Update me on VSU (1 Viewer)

[Henry_Kissinger]

No, i havent seen any evidence that unions and the SRC are beneficial.

Further, the taxation argument is flawed when apply to liberals

the vast majority of us don't believe in government provided services except to prevent coercion.

 

[Jonathan A]

Jonathan, if the universities are already strapped for cash (UWS in particular), then from where will they get the funding for those services that are essential yet invisible? From where will the supposed be fat be trimmed to ensure the continued existence of student services currently managed and funded by the unions?

Better economic management or increasing our fees or asking the Government for more money. I would rather pay the university more to make my university a better place rather than a stupid union using it to fund a pointless protest.

I am ashamed to say my union has taken my money and used it in areas such as:
-Organising an event with Mamdouh Habib at Bankstown Campus to talk about how America is imperial, etc...
-Bag the Howard Government on all its policies, even those which do not concern the Union;
-Paid for the provision of services to fund schemes such as the Women's Room which I cannot use and collectives for minority groups
-Get people off parking fines (which many were too lazy to buy a permit - the Union could have at least encouraged the uni to have other ways of paying for them)
-Print diaries with Anti-Liberal Dogma.

I am a Liberal Party member and a Conservative. I am part of a many Australians with the same belief. I find it highly discriminating that this left wing scum can take my money without my consent and use it for those services. Yet they cannot use my money to help me establish my Association which will provide students with the ability to network and get more experience.

My Union (UWSSA) has done nothing for me. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, and I can't wait to see the VSU laws kick in!

And Generator, don't give me that Unions fund services garbage - WE fund the services!

 

[Jonathan A]

i still maintain that those of us who want to live the uni experience (the majority of students want more than purely classtime) shouldnt be made to suffer because of a minority

The assumption in your argument is that we all want to party union-style.

I HATE pub-crawls! I like classy places and no union has provided that at all. I am not paying for the provision of alcohol to drunkens who waste our uni's time by not studying. Some union activities are so stupid (e.g. functions during Stuvac and mid-terms) that in the end we get a lot of non-UWS students attending and using our services we paid for! It's not good enough!

You want a social life, come with me and it wont cost you $180+ a semester and I guarantee you will have more fun.

i also think that having way more options available to people in tertiary education will not only be good for people when they are students, but 20 years down the track be good for a more diverse and better off society in the future.

We have no OPTIONS under Universal (Wtf?) Student Unionism. Our only option is pay Union Fee or you are out of uni.

i just dont see why people are having such a massive whinge about an extra $500 a year that does provide an overall benefit to the community, when the government has set ridiculous prices like $900 for one subject that you may do 2 or 3 hours a week of............yes we go to university to primarily get our degrees but there is so much more to university than that, and it is going to be effectively destroyed given time with this bill

You make it sound like its $10. $500 can get you a lot, and in the bank it earns quite a bit of interest as well. As I said, I would pay anything for my education, I ain't paying for some left-wing dropkick to put words in my mouth and make me turn into an official "Loser" with nothing better to do than to complain about the university and Government. A Degree is much more than a protest or a discounted can of coke.

 

[ogmzergrush]

what possible benefit do i derive from police in bathurst? or a hospital in broken hill? or roadworks in taree? even indirectly? and if ur going to be ridiculous and say maybe the police stopped a killer who possibly could have done something bad to me in broken hill before they reached sydney, then one could argue that things such as the food that the union provided me saved me from getting food poisoning down at the local kebab shop. obviously this is a ridiculous argument and just as far fetched

therefore your argument that tax benefits everyone, whether directly or indirectly, is rubbish

Pretend that your tax goes to police, hospitals, etc, in your area, and the people in Taree fund their own. I think then perhaps it makes a bit more sense, though of course it's still arguable (As is the norm with pretty much everything).

 

[ogmzergrush]

yea but ive never used some of the roads that theyve been repairing in my local area..........why should i have to chip in with no choice and put my money into a pool of money for someone else to gain the benefit from when it has nothign to do with me?


that is how hte tax system works so if people dont have a problem with that, why have such a problem with VSU which brings much more opportunities (not necessarily taken) for people who pay?


i guarantee most people would lose more in tax that they pay every year for things that they dont use than the money they pay in CSU fees

Speaking of comparisons that don't really work, how does keeping roads in decent condition compare to buying handfuls of condoms for the university's sexuality officer to stick in people's pockets at the annual piss-up?

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

that is how hte tax system works so if people dont have a problem with that, why have such a problem with VSU which provides many more direct opportunities for gain (not necessarily taken) for people who pay?

WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT MATE

the liberal argument views government as EVIL and taxation as theft.

other than in areas where granting freedom would produce negative liberty, we dont believe in government interference.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

well, you have made a very illogical argument

some aspects of government funding are necessary

therefore, union spending is necessary

 

[ogmzergrush]

you're comparing a major part of the government spending budget to a tiny minority of the union spending budget


so you're right it is a comparison that doesnt really work

This is why people not minding taxes which relate to the entire nation with union fees, which impact upon only those who are students at the given University is sort of pointless. I agree with, I think what you were saying, in that it's not really a useful comparison to make. Similarly though, you can't just say "oh people don't mind taxes and they're compulsory, so they shouldn't mind student fees either." Doing a shit every now and then is also compulsory, perhaps we can compare that too.

 

[erawamai]

I am a Liberal Party member and a Conservative. I am part of a many Australians with the same belief. I find it highly discriminating that this left wing scum can take my money without my consent and use it for those services. Yet they cannot use my money to help me establish my Association which will provide students with the ability to network and get more experience.

Ah the ranting and raving Jono A. Why don't you fire up more!!!!????

It is sad that the future of the Liberal Party of Australia is in the hands of nutjob conservatives who have no idea about the market. All they want to do is bag the lefties (do they even have any idea of what is left or right or is it an all inclusive catch cry for anyone who doesn’t agree with them?) rather then getting on with applying the core principles of the modern Liberal Party...NEO CLASSICAL ECONOMICS.

The modern Liberal party has very little to do with conservatism. If you think hard enough the conservative values that you claim as your own conflict heavily with core Liberal Party economic policy. I mean it doesn't stop the liberal party from asking for your vote based on its 'conservative' doctrine but if you are a real conservative you would realize that the Liberal doesn't do much for you. In any case neo classical economic dry doctrine hurts conservative values. I mean didn't the Liberal party just grant clinical trials to RU 486? Such a conservative bunch they are. If anything Big Kim has been accused of being more reactionary and more conservative than Howard.

I think Withoutaface can attest to my assessment. Young Liberals are full of nutjobs who are obsessed with returning Australia to the 1950s, many of whom have no idea about economics the intricacies of the market. I think its scary that I would know more about market economics than some members of the young Liberals who never bothered to learn economic theory.

You make it sound like its $10. $500 can get you a lot, and in the bank it earns quite a bit of interest as well.

You tie up $500 in term deposits and you earn 'quite a bit of interest'?

I am aware of more 'degree-factory graduates' and 'uneducated' people who more actively and readily contribute to society than those have this 'well-roundedness' to their education. My life exists outside the walls of the university; in a sporting, social and contributive sense. Assisting the community directly is a lot more useful than developing some 'well-roundedness' within the walls of the university.

That's an excellent attitude. You'll go far within today's Liberal party, frog.

Life experience and contribution outside the walls of the university is much more relevant than any personal development that results from the 'university life'..

Then why the heck to you go to university then Frog? Personal development happens everywhere. Just because you are not so academically minded or feel you don't get much out of the academic experience (I'm waiting for Stazi or others to come along and say it's because you go to uws) doesn't mean others don’t learn plenty at university. I think it’s wholly spurious to claim that one learning environment is better than the other for personal development considering that everyone is different when it comes to personal development. Don't you agree?

As for learning outside the university. A fair few of the front bench of the Liberal Party are 'academics', 'intellectuals' or 'elites'. In particular Costello is a Barrister and lecturer in law and Abbot is an Oxford Graduate etc etc. The Liberal party argument is an intellectual one about neoliberal economics that came out of universities that many people do not understand (Hence why the Liberal party cloaks itself in conservatism to win people over to the party. They learn the economics later).

I believe the Liberal party may one day (way into the future) get into trouble by not encouraging intellectuals of the right into the party. Currently they are filling up the backbenches with people who are not 'intellectuals' like Costello, Abbot who may not have a total grasp of the intellectual argument and may loose their way in the future.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

I think Withoutaface can attest to my assessment. Young Liberals are full of nutjobs who are obsessed with returning Australia to the 1950s, many of whom have no idea about economics the intricacies of the market. I think its scary that I would know more about market economics than some members of the young Liberals who never bothered to learn economic theory.

I can vouch for that.

In real life (as a non-troll), I am a Libertarian. In fact, the liberal social philosophy leads to this neoclassical economic philosophy.

Conservative Liberal = oxymoron.

Also, I don't think it is necessary to have studied economics unless you are shaping economic policy - but morons who speak without understanding are really quite foolish.

 

[erawamai]

In real life (as a non-troll), I am a Libertarian. In fact, the liberal social philosophy leads to this neoclassical economic philosophy.

Conservative Liberal = oxymoron.

Also, I don't think it is necessary to have studied economics unless you are shaping economic policy - but morons who speak without understanding are really quite foolish.

Oh no don't start with your intellectual and elitist argument! Real Liberal PArty people like Frog will kick you out of the party.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

what did I ever do to you erawamai

I just want to be loved

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

Yes, believing in free markets and individualism...

HOW DARE I JOIN THE LIBERAL PARTY BEING A LIBERAL

the Liberal Party stands for Initiative and Enterprise...not Initiative and Enterprise!!

err...

 

[malkin86]

How will VSU be implemented? There's the transitionary funding, I know, but has any detail been leaked on that? I hope it would be like a tick-box system - I wouldn't mind paying for a principle, e.g. childcare.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

The Labor Party chumps at NOLS will never let you do that.

It's terrorist groups AND childcare, or not at all.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In real life (as a non-troll), I am a Libertarian. In fact, the liberal social philosophy leads to this neoclassical economic philosophy.

Ah yes, akin to Broggers.

 

[Generator]

And Generator, don't give me that Unions fund services garbage - WE fund the services!

Ah, what? Of course we fund the associations so that they may operate the services - collective support, that's the bloody point.

 

[Generator]

Also, I don't think it is necessary to have studied economics unless you are shaping economic policy - but morons who speak without understanding are really quite foolish.

But if an economic 'analysis' can be applied to any situation given that most facets of life are now commodified, why can't those not operating within such a framework comment on the economy and other economic matters? We seem to accept one despite the fact that such points of view are largely ignorant of the actual situation, so why can't we at least listen to the other?

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

But if an economic 'analysis' can be applied to any situation given that most facets of life are now commodified, why can't those not operating within such a framework comment on the economy and other economic matters? We seem to accept one despite the fact that such points of view are largely ignorant of the actual situation, so why can't we at least listen to the other?

Rephrase the last sentence please, it is early in the morning and it isn't making sense to me.

 

[Generator]

No, it's not you at all.

We seem to accept the fact that economists can talk about almost anything (despite the fact that their analyses are often ignorant of the actual situation given that there is more to life than economics), so why can't we at least listen to those who aren't economists talk about economic policy?