Howard breaks his silence: Work Choices should've stayed
 

First time Ex Prime Minister John Howard talks in yonks
and he still thinks Work Choices was the best thing since Vegemite despite being booted out of his constituent over Work Choices

Make darn sure the opposition do not get in in case of an early election or you'll see Work Choices creep in slowly but surely.

That's a true nutter this Howard.

I am not even going to enter in to this but hey let's bring on the double dissolution! Better to push them further into the backwater than they are now! hehe!

Do you really think much has changed FFS? Almost nothing...

If not lets go to an early election, whether you like it or not for once you are completely in the minority Frozo, thats whats making me happy for at least the last couple of years! hhheeh!

As a has-been, Howard's opinion is now worth less than a pinch of s**t.

Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull have both announced the end of the policy as far as the Opposition is concerned.

So wtf is this thread really about?

And when is Krudd going to erase the WorkChoices he hates so much?

Always amusing when the peanut gallery start passing off uninformed opinion as political commentary... :rolleyes:

Let's give away some more taxpayers' money to the kiwis and poms...

No. It does, however, restore fairness to those that do have jobs, rather than relying on employer goodwill :yuk: Case in point- proposing to give business tax relief (via a payroll tax holiday) and relying on them to use the money to retain jobs, instead of adding it to their bottom line! Just fantasy.

Please explain how not spending money creates/retains jobs. In fact, there is not much at all that is correct about Howards' statement, P-A-F.

PAF -> PWNED!:ok:

I was living out of the country for all of John Howard's tenure in office, so, watching from afar, I'm unable to share the passion against him that some (quite a few, actually) display here. The fact (from where I stand, at least) that his government got it wrong on occasion is undisputed. The one area (and by no means the only) that immediately comes to mind is their failure to commit a lot of the money they had at their disposal in such good times to large, long term infrastructure projects, in particular a major water project along the lines of the almost century old Bradfield Scheme. (To back that sentiment up, I understand that after the recent heavy rains in North Queensland, the equivalent of six Sydney Harbours a day were pouring over the spillway of the Burdekin Dam.)

Particularly towards the end of the Howard Government, I believe they were suffering from collective hubris, much as was the MacMahon Government that lost to Gough Whitlam in 1972. For someone old enough to recall that time, there are parallels between the Whitlam 'experiment' and what Rudd is doing now. In both cases, it was and is a bit like watching any one of the 'Lethal Weapon' series or an Eddie Murphy cop flic – great entertainment, with lots of great, immensely gratifying to the eye car crashes, but with little to no regard to the poor bastards who, if you took a moment from eating your popcorn, you knew in the real world would have to come along behind Mal or Eddie and clean up – and pay for - the wreckage.

Howard got the boot for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being that Joe (or should that be 'Bruce'?) Oz 'didn't like him'. (And if Joe/Bruce didn’t initially, 90% of the Australian print and television media and 100% of the ABC told him he didn’t repeatedly until it became an almost religious mantra.)

With Howard, I’m reminded of the commercial management of the airline I work for. 95% of the pilots in the airline – (I don’t think this is too strong a word) – dislike them, some with a passion bordering upon hatred. However, you’d struggle to find 5% among that same group who wouldn’t accept that those same commercial managers do a rather good job raking the money in and keeping the company expanding and in the black, even (or should that be ‘particularly’?) in these troubled times.

Perhaps because of television, too many people these days seem to want a leader they can like rather than one who can deliver the goods, (even if the delivery of said ‘goods’ sometimes involves pain for some, a la Work Choices). Some of the most successful leaders of the last hundred years wouldn’t get a look into a political leadership role today because they couldn’t deliver their lines for television the way today’s leaders must. Sadly, that means we are now getting a succession of actors rather than leaders, and like too many actors, when these ‘leaders’ don’t have a script to follow, they have nothing to say. (I’m not sure if Kev fits into this ‘good actor class’, but Howard certainly didn’t.)

As I said in my opening paragraph, I don’t think Howard got it right on many occasions, but I’m really uncomfortable about the size of the debt Rudd is saddling the country with and can’t share the sentiments of those earlier in this thread who have (it would seem to me) blithely asked “what’s the big deal about operating under a deficit?”

I’d recommend anyone interested in what’s happening re our burgeoning deficit to read this article by Lenore Taylor in today’s ‘Weekend Australian’: I dreamed I saw a truthful treasurer | The Australian

I’d recommend anyone interested in what’s happening re our burgeoning deficit to read this article by Ross Gittens in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’:

Big deficit is a good step for more jobs

Howard Did Nothing
 

Howard just had good old fashion dumb luck.He happened to be in power when the greatest post war boom was happening.Virtual full employment had nothing to with him.
In this time he could have built roads,railways and improved ports around the country.He did squat.The children overboard charade was Howard at his worst.Appealing to the xenophobia of ill informed.
He did crack the double though...losing the election and his own seat.
Justice in my book

'The Sydney Morning Herald', over the last few years, the Australian edition of 'The Guardian'.

Gittinomics - Book Reviews - Books - Entertainment - smh.com.au

Well worth a read.........

For all those whining that Howard never built any infrastructure I will just point out that he was ringed by Labor State Govts. And its Labor State Govts who are still fcking this country up the clacker...Desalination plants instead of dams is a classic example.

Howard tried to nationalise water but ran out of time...so we get to watch Labor State govts privatise what, historically, fell from the sky for free.

Hahaha
 

Howard did a lot...............

He sold everything that we owned as citizens of Australia to private enterprise :ugh: Telecom, Airports and so on........

Then he wouldn't spend on Education and Health for the majority of Aussies.

The list goes on.

I used to love him his bullsh!t line of "the economy is great, we're in a surplus (some of the cooked books anway)." Most people I knew were going backwards due to inflationary effect he was having on everything.

He had good advisers and they knew when and what to spin..... :=

I opened this thread with immense trepidation - I expected the majority of posters to agree with Howard.....so it was a great pleasure to see that most people think the way I do - ie: Howard was the worst and most devisive PM this country has ever seen. The slimiest and meanest excuse for a human being that literally made me feel ashamed to be Australian.
Getting kicked out of his own seat was the sweetest revenge I have ever had to pleasure to experience.
For 10+ years he enjoyed the greatest post war boom this country has ever seen, and yet we look on them as the wasted years.......
I will never forget the little prick and his "non-core promises" and children overboard. Good Riddance!!!!!!

Wow, Woolly! That's hilarious. A 5 year old child has tantrums so similar to that it's uncanny. Like a child, the Australian voter will learn the hard way. By watching their country spiral into a financial cesspit and as someone who doesn't plan on returning for a while I hope rational thought will prevail at some stage in the future. As far as 'luck' goes... Well, isn't it peculiar how 'unlucky' "labour" seems to have been when you correlate the country's national debt with who was in power at the time?

The first time I was old enough to vote, I voted for Bob Menzies. There never was a prime minister that that came anywher near Bob since then. Except John Howard! I bet some of his detractors would gladly vote for the Communist party if it was still around.:rolleyes:

Speaking of Super...those of you in industry funds watch as they dry up "investing" in Krud's policies. Don't worry. KRudd says only those funds who want to will put up the funds.....for the simple....thats code for Union Funds.

While KRudd plays at spin, we are going down the gurgler. 48billion in hand outs plus another 56billion deficit this year? Ute Man must be hurting every time he buys a carton of Black Cans and must be wondering by now if he made the right choice. When you think that government changed over by less than 10000 votes it makes it hard to believe the price paid by the unions to buy those votes.

Those of us that lived in QLD during the Goss years know what playbook KRudd and Swan are running....we are in for a wild ride...and the pantry is empty, there is nothing left to sell except Aussie Post.

Now we have reports that our soldiers should consider taking out their own life insurance to cover their deaths in serving our country?????:yuk:

Hey Froz, checked out any good premiums to cover death by AMRAAM?

Ok, I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion, PAF. If you twist my words and argue with the intellectual depth of an eight year-old, I'm on a hiding to nothing (as is anyone else with a differing opinion). I don't advocate people losing jobs, but given the choice of a job with dignity, or it's slave-labour alternate under Workchoices, I'm with the majority of people who think the draconian way was tried, and...voted out. It seems like most people don't want to live under a system where exploitation is not just possible, but almost guaranteed.
I think this statement sums up your unbridled hatred of Labour. The government is, in principle, doing EXACTLY what you are saying. They may not be borrowing $5 trillion, but they are borrowing and spending. The trick is getting the balancing act right- how much to borrow/spend (because if you borrow TOO much, then it causes problems in the future). And if you think that if Howard/the Liberals/Turnbull were in power they would be doing any different, you are kidding yourself. The budget reply was, in effect, just quibbling over WHAT the money was being spent on. There will always be differences of opinion on whether the govt should be spending 50 billion or more or less. Even within parties. But there certainly isnt ANY serious opinion for NOT spending. Why would anyone want to DEEPEN the recession?
By all means, continue with your schoolboy passion and hysterical support for your ultra-conservative position. Why not try doing it with some intellectual rigour? Otherwise, I'll leave you to your rabid, illogical rants.

Ferris, FDR kept his country in recession longer because of his "New Deal" policies.

FDR actually turned recession into depression with his new deal policies...remarkably similar with what many politicians (especially US politicians) around the world are doing right now.

No one argues that a govt needs to go into a level of debt in a recession...its what that money is spent on that counts. By all means borrow and spend on infrastructure that will give Australia a competitive advantage when good times return. That creates employment now and creates wealth down the track...so we can pay off the debts in a reasonable time frame.

Dams and other water infrastructure that helps balance out our countries water supply and keeps this most basic need as cheap as possible...not privatisation by stealth which is what desal plants are...that will drive the price of water through the roof.

More and better coal fired power stations that will provide the second basic need, electricity, at the cheapest possible price to both private consumers and commercial consumers so they can make better profits and employ more people...not semi privatised power companies who's only answer is rationing power...and killing many old/sick people during extremes of both hot and cold weather because blackouts stop their aircon etc. Believe it, it happens. Certainly not treating our most bountiful competitive advantage - shedloads of cheap coal - as if it was pure poison.

Better roads, rail, port and airport (ALL kinds of airports) so that goods can be transported efficiently.

All the above means the other basic need, food, is cheaper. People can afford better quality...producers, retail etc are more profitable and can afford more staff.

Can you imagine these morons running the place back in the 50s...we would NEVER have had the Snowy River scheme just for starters.

The $900 checks mailed out to most people was grotesque waste. Same with the pink batts/schools and, if it actually goes ahead, so will the internet broadband plan. The ETS is the worst piece of legislation since Federation.

$100 billion I believe is the approximate number for the handouts/pink bats/BB internet.

It costs $2 billion to build a dam and maybe several billion more and we could have a pipe network connecting the northern water storage systems with the southern ones...probably 50 sydney harbours/annum of free fresh water to distribute from the wet north to the drier south. Imagine the employment this sort of modern day snowy scheme would create for the next several years at least - and the benefits to our society.

Anyone heard about that plan? Thought not.

Instead lets throw billions at the car industry - and subsidise the production of something few people in Australia want to buy at the moment let alone need...a new car. If the car industry disappears from our shores that is NOT the end of the world.

The Libs were not perfect...I agree they were getting a little too full of themselves...but Labor/Greens will fck this country just like every other time they have been in power.

As far as workchoices goes...well where did you get the idea that a good job/certain level of wages was a right?

We are born with certain rights...Life, Freedom, Free speech, a right to own property...that is it...everything else is aspirational. Economic 'rights', which are what you talk about when you rail against IR legislation like Workchoices, are not actually rights.

Oz, pretty pointless arguing what might or might not have been the result if someone in history had done something differently.

PAF.
I'll give you a couple of examples of why I am going to discontinue engaging with you. I explained that I would, and why. If I do, it is not because of the justification you give. At no point did I argue that dismantling Workchoices would NOT cost jobs. It may well do. The only thing I said in relation to that was that the majority of aussis don't like Workchoices, and seem to be prepared to wear the consequences of it's dismantling. People of your ilk rarely seem to grasp the whole concept of "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". I realise it's an abstract concept about human dignity, and does not have a 'monetary value', and is therefor lost on 'staunch' types such as yourself.
You then go on to confuse my comments about intellectual rigour with what the government is doing. I would have no problem with you calling into question what the government is spending money on, setting out your reasoning, and offering an alternative. Confusing the issue with straw man argument leads me to believe that my first instinct was correct, and that you are incapable of interesting me in further exchanges. It's not the gravity of the economic situation that I find "school-yard", it's your ability and style of arguing. Is that clear?

Finally, I am not an apologist for the Rudd government. I believe they are making some mistakes. But the Lib side of politics arguing that a conservative government wouldn't be spending it's way into a deficit is, well, disingenuous at best. Regardless of your economic 'school', external credit restraints and demand drivers are limiting the governments monetary control, necessitating increased fiscal stimulus. That PAF, is economics 101.

Chimbu mentionedI think Chimbu's phrase "if it actually goes ahead" will apply to quite a few of the Rudd Government's plans, (and in particular, some of their rather fanciful, huge money plans in the Defence sector in their recent White Paper).

Re the broadband scheme: an acquaintance who is pretty senior with the #2 telcom in Oz tells me that the money Kev is committing to high speed fibre optic cables would be far better spent on putting in another undersea cable connecting Australia with the WWW.

His reasoning? Much if not the vast majority of Australian internet users are for much of their time online attempting to gain information from sources outside Australia, so the bottleneck will be in gaining access to the rest of the world. Even if the average user has the (very expensive :*) fastest fibre optic connection to his home or office from his ISP, he's going to be limited in his download speed by the cable linking him to the world unless he only requires information from within Australia.

Hey PAF.....You're back and you were away for such a long time....:oh:

What happened??????

Anyway..this is more about which side of the political fence you are on and nothing to do with reality...You could argue for both cases but Work No Choices was the critical point.If you are an employer you wanted Howard and if you were not then you wanted him out.

This is also about another politician who is bitter and bruised about losing an election......when he was doing so much for Australian employers...

Or are you upset about the rules changing about the tax rules on earning money offshore PAF???

Remember Mr Honesty who would never bring a GST in:=:=:=

Not to mention something called the Tampa...:oh::oh::oh:

Hey Pass
 

You say " The new IR legislation will result in higher unemployment " (sorry I dont know how to do that blue box quote thing ) please explain how! (exactly)

Well, as I recall JH went to the electorate on that and returned with a greater majority, so I can't see your point.

Hmmm! the recent debacle about denying the fact that the boat was deliberately set on fire (fact as it turned out) doesn't seem that different to me.

I can't add much more than was aptly stated by Chimbu but I have to wonder about individuals who think that their job is so sacrosanct that it must be rewarded EVEN if it has little or no value.
Work choices at least allowed those that had something to bargain with (ie their capabilities) to achieve a better outcome than someone who, for various reasons, wasn't worth as much.
Make no mistake, anyone who was valuable to an organisation should have been treated well because they had something to contribute.
If an employer didn't recognise that and provide appropriate remuneration then they were in turn, not going to be competitive because they didn't have the right people.
Having a job is desirable and even necessary for most, but it is not a right.
The current soft communist government (no, they haven't gone away) will slowly steer us back to egalitarian principles even though we are not as a people equal.

(standing by for the usual socialist drivel)

How do you do that quote in the blue box thing?
Maybe someone could PM me
Tar

I find it amazing and very funny to watch Liberal supporters explaining away examples of BSWell,ZEEBEE...
If you think not being able to believe a politician is not problem then I can understand why you voted for Honest John.

He said a GST would not be be introduced by his government.....and yet it was....
And we have to read this McCarthyistic rubbish from anyone who did not vote for Honest John
But in reality is that different from a capitalist autocratic who you can't believe?

And I think this statement proves that you're so ignorant that you can't even spell Labor.

:rolleyes:

I've seen Joe Hockey interviewed about the budget deficit.

After bleating on for about 5 mins about the government being on an irresponsible spending spree, he was asked the following questions:

1. If the coalition was in power, would their budget be in deficit ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

2. How would the Coalition budget differ and in what areas would you cut spending to reduce the deficit (and would the deficit be reduced to zero) ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

3. Surely SOME money being spent on infrastructure to keep people in jobs is a good long term investment in Australia's future ... he said "the Labor goverment are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

Socked's interpretation of Joe Hockey:
"We don't really have any answers to any of the hard questions and can't say we'd be doing anything different. But it gives me a good chance to sit here on my fat arse and complain."

The fact of the matter is, nearly every government in the world is in the same situation. And the Coalition would be in it too if they were in power.

I am a swinging voter. I vote for who I think is the right government for me at the time. I think both major parties have the positives and negatives and over the years, have voted for both several times.

But while the Liberals have Joe Hockey the whinging, fence-sitting sook, they won't get my vote.

You're right Lowerlobe, how can we trust a man that says he's going to do something, and then actually does it!

Ahh...yes typo error thanks for that.
That would be novel for a politician but in honest Johns case it was not....

I voted for Rudd and voted Labor for the first time in my life because I wanted to get rid of Howard and Work No Choice.

I believed at the time that a defeat would help the Libs wake up and I thought that with MT it would be different but he is dithering back and forwards like some teenager.

If the Libs get back in Work No Choice will be back but in a different name only...

Howard is like a lot of other leaders who's ego won't allow them to accept defeat and move on with their lives....

Good to see you back PAF. As much as I disagree with your views sometimes, it still makes for an interesting read.

Now for a Howard bash. In the biggest boom known in this country, with money flowing down streets like water in rivers JWH did fckall to improve infrastructure, indeed it got worse whilst he was at the helm. Privatising everything he could get his grubby little hands on, he gradually edged us closer and closer to the standard of that mighty sh!thole: the US of A. Year in year out he'd tell us all of the mighty surplus he and cut-throat-costello had achieved for this country. Well done, my grandma (who’s been dead for several years) could have done the same or better. Selling off silverware and being given money by the Chinese during a mining boom is not economic management ol' mate! Then he chimed in with Work With No Choices and people finally got the sh!ts. Now there was one thing he could have done that would have impressed me. That would have been telling the long term unemployed to get a job or starve but he didn't. So you've got to wonder WTF did JWH stand for? I think basically he wanted to make the working person suffer whilst the big boys enjoyed their millions and the unemployed carried on in their merry way.

In comes Rudd. Now I did vote for him but let face it people would vote for Charles Manson to get rid of JWH! Whilst I do like him to a degree I must admit there are a few things that he's done that are starting to make me think twice about voting for him again. Starting with that summit thing where Cate Blanchet's baby seemed to be the focus. Celebrities - who cares about their ideas really! There seems to be a lot of talk about ideas and it all sounds promising. But 2 years on we've still got all the doubling up of politicians with state and federal junkets continuing and we've still also got endless red tape (see the bushfires for example). In comes the GFC and the cash hand outs start (Mr. Hat thinks to himself: are you kidding Rudd?). Stimulus to build what Howard neglected? Fine, great idea. Could we have just one airport that’s at least a standard of a second world country for once? Then the idea about cutting the 50k in super to 25k. At this point I've got to say I started to wonder if Mr. Hockey would do a better job. I actually think that the 50k hurts the everyday Australian who is trying to set up a retirement. You might for example have a person that has a second job and salary sacrifices it all into super therefore avoiding the extra tax. Not anymore under that scheme!

So 15 years later - crap infrastructure, heaps of people on the dole and handouts long term, crap medical system, crap airports, fees everywhere you turn, a worsening crime rate and deficit for years to come. JWH did the main damage and Rudd, well he seems like he's going to finish it off. Might vote for some unkown little party next time.

Maybe we could get Aircraft back. He'd be loving life right now - pilots on the back foot no jobs..

Zeebee
 

and is that distinct from the conservative drivel?

Chimbu,

You may be right, but if I may be allowed to suggest something:

Lib/Nat are generally the better managers; but, just like any management, they run out of ideas after a while and need to either move on, or be 'moved on'. Certain recent changes in commuters to an address on Coward St., Mascot come to mind...

Anyhoo, Little Johnny came in with good ideas. Along the way, he had a few stuff-ups, told a few egregious, outright lies and did a few embarrassing things, but was generally not too bad, especially when measured against his peers.

But, success went to his head and when he ran out of good ideas, he turned ideological; then it was time to go. But he became a gripper (ie. a w@nker who won't let go) and started giving the Conservative side a bad name.

So I'm glad he got rolled, so the next Lib/Nat administration (hopefully 2010) will be refreshed, renewed & invigorated with new ideas. And hopefully will take good advice as to when to give the next lot of up-and-comers a go.

I would agree with all that....I was hoping they would get returned with a much reduced majority...I wanted the Libs/nats to get a fright and a lessen in humility rather than see the socialists back in the driver's seat.

For those still whinging that Howard never achieved much in the way of infrastructure while in power I would again point out that infrastructure is mostly a State Govt matter...he tried to take water off them because he could see the State Labor Govts, particularly Vic, stuffing it up on a grand scale...he ran out of time on that one. The blame for the sad state of infrastructure in Australia lies squarely with Labor. One would assume the state Labor Govts would be much more amenable to co-operating with a Federal Labor Govt in this regard but I see no sign of it.

Howard was no more intrinsically dishonest than any other politician...politicians lie, all of them.. and I would argue at least Howard truly believed what he was doing was in Australia's best interest - I don't believe for one minute that the same claim will EVER be made of Rudd.

You speak a lot of sense, Chuck. There are some points I would differ in my opinion on, but hey, it'd be boring otherwise. I especially like your water ideas. A grand scheme of the scope you talk about- bringing water from north to south- would, indeed, be a sensible, popular and stimulating endeavor.

I take issue with your ideas about Workchoices, and a worker's 'rights'. IMHO, workers do have rights. Rights that were fought for and gained over many years becoming enshrined in conditions (such as penalty rates) enforced on employers via 'awards' etc. That they needed enforcement reflected the power-relationship between an employer and employee. It is an unequal relationship. To have those conditions, built up/refined/diluted over many years, swept away in 1 piece of legislation shifted the power most unequally. I had the opportunity to be both an employer and an employee during Workchoices. My time as an employer demonstrated the flexibility that was available to me - and the opportunity for the unscrupulous. Heaven- from an employers p.o.v. My time as an employee demonstrated that there were any number of employers willing to use Workchoices in an extremely negative way. Not a happy time. I just don't have any faith in human nature to allow people the opportunity to 'do the right thing'- or not! It may be ok for highly skilled and sought after workers to negotiate on an individual basis with their employer (and they always will anyway), but not across the spectrum.

As far as dismantling the Howard health scheme- go for it. I cannot, for the life of me, understand anyone wanting to move closer to the US health system. The oz system (medicare) may not be perfect (and I have plenty of simple ideas how it could be improved), but it is a quantum leap better than the yank's. Some things just need to be socialized. Getting the balance right is the trick. And is usually where the 'pendulum swings' occur.

What a useless debate. Fascists on one side that would make the worst dictator proud and the other view which is totally rejected by above. Each side can say what they like and they will never convince anyone but themselves what they are rambling on about. What has this to do with aviation apart from extremists being able to see their names on the screen. Like the 89 debate no matter how many words are poured onto the screen nothing will ever convince the opposing view of changing.

Excellent, so because a state government is in charge of something then "we can't do anything about it". Unless of course we are approaching an election at which point we may take over a hospital in a marginal seat for a few political points. Come on, he was the PM its up to him to take the lead and do something if the state governments are doing nothing.

Rudd is no Angel but at least he's saying that he'll take responsibility for it.

The long term solution is get rid of this state and territory double up crap.

Chimbu
 

You say " If the car industry disappears from our shores that is NOT the end of the world " From this I can take it that you believe, that IF all aircraft maintenance and pilot hiring went offshore, you would have no problem with this and that this would not be the end of the world? Whilst advocating the demise of industries that dont concern us, should we or should we not consider where we sit? I dont know, just asking.

I agree, it would be a very boring, and unjust, world if everyone was of the same ilk.

I think we need to define 'rights' and having done so I would be a little surprised if we don't agree on a great deal.

The very word 'right' has been co-opted by various segments of politics and has come to be misused in my view. It gets used, for instance, when politicians and sundry groups with an agenda should really be using 'aspirations'...maybe 'societal aspirations'...better yet 'priviledges'. If they used words appropriately then society would be a very much better place...we all know politicians twist the meaning of words and have been doing so more and more in modern times...particularly since the 1960s. Look up the meaning of the word 'Government', 'Leader' or 'Minister' and see the disparity between the true meaning and common usage/practice let alone comparing the meaning to the behaviour of people in those positions.

We are all born, in western societies anyway, with individual rights which are intrinsic because they are moral. I have an intrinsic, moral right to my life, to my freedom (of speech/thought/action), to own property and to, as the Yanks say, the pursuit of happiness (however I define that)...and SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. These rights are said to be 'self evident' and 'inalianable' because they are moral.

We exist and prosper, or otherwise, based on our judgement...by viewing the world around us rationally and making sensible judgements about cause and effect...that is what the 'right' to life actually means. I have 'a right' to go about my life as I see fit, working in whatever job I can get, keeping unto myself a maximum amount of the fruits of my labour, owning property and using it as I see fit all based on my best judgement to make myself, and those for whom I am responsible 'happy'

Govts and Laws exist to protect those individual human rights because the ONLY thing that can stop me exercising my individual rights is force.

Think the raping and pillaging hordes of history and that is why Government evolved - to protect the basic individual, moral rights of it's citizens.

If someone forces me to do something against my better judgement, by threat of violence or whatever, they have stopped me exercising my intrinsic and moral rights, my judgement. individual rights can be violated only by means of physical force. The very basis of our society, or any civil society, is that using force on another individual, whether it is the Govt or an individual applying that force, is illegal and no Law could ever by bought into force that could change that because that would be immoral...to the extent that society allows it anyway...we all can point to cases of individual rights to property being forcibly removed by local/state govt...but society has 'agreed' to this...although I think its obscene.

And I am not talking about criminals...they by their actions have violated another's individual rights and this have no claim to protection of their own rights to life/liberty etc. This is just an example of where society has decided to draw a line in the sand to ensure society survives.

I don't have a right to steal, speed, drive drunk etc etc because by doing so I am infringing on another persons individual human rights. If I drug some girl to have sex with her I have removed her ability to exercise her judgement which would probably tell her not to have sex with me...I have violated her most basic human right...to live her life as she sees fit based on her judgement and rational decision not to have sex with me.

So do I have a right to a job?

No...because to exercise that 'right' someone else must be forced to provide that job...I have removed his/her basic, individual human right to live their life, utilise their property, exercise their freedom of thought/action or words based on their best judgement...thus no such right to a job can exist...I can aspire to a job, that's all.

If something I want to do has NO EFFECT on someone else's individual human rights then I have every right to do it...if it does then I cannot.

If an employer refuses me employment has he infringed on my individual human rights?

No. I am still free to exercise my judgement to look for another job, get better qualified, offer my labour at a lower rate or use my property as I see fit.

If an employer sacks me because he has found a better employee has he infringed my rights? If I have no employment contract then no...see the previous paragraph...my individual human rights are intact. That we have Laws that FORCE an employer to maintain the employment of someone their judgement deems should be sacked actually infringes on the employers individual human rights and as such is an immoral Law.

No employer is going to risk damaging his business by sacking good employees or risking them taking their skills to a rival employer...unless they are an idiot..and they do exist. But they have not infringed anyone's rights by so behaving.

Ditto 'rights' to a certain level of wages.

If an employer offers crap T&Cs to low time CPLs and 'requires' them to wash aeroplanes, drive buses etc does that infringed that pilots rights?

No, they may be guilty of breaking other laws with respect of duty time limitations but no-one has had his right to use his best judgement to rationally decide the effects of this requirement...to exercise his freedom of action/words/thought to remove himself from that situation and seek alternative employment. His rights are intact and so are those of the employer.

Does AIPA have 'a right' to take action through the courts to limit the career potential of pilots employed by QF subsidiaries? While AIPA members would without doubt say YES the in fact absolutely DO NOT. By doing so they are seeking to forcefully remove the rights of others to live their lives by rational application of their best judgement. If QF wants to offer employment to an individual on certain T&Cs and said individual agrees then NO ONE's individual rights have been infringed and thus QF and that individual have EVERY RIGHT to proceed.

Those AIPA members would suggest they are merely acting with the best interests of said individual and some/many members actually believe that in a heartfelt way..but its not reality.

Do I have a right to free health care?

No because someone else must be forced to pay for it...in this case everyone, via higher taxation. That society has deemed universal affordable/free health care as a worthy aspiration and decided to pay those extra taxes is a different thing altogether...but no 'right' exists.

Do I have a right to free education?

No...it is a privilege based on society's aspiration to provide it which is itself based on good public policy...but it isn't a right.

People believe they have all sorts of rights but only because someone with an agenda has told them these aspirations/privileges are actually rights.

When words were used more thoughtfully...or perhaps more literally...only a generation or two ago...people knew the difference between rights and privileges and responded accordingly...and society was a better place.