I want to create a non-democratic party!

I know that 150 politicians have the "right" to vote on legislation, it's right there in the Constitution.

I think a referendum is unnecessary, both leaders should just agree to a conscience vote in parliament.

 

What objection can there be to a hypothetical Capitalist party, simply for the sake of Capitalism?

Such a Party could merely draft the wealthiest persons in our economy, and the persons who command the largest bonus in the history of our republic and simply place them on the ballot as an alternative to more political parties.

From my perspective, the wealthiest in our republic may be more fiscally responsible with our Tax monies than more political parties that must provide political favors in our money based mixed-market economy.

I am sure it would not be difficult to convince the wealthiest persons in our republic that our public sector (and that form of means of production) should be able to make money with a printing press at its disposal and an official Mint with which to "magically" create money out of thin air by fiat; such, that it is not a (Tax) Burden on its Citizenry, in the manner of Hoover Dam and the Fed, in our allegedly, Capital based political economy.

 

So you are saying that its democracy to deny 20 million Australians the right to vote on gay marriage, and just allow 150 scummy politicians the right to make choices for 20 million people? I knew you had a hidden agenda Ziggy! Every time there is a suggestion made about giving the people more say in what effects their lives, you strongly oppose it in favor of ONLY giving politicians the vote.

Why is a referendum unnecessary, when it effects everyone, not just 150 politicians?

 

Gay marriage is not a constitutional matter, a referendum is unnecessary. Hassle your MP about it, that's what they're there for. Every time there is a stupid suggestion for a referendum, a general election or some non-binding plebiscite, yes, I oppose it.

 

You advocating that 150 politicians should have the right to determine whether or not gay marriage should be legalised for 20 million people doesn't surprise me in the least. How would we ever get true democracy in this country when there are people like you around who believe that the rights of 150 scummy politicians out-weight the rights of 20 million citizens.

With this kind of thinking, its no wonder Australia is the first destination on the "hit-list" for international con-artists.

 

I'm not "advocating" it, I'm stating a political and legal reality. Yes, politicians "should" have the right to legislate gay marriage, because the Constitution says they have that right. I support direct democracy, but we don't have direct democracy. So, I support the most practical means of achieving something within the constraints of our constitution. You just keep going off into fairy land and shouting for referendums left right and centre. What does it achieve? Nothing. Like I said before, you should be putting pressure on your MP to support gay marriage. That's the system, that's the reality.

 

Would you be in favor of a CIR under a new constitution?

 

Big Julia isn`t too interested in democracy either, or the will of the people. Not a good formula.

 

Hey! You are littering the topic with this gay stuff!
Personally I am AGAINST and always be against any form of legislation of gay marriage! It is ABNORMAL, biologically, socially and morally degrading component of the society and should be considered as such.
I do not want innocent kids being exposed to the sweet view of loving each other gays or parades of cross-dressers or transvestites. It's disgusting!
I do not want gays to be allowed to adopt babies. That is a TOTAL violation of the children's right to grow up in a normal family and be cultivated as a normal person.
I do not want to listen and watch manipulated "polls" and "interviews", telling me how much the people "want" gays. It's all (*)(*)(*)(*)!
If we take that route, what will be next? Calls for human/animal marriage legislation?
This is a totally rotten thinking, mate! The repeat of the Roman Empire in its last days.
I think all those people should be really ASHAMED of themselves, instead of proudly exposing their abnormality. And now they impudently even want to make that legal!?!
Ok, that wasn't in any way connected to the initial topic, but always makes me so furious...

 

I am in favour of CIR right now, I just don't think it will happen until we get a new constitution.

And knivd, what a pathetic rant, take your homophobia elsewhere.

 

Pathetic? Wait to see one of your kids grown as a gay and we'll talk again. You want that?

 

The issue was moreso with Abbott. They stated he was too sleazy in negotiations and was more about self interest rather than serving the nation. Turnbull would have got the liberals across the line.

 

So, what objection can there be to a hypothetical party of Capitalism, simply for the sake of capitalism? It could simply draft the wealthiest persons in the "republic" and place them on the ballot. They may even be more disposed to a single term since they would merely be doing their chore for their "republic".

 

I would have no problem with that scenario, and I think it's sad that you do.

 

I think poor old knivd thinks that the streets will be full of hordes of rampant homosexual men all out to get him, throw him over a barrel and have their way with him. He appears to take this as a personal attack on HIM

 

Should we try to goad the wealthy into doing their chore for their republic?

 

So the grand plan is to give the people who want to maximise their personal wealth at all costs control of the national treasury? Amazing.

 

You may be missing the point about simply drafting the wealthy to do a good job for our republic. Besides, according to a line of reasoning, we must expect that our elected representatives do a good job rather than a bad job while in office.

 

What, so we have a referendum every time we want to make a decision. Garbage, that place in Canberra is called "The House of Representatives", that is, YOU vote for someone to represent you. If you don't like something, then you ring, write or go see YOUR representative. Our system would work well if we USED it but unfortunately we don't. We expect to only have to "bother" ourselves once every 4 years or so. We then quickly read the papers or listen to radio jocks and determine who will "GIVE ME" the best offer. Then we expect to sit back for another 4 years and complain about it.

Get off your R's and join a party, write letters to YOUR REP, attend rallys and seminars.

Finally, since EVERYONE is not gay, how does it AFFECT EVERYONE?

 

I think we really just need a party of Capitalism, simply for the sake of capitalism. Would it be wrong for mostly nice civitates to goad the wealthiest in a given republic to do their civil chore, if it would mean simply placing them on the ballot to be voted on, in addition to the candidates of the usual and mostly political parities?