the idiotic media despite the reality that it will be they doing the attacking and such. You've seen what happened at Mt Warning, swept under the carpet by a lying state government, with people rightfully visiting their national park having their cars vandalised over a period of five years.. amidst a heap of jumping up and down and wailing by the local Aborigines over 'their rights' which are really privileges.

Here's my message to the softcock Perrotet - history will absolve me...... it will certainly hang you .... and all the troubles will be on your hands and those of your Labor mates.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 27^th, 2022 at 11:20am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2022 at 4:34pm:


No. FW

Gnads wrote on Dec 27^th, 2022 at 3:03pm:


Live in denial if that helps you to sleep