Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that the ideas promoted by the Right have an advantage for private companies and conservative governments, resulting in the lovely income streams to establish and maintain said thinktanks.

It wasn’t snarking, actually. It was how I would have answered it to anyone. Maybe it’s just that vivid imagaination of yours. Sorry bout the mistake and should have realized it wasn’t from you.

Government

Define Government

Direct, administer, supervise functions electors have asked it to manage.

Number I function: to protect and always attempt to ensure the safety the people from harm.

You ask me to argue against an anecdote (that of cleaners) whilst dismissing the use of what you call anecdote as per the Workplace Relations Act, you are not being consistent.

I dont think you are able to differentiate between an ambit claim and an actual claim.

Fair enough JC, i don’t disagree… that much. But i was asking for a definition of government, not of the proper role of government. Is government, a bunch of people you vote for every 3 years or is it any group of people who get together to make collective plans about how they shoudl organise themselves…or?

How do you feel about Local Gov, for example?

Wasn’t me asking how you define government, old son. If you’re going to snark, do try to snark at the right person. Otherwise people might get the impression that your comments are motivated by personal animosity.

Incidentally, that isn’t a definition of government – it’s your idea of the proper role of government. Which could just as easily be achieved under a system of government where supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses as one where it’s all based on some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Democrats, of course, prefer the former, with the attendant risk that the masses might decide that government should take on a few tasks beyond policing and defence.

In any case, the Workplace Relations Act already prevented agreements from restricting contract work. So as usual, it’s a blunt instrument to solve what may or may not be a problem – no evidence is ever presented but anecdote.

The state tribunals and courts were dealing with cases were employers sacked their cleaners (for instance) and then hired them as “independent contractors” with few of the indicators in common law that they were actually performing a contract of services as opposed to being just employees with lower pay and no rights.

Is that the sort of thing you support?

Its no good relying on assumptions, many prefer to work that way, I did so for many years. The left have always had contractors in their sights as they operated outside the union system and are generally performance orientated.

As for entitlements, the law demands that employers must see evidence that contractors are compliant with workers comp, OHS, insurance etc.

To do as little as possible and not play games with our money. Can’t see much use for govt other than defense and taking care of the bottom 10%. That’s probably even more than they can handle.

And post bloody essay marking!

Now I’m off to bed.

At least the gainsayers would have to do some work to attack your argument!

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/16/where-are-the-new-ideas/

Having said that, I agree with it, but I’d ground it somewhat differently.

Thanks, Mark. If I were starting with a clean sheet I’d ground it differently also. I was going to say that it was consistent with the notion of… or similar, but I didn’t want to complicate matters too much.

First, in order for collectivism to exist, there must be some collective needs or interests – needs common to a potential group that therefore help to define the group.

Second for collectivism to flourish there must be collectivist attitudes ie common social identity, cooperative values, and a sense of collective efficacy.

Third in order to actually do anything the group must have coordinating capacity through connections or networks and mobilisers.

These then interact with target institutional responses/environmental circumstances.

Peetz admits this model is simplistic but says that if you drew all the connections and interactions you would have a chart akin to the wiring diagram of a small power station.

While he developed this in an industrial relations context it seems to me it could have broader application.

He also points out that the notion that “we are all individuals now� is a boss’s con who on their part have not relinquished collective behaviour. He believes that the collective impulse is in fact still alive in the breasts of the Australian masses.