The simple answer is if you don't like the circumstances you find yourself in, then when you are capable of it, you leave.
The complicated answer is that the change of circumstance is the only way proper government actually works. Don't like your circumstances? Advocate for change.
That's a ridiculously easy, palm-off answer.
For one, you can't leave. It's not easy to emigrate even if you have the desire, and why should a person leave? They were born here and have every right to be here.
You can't really just go 'off the grid' and live independently of the system, either. They own and tax everything, so you're f**ked.
And how well has advocating for change
really gone so far? Token things are pushed through and occasionally meaningful stuff like equal rights come into play, but ultimately, the system hasn't changed since it was put into place in Australia over 100 years ago, and in places like the US for considerably longer.
Also, the change you're describing puts you close to JM's model of government. Ask him a little about what he thinks the government should be involved in. If you are passionate about healthcare, for instance, you might notice the style of government you are talking about doesn't offer it. Or gun control (eh JM?). You've been very passioante on FB about the shootings in America.
'Since when did their government have the right to tell them how to live with guns?' is what you are effectively saying.
That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a government cannot be a true representation of the people when it has never interacted with the people. The state government does a great job of representing Sydney, as the national government does of representing the capitals.
Local government would probably do a great job of representing the local area if it had any autonomy or funds, but that doesn't fit into the Australian model, and so people who are not from a capital city are essentially unrepresented.
And you can't
change that from the country, because your local area represents a single member in parliament who will basically tow the party line.
I would disagree with you again. Classing the government as a corporation is misguided, IMHO, and elicits an understanding of how government is now, as opposed to what it should be. One cannot ask for government to be idyllic, but one can work to push the government forever in that position.
It's not misguided if it's an accurate assessment of how current 'democratic' government works. I'm describing government as it presently exists in Western society.
In the US it's big tobacco, big pharma, and the NSA.
Here it's mining and the trucker's lobby et al.
One of the worst sights in the world are chicks wearing ugg boots and mini skirts.
Disagree. Nothing gets me hotter under the bonnet than a trashy girl, and you can't get much trashier than a mini-skirt and ug boots.
