‘Justice’ Category Archives

26
Jan

UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME: UBI’s the solution to all economic woes?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Justice, Lifestyle, Money, Politics

Is it true that most (90 percent-plus) new jobs created are temporary or on-call work?
And that (what with robots etc.) one quarter of lower-skilled jobs will be non-existent in 20 years?
How are these millions of unemployed and under-employed persons to live?
Governments in various countries are thinking about trialling “Universal Basic Income” schemes — all citizens receiving thousands of dollars annually without any conditions — Finland, Netherlands, India and Spain for example.
Sorry. UBI schemes won’t succeed – they’ll merely cause sky-rocketing taxes.
Anyway, it’s bad for healthy people not to work.
Pope John Paul II said, “Work is a good thing for man…it not only transforms nature…he also achieves fulfillment as a human being…work is a fundamental dimension of human existence on earth….
“The Church considers it her duty…to form a spirituality of work which will help all people to come closer, through work, to God….”
A spirituality of work?
That’s something we need to think about long and hard.

Share This
20
Jan

UNEMPLOYMENT, ROBOTS AND THE FUTURE: are UBI’s the answer?

by Arnold Jago in Common Sense, Justice, Lifestyle, Money, Politics

Is it true that most (90 percent-plus) of new jobs created are temporary or on-call work?
And that (what with robots etc.) one quarter of lower-skilled jobs will be non-existent in 20 years?
How will these millions of unemployed and under-employed live?
Various governments are considering “Universal Basic Income” schemes — all citizens receiving tens of thousands of dollars annually without any conditions — including Finland, Netherlands, India and Spain.
Obviously these UBI’s won’t work. They’ll simply increase taxes.
Anyway, it’s bad for healthy people not to work.
Pope John Paul II said, “Work is a good thing for man…it not only transforms nature…but also achieves his fulfillment as a human being….
“The Church considers it her duty to speak out on work…to form a spirituality of work which will help all people to come closer, through work, to God….”

A “spirituality of work” — that sounds like something we should think about long and hard.

11
Jan

EUTHANASIA AND THE “CONSCIENCE VOTE”: by the way, what does “conscience” mean?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Death, Ethics, Health, Justice, Suffering, Truth

Victorian state MPs may soon participate in a “conscience vote” about legalising euthanasia by doctor-assisted suicide.
What do these people think “conscience” means?
For most it seems to mean “what I feel comfortable with”.
Being comfortable is a feeling — not the same as using one’s intelligence or willing good to another person.
If you’re uncomfortable witnessing somebody in a weakened or undignified state or having to bear incompletely-controlled pain, there’s a simple, only-too-obvious solution — kill that person or help him/her suicide.
Less convenient is the alternative — the attention to detail of good nursing and medication-dosage plus one-to-one spiritual support in facing the lonely truth of the situation.
Traditionally “conscience” means putting into practice what is one’s best understanding of Moral Truth — seeking the best possible fulfilment of the person of the sufferer, given the present situation.
Why? Because we love that person.
By contrast, killing is a cop-out.

9
Jan

DR RODNEY SYME AND THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT: doing the wrong thing by terminal patients.

by Arnold Jago in crime, Death, Ethics, Health, Justice, Politics, Suffering

In early 2016, a Victorian man with advanced tongue cancer was offered Nembutal (illegal lethal tablets) by euthanasia-promoting doctor, Dr Rodney Syme.
The patient’s GP complained and the Medical Board of Victoria put a ban on Dr Syme from practising end-of-life patient care – describing him as a “serious risk”.
Dr Syme appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which has reversed the ban.
Why?
Assisting a patient to commit suicide is against the law in Victoria and carries a 5-year prison sentence.
That is an excellent law, designed to protect vulnerable people from falling into the hands of the euthanasia types — while, hopefully, accessing care from proper palliative care doctors.
The Victorian government plans to reverse that law — a bad move which would endanger the frail, the despairing, the weak and the elderly.

5
Jan

HOW BEST TO DEAL WITH THE METHAMPHETAMINE/”ICE” PROBLEM? do “experts” sometimes not know what they are talking about?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, crime, Justice, Lifestyle, Politics, Youth

The Federal Government’s Inquiry into Crystal Methamphetamine has received multiple submissions from multiple groups of “experts”.
A lot of these submissions make the same claims in more or less the same words. But do they make any sense?
The common theory seems to be that to discourage drugs — including methamphetamine (“ice”) — should be discouraged.
Why? Because (they say) using the law and the media and classrooms to deter methamphetamine use will do harm by causing “stigmatisation” and “discrimination”.
These expert groups include the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies, the National Drug Research Institute and the National Association of People Living with HIV Australia.
Not everyone would agree that stigmatisation does more harm that using drugs.
We don’t legalise rape, murder, shoplifting etc. because banning them could make thieves, rapists and thieves feel stigmatised.
Should we?
I don’t think so.

14
Dec

A TREATY FOR AUSTRALIA? let’s not get rushed into it.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Justice, Multiculturalism, Politics

Should Australia as a nation make a treaty with its Aboriginal inhabitants?
The Oxford Dictionary says a treaty is “a formally concluded and ratified agreement between states”.
Is the Aboriginal community a “state” in the sense that it isn’t part of the Australian state, and therefore is able to make a treaty with the Australian state?
Would making of some kind of agreement between the two — and calling it a “treaty” — in fact, alter what the Aboriginal community is?
Would it lead to those parts of the continent currently defined as “native title” being separated off to create a previously non-existent, now internationally recognised, “black state”?
Is that what “treaty” advocates really want?
Is it true that the land thus lost to the general Australian community could involve 60 per cent of the Australian continent?
Wouldn’t that be divisive rather than inclusive — the opposite of “reconciliation” which hopefully means the restoration of friendly relations?
It’s too easy to go on arguing forever about historical past events – or non-events – and worrying about who will corner whatever compensation-money will be claimed….
Looking to the future we seem to need treaty-free reconciliation.
That must start inside the mind of every Australian.