Just to confirm that Prodos and his delightful wife did hand out my HTVs when I had to leave the Early Voting Centre. I appreciate their help which was generously offered. I found Prodos to be an interesting person – it was a pleasure to get to know them during the campaign.

Paul Kavanagh
Democrats candidate, Albert Park

Milk prices went up. Milk earnings by farmers went down. The only improvement was in the bottom line of megacorporate supermarkets like Safeway.

Anyone else creeped out by Safeway? It’s like Woolworths only … it’s not woolworths.

Thanks for the blessing.

On the matter of our favourite wine lover, Senator Bartlett, he does not have great grounds for the sanctimony which he regularly displays, given his drunken thuggish behaviour, which you seem to suggest is all very well excusable given his politics are so wacko.

He deserves a lot more criticism than all the vitriol you love to pour on Prodos.

As for him being on the wagon, well, if you believe that, you probably also believe that Shane didn’t cheat on Simone again.

After all, to have those sorts of beliefs Bad boy Bart does, you really need to be on something.

Prodos – Andrew Bartlett is a classy guy, so when you give him the proceeds of your electoral funding in the form of wine, please, no cask wine. Stick to bottles. I suggest my favourite, the 16% alcohol RL Buller Calliope from Rutherglen (a steal at $35 each). But as we know he tends to get a little feral after a few drinks, just leave the bottles at the door of his office and run before he tries to shove you around a bit.

Are you going to “[sic]” your mate Strider’s use of the phrase “contribution to the democratic process” as well, Prodos?

You seem to (yet again) have trouble following the simplest of things.

So let me spell it out for you.

Yes, Strider did use the phrase “contribution to the democratic process”.

But what he did not say – as you did – was: “I [i.e. The Editor of this online crap sheet that parades itself as a blog] contribute to the democratic process by attacking him [i.e. Prodos, the shining, pure light on the hill]“

The difference is not subtle.

You make a claim about yourself. One that is so awe-inspiring that of course every GrodsCorp reader, including myself, waits in quivering suspense to see in action.

Strider, on the other hand, merely called you to task by highlighting what an utter useless piece of work you actually are.

Frankly, I thought he was stating the bleeding obvious. But perhaps he’s kinder than I am.

Then, like clockwork, without missing a beat, right on queue, you proceed to demonstrate what Strider was (far too politely) implying about you in his statement.

You proceed to “contribute [sic]” to the democratic process.

You deliver your little poo to your little GrodsCrap. Oh, shit, I mean Oh damn! Now you’ve got me contributing [sic] to the democratic process by combining words in clever ways!

GrodsCorp readers might find this useful:
http://tinyurl.com/2oaedv

God bless you, Strider. God BLESS you!!

… and shortly thereafter followed up with an example of one of these powerful “contributions”.

It was nothing less than a merciless, full frontal “attack” of such explosive force that it would put the Israel Defence Force to shame.

Brace yourself!!

“If they merged they’d be the Pondos Institute.”

What did I tell you? Devastating!

Here it is again, in case you thought I was making it up:

“If they merged they’d be the Pondos Institute.”

… And yet strangely … hilarious!

Oh Editor, we adore you. You’re making the world a better place.

A place where words can be sort of joined up and combined into kinda new words. Yeah!

God bless you man. God BLESS you!!

Excuse me … I think … I think there’s something (sob) in my eye.

I was being kind.

… you are enraptured with the myth of capitalism – that only demand regulates and controls the market – when clearly it does not.

It’s true that I’m “enraptured” with Capitalism. I worship it.

Not so much because it creates intellectual, spiritual, and material wealth – as marvellous as that is – but because it enshrines personal liberty. Capitalism is the system of the creative mind.

The overall wealth that comes from capitalist/capitalistic systems is simply a consequence of liberty.

Liberty is the cause. Wealth is the consequence.

The people can’t ‘vote with their dollar’ when monopolies and duopolies give them no option to do so;

That’s true.

But monopolies and duopolies can’t exist in a free market. They can try, but they won’t succeed.

The only way monopolies and duopolies can survive is when businesses get special favours from government or other coercive bodies such as some (but not all) Unions.

For instance: Tariffs, exclusive licences, laws that lock out competitors, laws that limit supply, price controls, import quotas, all that sort of stuff.

Some of the biggest enemies of Capitalism are in fact many of the so-called “capitalists” – the money-makers, the corporations.

For instance, P & O and Patricks are looking forward to the taxpayer footing the bill for dredging Port Phillip Bay. Ron Walker has benefited from the taxpayer being ripped off to build the Albert Park Grand Prix area. As already mentioned in an earlier post, Connex gets hundreds of millions of dollars per year in subsidies.

I’m against all this corporate welfare, protection, and “assistance”.

Show me a monopoly, and I’ll show you a government intervention.

or when prices rise and they can’t afford the price of a ballot.

Rising prices tend to be a feature of a mixed economy, not a free market.

If we look at the least regulated industries we find that quantity and quality tend to continually rise, and prices tend to continually drop.

As the airline industry painfully (especially for those watching it) moved from a duopoloy to something slightly more open and competitive we’ve seen prices drop and (some) services improve in some areas.

As the dairy industry was deregulated during the Kennett era, there have been improvements.

Less regulated and hard-to-regulate industries such as web-hosting, software development, and general internet services have proliferated with cheap and free products and services.

The old fuddy-duddy Telecom monopoly has given way to Telstra, Optus, and other services competing with each other for your buck by offering more and better for less.

If we were talking about wants rather than needs, I would agree with you about the creative energy of the private sector.

Okay.

But since we’re talking about essential services, the deprivation of which would effective ruin the lives of millions, public ownership and regulation is the only option, regardless of how wasteful or inefficient it is or is perceived to be.

I certainly don’t advocate a “deprivation” of those services which you consider “essential services”. Far from it.

The economic goal for the community is more, more accessible, and better quality services at lower prices. That’s what free market capitalism can deliver.

Nor would I necessarily advocate simply removing a service and hoping the private sector would take up the slack.

Any shifting of these services away from the public sector and into the private sector would need to take into account that taxpayers have already been forced to pay for those services and have often come to rely on those services. So there is an obligation on the State to honour this implicit contract as fully as possible.

An example of what could work as a first step in the case of privatising education would be the introduction of school vouchers to allow parents to use the education portion of their taxes in the way they choose.

Incidentally, when you were out pressing the flesh with the (ahem) poor and deprived of Albert Park, did you unfurl your vision of depleted or fully privatised transportation, healthcare and education? And if so, what was their response?

I’m sure you’d LOOOOOOVE to learn that the poor and decrepit of Albert Park, in between sipping their caffè latte and chomping on their toasted focaccia, revelled in the vision of crippled children dying in the gutters and industrialists pulling up in their greenhouse gas sputtering limos, getting out, kicking the little blighters in their little heads and then butting out their cigars into their eyeballs.

However, I must again disappoint you. Poor Bridgit. :-(

I’m sorry to inform you that I made my views known as well as I could within my humble abilities to everyone I spoke with, without discrimination.

The ones you refer to as “the (ahem) poor” were especially friendly and receptive to my views.

I mustn’t have explained it clearly enough to them! Damn!

If they merged they’d be the Pondos Institute.

Incidentally, when you were out pressing the flesh with the (ahem) poor and deprived of Albert Park, did you unfurl your vision of depleted or fully privatised transportation, healthcare and education? And if so, what was their response?

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=362

The Albert Park electorate is, according to studies compiled by the ABS, the “least disadvantaged neighbourhood” in Victoria; its SEIFA incides are higher even than than Glen Eira and the bayside suburbs. The VEC’s own demographic study suggests that unemployment in Albert Park is less than 1.5 per cent. Those are not the statistics of an electorate with even small pockets of underprivilege.

I understand what you’re saying. It’s certainly true that the Albert Park State District is one of our wealthiest areas.

The individuals I mentioned above, however, were from the South Melbourne commission flats.

For readers interested in the SEIFA (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas) for Port Phillip – which largely matches the Albert Park State District:
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/seifa_index.html

“unwashed majority”? … Yes the phrase was coined by Baron Lytton, a conservative politician… I really must wash my mouth out.

“the great unwashed” to be precise. Yes, it’s not a pretty phrase.

If you’re suggesting that publicly funded services are grossly inefficient, I agree.

By why is that?

There’s a reason why publicly funded services inevitably devolve in quality, quantity, accountability.

The State has little or no creative or productive power. The State by its very nature is a legalised instrument of physical force.

It can be (although often isn’t) effective in protecting and defending citizens against those who initiate force, such as burglers, rapists, murderers, fraudsters, and in the wider scheme of things, foreign invaders.

In other words it can use violence against the violent. It can use force or the threat of force against those who initiate or mean to initiate force. When it does that, I consider it to be acting in a manner that’s not only moral and just, but also in accordance with its nature.

But how does State fund the building of a hospital or finance The ABC? It’s not in the same way a business person or charity does it.

The private sector obtains its money by the consent of its customers or donors. If I give to your charity or I shop at your pharmacy, it’s because I specifically choose to do so.

Do you agree about this fundamental difference between the way the public and private sectors work?

If you’re suggesting that privatisation of these same services produce better results, you’re kookier than a rabid ferret.

Passing maintenance of essential services to the private sector results in performance that is just as bad if not worse (look at Connex) with the double-sting of elevated prices to access them in the first place.

I’m glad you mentioned Connex. Although many consider it to be “private enterprise”, it ain’t. Not by a longshot.

For one thing, it receives enormous subsidies from the Victorian government – i.e. the Victorian taxpayer.

From the Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/yoeckn

Connex Melbourne is paid an average of AU$345 million per annum, between 2004-2009 from the State Government of Victoria to operate the suburban train network in Melbourne.

At the end of the 2004-2009 franchise agreement Connex will have been paid well over AU$2 billion by the state government of Victoria.

In addition to the base contract payments, other payments from the State Government of Victoria to Connex include … [etc.]

Connex is not in the private sector.

Further, while most people complain ad nauseum about public services and utilities, the general consensus is that most believe they need to remain publicly owned (a fact borne out in polling).

True.

The reason for this is because they see those services as being one of the responsibilities of government which is, at least, accountable at the polls;

True.

corporate boards and shareholders are only accountable to their own conscience.

You seem to have left out The Almighty Customer.

To quote Ludwig von Mises:

“The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers.

“They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants.

“They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser.

“They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses.”

There, I think, lies the core difference between your political philosophy and theirs, Prodos

Right! I’m working on it!

- – - – -

PS: Dear GrodsCorp Scumbags,

My sincere apologies for the lack of insults in this particular post. It’s unforgiveable. But I’m a bit hungover tonight and not at my best. I know: What a pathetic excuse!! :-(

In any event, I do look forward to feeling better very soon and delivering to your screens once again the quality which you are accustomed to and the contempt which you have, through your outstanding and ceaseless flow of mindless drivel truly earned!

Thank you.

X X X O O O O

PRODOS

Yes we need more state parliamentarians gifted with creative turns of phrase like “enjoy wanking each other off” and “let’s hope [your child] doesn’t inherit your moronic stupidity and shallowness”. It adds to a robust and healthy democratic process.

Actually, like The Editor, I am glad that Prodos ran in Albert Park, since the party of which he holds membership was too cowardly and tight to do so. It’s his democratic right to do so and for all I know Prodos is probably a decent person. It’s his political ideas I take issue with.

Absolute garbage. The Albert Park electorate is, according to studies compiled by the ABS, the “least disadvantaged neighbourhood” in Victoria; its SEIFA incides are higher even than than Glen Eira and the bayside suburbs. The VEC’s own demographic study suggests that unemployment in Albert Park is less than 1.5 per cent. Those are not the statistics of an electorate with even small pockets of underprivilege.

I got a pretty good response from them when I explained what I stood for (eg. Lower taxes, less government meddling in our lives, etc.) Many would approach me in the street and tell me about their problems. They didn’t demand more tax-funded freebies. They wanted regulations and taxes lowered. They wanted to have government concocted obstacles removed, so that they could find work or start their own business, etc.

See above point. I don’t believe you spoke to many people who are genuinely struggling at all, just to the middle-class of Albert Park who think they are because they have paying a $700k mortgage with a $70k job.

“unwashed majority”? What a contemptuous way of characterising the people you profess to care about.

Yes the phrase was coined by Baron Lytton, a conservative politician… I really must wash my mouth out.

There’s enormous scope to improve transport, medicine, transport, communication, etc. across Australia and worldwide. But it can’t be done by the Welfare State. It can’t be done through plundering our neighbour and limiting creative people and entrepreneurs. That’s never worked and will never work.

If you’re suggesting that publicly funded services are grossly inefficient, I agree. If you’re suggesting that privatisation of these same services produce better results, you’re kookier than a rabid ferret. Passing maintenance of essential services to the private sector results in performance that is just as bad if not worse (look at Connex) with the double-sting of elevated prices to access them in the first place.

Further, while most people complain ad nauseum about public services and utilities, the general consensus is that most believe they need to remain publicly owned (a fact borne out in polling). The reason for this is because they see those services as being one of the responsibilities of government which is, at least, accountable at the polls; corporate boards and shareholders are only accountable to their own conscience. There, I think, lies the core difference between your political philosophy and theirs, Prodos.

I agree entirely and am glad that he ran because the democratic process demands a range of candidates for voters to choose from. But another equally important component of the democratic process is scrutiny and debate.

Rather than being so poisonous to Prodos, you might want to appreciate his contribution to the democratic process in a positive manner.

While I appreciate Prodos’ contribution to democracy I don’t support his policies or values. Therefore I contribute to the democratic process by attacking him. Just like I do John Howard, Steve Fielding, and occasionally Kevin Rudd. Why does Prodos deserve special treatment?

But hey, about we should instead just ask Prodos to donate his electoral expense funding to the Andrew Bartlett Bottleshop fund – it probably only is enough money to pay for a case of red wine anyway, enough for Senator Barlett for a couple of days

And BAM! Your hypocrisy is immediately evident. You ask me to show more positive support for Prodos — a candidate you support — and then in the same breath slag off at Andrew Bartlett — a candidate you don’t support.

You’re a dickhead, mate.

(By the way, I think you’ll find that Andrew Bartlett is teetotal these days so a case of wine is a rather useless gift.)

Have been away from here for a while as this page has been a little dull lately, but now that Prodos is visiting, thought I’d pop in. It sure seems lively.

Have any of you thought that perhaps, by giving the voters of Albert Park an independent liberal choice (and I don’t mean that leftie Strauss who pretends to be a liberal whilst gleefully spreading lies about his beliefs and other people) Prodos has contributed to maintaining a robust and healthy democratic process.

In terms of govt funding for the campaign, whilst I believe that no candidates should get any govt funding, why should Prodos be disadvantaged in comparision to the organised political parties in his attempts to contribute to the democratic process?

Campaign funding in this case will only cover his expenses, up to a certain point, and means that he and any other independent will be seriously disadvantaged enough in comparision to the established political machines.

Rather than being so poisonous to Prodos, you might want to appreciate his contribution to the democratic process in a positive manner.

But hey, about we should instead just ask Prodos to donate his electoral expense funding to the Andrew Bartlett Bottleshop fund – it probably only is enough money to pay for a case of red wine anyway, enough for Senator Barlett for a couple of days….

I have a major snore factor with Iain Hall and I might start on your hair, smile and clasping of hands in front of the Australian flag instead. There is at least years worth of insults there.

So what are you saying, that we should all quit our jobs and go on the dole?

No, you half-wit.

Seeing as we are forced to pay taxes for the Baby Bonus, maybe I’ll demand my girlfriend have a child. Won’t she be delighted!

If she wants to have a child with you, let’s hope it doesn’t inherit your moronic stupidity and shallowness.

(My advice to you is try to make sure she doesn’t read the crap you write on this blog.)

As you accurately quoted me, I said: “In fact very often it would be wrong and dumb not to use services you’ve already been forced to pay for.”

Get it?

See how I qualified my statement?

See how I did not say: “You MUST use the services you’ve been forced to pay for”?

Could somebody with real compassion (hey, what about Bridgit?!) wipe the drool from this imbecile’s face, please?

Prodos, you paid for these things – Medicare, public schools, a subsided transport system et al – because you should bloody well have to.

Says who? On what moral authority? On what basis?

How much should be taken from the citizen? The same as is now taken? Less? More? Who determines this? Who should determine it?

Why should it be a political party or a public servant? Or a pressure group whose influence sways the ruling powers?

What specific services should be funded? Trams? Buses? Hospitals? What kinds of hospitals? What kinds of schools, teaching what sorts of curricula?

It’s your civic responsibility to contribute to systems and facilities that are vital for the one-third of Australians who scrape by on AWE or less.

Since I earn significantly less than someone on the dole or on a pension your argument doesn’t seem to apply to me, specifically.

Nevertheless, I have a different view of civic responsibility. In line with that, I’ve spent most of time and energy over the years working on a non-profit basis, and basically survive through gifts and the occasional donation, and spending very little to live.

If you really do care about those who can’t afford basic services – either in the short term or the long term – wouldn’t it be better to see if there are more reliable, better quality, and cheaper ways of providing such services?

I don’t see much evidence that government-owned or part-government-owned services do a very good job. Do you have a different experience?

The private sector – both FOR profit and NON profit – seems to do a far better job overall.

We’re not talking about the inner-city dog-walkers and retirees of Albert Park but the kind of people who are sickly but can’t afford private health insurance; the kind who have to hold down jobs an hour away from their home but can’t afford a car; the kind for whom private schools are a dream.

I can’t afford either a car or private health insurance. If people want to help me out at times, as they do, I appreciate it.

But it strikes me as wrong to oblige others who have more money than I do, to support me. I consider that immoral.

There are things I’d like to have that I don’t have. Why should you pay for that, unless you choose to do so?

I don’t use a lot of these services myself but I’m happy that my taxes (and yours) pay for them.

And no-one should stop you from continuing to contribute as you choose. If your money wasn’t taken from you forcibly, you might continue to contribute to the same services you’re currently happy to contribute to.

Or, you might choose a different way of contributing. To different services, or to different people or groups.

You might be more careful and selective about where your money goes.

Where does it go now? It’s taken from you in the form of taxes and goes where the ruling political party or reigning bureacrats determine. That doesn’t seem right to me.

I don’t see why we should stay stuck in the current inadequate system and not at least explore some alternatives.

For instance, private education doesn’t necessarily mean expensive schools for the rich.

There’s a large body of research done over the years by people such as James Tooley of the A G West Centre in England showing that across much of the Third World, inexpensive, high quality private education is more and more preferred by families.

Public schools don’t even come close to achieving what private education services can and are achieving.

As for ‘knowing what people think’, next election why don’t you test your faith in the people by rolling the dice and trying your hand in an electorate where the median income is lower than $50k.

The Albert Park District is quite diverse and includes significant areas of lower income people.

I got a pretty good response from them when I explained what I stood for (eg. Lower taxes, less government meddling in our lives, etc.)

Many would approach me in the street and tell me about their problems. They didn’t demand more tax-funded freebies. They wanted regulations and taxes lowered. They wanted to have government concocted obstacles removed, so that they could find work or start their own business, etc.

I didn’t find much evidence of a handout mentality.

Perhaps your enormous experience with actual low income people is different?

See if the great unwashed majority …

“unwashed majority”? What a contemptuous way of characterising the people you profess to care about.

… buy your hierarchical principles, your lack of support for the services they rely on …

I want people to have more and better than they have presently. What is available now is mere crumbs.

There’s enormous scope to improve transport, medicine, transport, communication, etc. across Australia and worldwide.

But it can’t be done by the Welfare State. It can’t be done through plundering our neighbour and limiting creative people and entrepreneurs. That’s never worked and will never work.

… and the feeble street-entertainer routine you dish up like sugar on spew.

Perhaps you should first have a look at your own intellectual vomit and sugar coated pretenses of caring about humanity, Bridgit.

I look forward to reading a lot more of the mindless, fascist-driven drivel you and your little friends here at GrodsCorp churn out.

Have a nice day.

So what are you saying, that we should all quit our jobs and go on the dole? Seeing as we are forced to pay taxes for the Baby Bonus, maybe I’ll demand my girlfriend have a child. Won’t she be delighted!

As for ‘knowing what people think’, next election why don’t you test your faith in the people by rolling the dice and trying your hand in an electorate where the median income is lower than $50k. See if the great unwashed majority buy your hierarchical principles, your lack of support for the services they rely on and the feeble street-entertainer routine you dish up like sugar on spew.

Bridgit Gread: No, it was decency.

Geez … I’m sure I heard you choke on that. Are you sure it wasn’t some kind or extreme right-wing Muslim-hating plot??

Bridgit Gread: But think what might go through the suspicious minds of voters who realised that one candidate was giving out fliers for another. Some might think “Oh isn’t Prodos a nice fellow?” but I suspect they’d be a very small minority.

Really??

Bridgit Gread: Most would imagine some kind of unholy, if somewhat impotent alliance between Prodos and the Democrats. Or they’d just think you are insane.

My, my! You’re quite the expert on things you know nothing about, aren’t you?!

Well, since I was there at the time, and since I spoke to every single person (they trickled in through the day, so there was ample time to chat), I can tell you how they actually responded.

People compartmentalise political ideas and don’t have the same ambivalent, hierarchical view about them that you do.

“People”? Which “people”?

The “people” you mix with might treat principles in that black-and-white, lazy, shallow way – as I’m noticing you seem to do.

However most “people” actually have basic commonsense. That’s how they get by in life. They actually, in practice, do treat principles hierarchically.

Don’t you? Ehm … anyway …

And there’s nothing “ambivalent” in what I’ve clarified about how principles are ACTUALLY applied. Nor is there anything astounding or innovative about it. Yet you seem to be having a lot of trouble following it.

If you condemn public transport spending then ride on trains, or slam public schools but send your kids there, etc. then you look like a hypocritical fool.

You really do come across like a moron, Bridgit.

Re-read my notes and my examples one more time.
Take your time. Try to put aside your arrogance for a moment and THINK.

Also, it might be refreshing if we could read what YOU actually think, rather than all your wild, baseless GUESSWORK about what OTHER “people” think.

I don’t know how the other hapless readers of this slime-ball blog feel about it, but I for one would be very interested in your personal views. Well, not that interested actually, but I am curious to know if you in fact have any personal views.

Now consider this:

A portion of your money is forcibly taken from you through taxes to provide a service you don’t want, such as Medicare.

You now have that much less money. Money you would have used in some other way. Your way.

Furthermore, by creating Medicare, the State has now squeezed out those medical services entrepreneurs and non-profit medical service providers who could be creating the sort of service you do want.

So you’re copping it from both directions.

Now, you have a medical problem. What do you do?

You can substitute the Medicare example for anything else you like. The same issues arise.

If you don’t use Medicare – which you’ve already paid for and therefore have a legitimate stake in – you’ll need to seek out some other alternative.

The alternatives now available have been limited badly because the State has given Medicare such extensive and almost exclusive coverage in many areas and made it either very difficult or impossible for others to enter the field of medical services.

Since you’ve paid for Medicare, you’re entitled to use it.

Since you’ve been forced to pay for it, you’re entitled to object to being forced.

And you’re entitled to work towards changing things to the point where you and others will no longer be forced.

To not use Medicare in such circumstances would mean that on top of being forced to pay for this service, you’d now also be throwing away something which you are entitled to and which you in some measure “own”.

Gotta dash off … Bye for now.

No, it was decency. But think what might go through the suspicious minds of voters who realised that one candidate was giving out fliers for another. Some might think “Oh isn’t Prodos a nice fellow?” but I suspect they’d be a very small minority. Most would imagine some kind of unholy, if somewhat impotent alliance between Prodos and the Democrats. Or they’d just think you are insane.

People compartmentalise political ideas and don’t have the same ambivalent, hierarchical view about them that you do. If you condemn public transport spending then ride on trains, or slam public schools but send your kids there, etc. then you look like a hypocritical fool.

Why not?

You can work towards what you believe is a better approach or a better system while still within the current approach or system.

The Editor wrote:
… it’s your life and you can do what you want with it. Even if that means implicitly supporting systems (public health, education, welfare) that you’re rallying against, despite alternatives being available (private health treatment, private schools, home schooling).

Using an existing resource or system doesn’t necessarily “implicitly” support it. That’s ridiculous.

You can hold that something is wrong or that it should be done differently, and you can work towards changing the way things are, yet still be within the existing system.

In some cases you can act directly on your preference. For instance, if you support the Greens, you can directly vote for them, or even join their Party.

But in other cases, such as Medicare, public schooling, roads, etc. we’re already taxed for those services, and have already been forced to pay for them.

In such cases it’s legitimate to use them, while continuing to work towards something better. In fact very often it would be wrong and dumb not to use services you’ve already been forced to pay for.

However, as Bridgit points out, it makes you look like a hypocrite of the highest order.

It’s like me saying I’m a vegetarian by principle but I eat hamburgers because they’re cheaper than tofu.

No, it’s like saying hamburgers are not as good for you as tofu, and I’m work towards the day I can afford tofu. There’s no “hypocrisy” in that.

As for principles, they’re not just destinations, they’re also directions.

Often it’s not possible to be at your preferred destination, so you take the next step towards it, and then the next step.

And even then, sometimes you need to “retreat” briefly before you can move forward again.

At the pre-poll booth in Albert Park, my wife and I on a few occasions handed out flyers for the Democrats candidate because he had to rush off to do something. Was that hypocricy?

I mean, I disagreed with just about everything the Democrats stand for (although I congratulate them on their clear stand against the Access Card). No, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s just basic courtesy since the Democrats candidate was a gentleman and he needed a hand for a short while.

In this example, the principles of courtesy and goodwill in the context of a personal situation took priority over the bigger political/ideological battle.

Principles are hierarchical and they’re contextual. They’re not just sweeping, all-embracing dogma that must be mindlessly imposed on others or on oneself.

As you love to say, Prodos, it’s your life and you can do what you want with it. Even if that means implicitly supporting systems (public health, education, welfare) that you’re rallying against, despite alternatives being available (private health treatment, private schools, home schooling). However, as Bridgit points out, it makes you look like a hypocrite of the highest order.

It’s like me saying I’m a vegetarian by principle but I eat hamburgers because they’re cheaper than tofu.

There is a real penis fixation here lately.

Prodos, general consensus on matters of principle is that if you gob off about the wastefulness, inequity or general crappiness of something, you don’t then engage in or accept it yourself. When you do that, you tend to look like a tool.

ahahahaha – that made me laff and laff.

Just a couple of questions for you if you can take your hands off each other’s doo-doos for a moment:

What’s wrong with accepting the dole?

How is accepting the dole the same as or similar to working out ways of ripping off the taxpayer to fund some pet project?

Does being against Medicare mean I shouldn’t use my Medicare card? Does being against public funding of schools mean I shouldn’t go to a public school or send my kids (if I had any) to a public school? Does being against tariffs mean I shouldn’t buy products that are protected by tariffs?

Does believing that this blog is bursting with crap mean I shouldn’t express an opinion on it?

Fire up those neurons guys!

PS: I don’t REALLY think you’re a pack of fuckwits!