MisterFrog
@MisterFrog@aussie.zone
- Comment on With their first female leader gone, can the Liberals shake their 'women problem'? 1 day ago:
As much as I dislike the teals for similar reasons to disliking the Liberals, they at least have some semblance of care and (identity) equality.
They hate workers, but at least they think climate change is happening and that women and LGBT+ people deserve rights.
Would be good for them to fill that niche in AusPol.
- Comment on Three Australian millionaires say the nation’s super-rich should face higher taxes 1 day ago:
Do you not understand how jobs and providing services for money work?
I most certainly advocate for a better society where work is more democratic than it currently is (in general).
I’m well aware of how jobs work, just that I don’t think it’s a efficient or fair way to structure society (in general). It’s pretty hard to argue that the amount of money people have is purely, or even mostly, correlated with merit or how hard someone works.
There’s nothing wrong with profiting off your employees labour though.
Agree to disagree. I’m not having a go at any small business owners in particular, since they many don’t profit that much more than their employees anyway - just in general it’s not desirable and we ought to move away from capitalism.
Oh I see you are a fan of communism lol. Never mind.
Technically not communism specifically ,because I think money is a useful accounting tool, which allows people to choose what they value, and don’t think we need to get rid of it - but much of a much. Yes I am a socialist and not shy about it.
- Comment on Health star rating to become mandatory on all packaged food in Australia 1 day ago:
country of origin for each too
This probably wouldn’t reasonably fit on the packet. There ought to be a QR code on their that links to an Australian government website where they provide all this fine detail though.
- Comment on Three Australian millionaires say the nation’s super-rich should face higher taxes 3 days ago:
I think perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I need to reiterate that your former colleague is just living within the system we have, and I can’t make personal comment on whether or not he’s done any of the worse things I mentioned.
Initially, it was him and his wife, yes. Though they now have a decent sized company with a few hundred employees.
How is this not proving my point?
He has a decent sized company, that generates profits for him from the labour of their workers, who share in a smaller share of those profits. And this is the typical arrangement. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that (in most cases) the amount of profit people generate vs what they get paid is just.
I’m sure he’s worked hard - well, I guess he has - but it can’t be denied that his excess wealth is only possible because of other people’s continued labour.
if he should keep all the work and wealth to himself
This is fundamentally what we disagree on. He didn’t “share” the work. He had an idea, worked hard on that idea, and then hired other people in order to grow his company and make more money. That’s capitalism, and people pretend as if it’s the only way we can structure society. As if innovation would stop existing without the profit motive.
Innovation would happen regardless. The profit motive only “drives innovation” because that’s how we’ve structured things to work. I also find the claim doesn’t hold water because a huge portion of innovations are already from publically funded university research which otherwise wouldn’t be funded.
Currently a few people profit massively off other people’s labour, and looking at wealth inequality, and pay inequality, it’s getting worse and worse every year.
Unless one has the opinion than a tiny percentage of the population is thousands of tens-of-thousands times more productive and deserving than everyone else, then it’s kind of hard to argue the current state of the world makes sense.
I have no issue with some people making more money than others to reflect their harder work. But only to a point. The profit motive seems like a stupid way to do this though, because it’s also pretty plain to see that innovating is probably not even the main way more profit is achieved.
Monopolies, dark patterns, price gouging, wage theft off-shoring and other anti-competitive behaviours are far more common paths.
Again, nothing against your former colleague personally, as I don’t know him.
- Comment on Three Australian millionaires say the nation’s super-rich should face higher taxes 4 days ago:
$500 million purely in sales of software he wrote alone? That would be a feat for sure.
Nothing against him personally, just that buy-in-large this former colleague of yours would be an outlier, the ultra wealthy generally generate profits off the backs of other people’s work.
The part that’s wrong isn’t doing well and making money, it’s advocating against taxing corporations way more than we are, lobbying for loopholes, and engaging in rent seeking behaviour. Which is extremely, extremely common. Having some kind of cap on how much wealth you can amass seems sensible to me.
I’m sure he’s worked hard and done well for himself, but are we really suggesting that once you have money, you don’t “make your money work for you”? What that phrase really means is you can invest, which is only possible because of other people’s work at the end of the day.
Yes, I am doubting a bit that after his real work of creating a product, that the rest of the money he’s made is directly from that work, or made possible by a system that in general is profiting of the working class.
At a certain point allowing people to have vast sums of money is antithetical to democracy, which seems almost self-evident to most people no matter their other political views.
So no, your former work colleague hasn’t done anything wrong, but doesn’t mean it’s a great way for us to structure society. *Gestures broadly to everything*
- Comment on Three Australian millionaires say the nation’s super-rich should face higher taxes 5 days ago:
All of the world’s billionaires have amassed their wealth off other people’s labour.
If you can name me ONE billionaire who hasn’t, I’ll be extremely shocked. One billionaire who just worked for their money.
Selling something to investors is indirectly profiting off others labour, just in advance. You think the investors pull up their sleeves and generate billions? Lol. No no, they get workers to make whatever business profitable.
Some billionaires may have created something worthwhile (Taylor Swift, for example), even she has an army of workers who make her continued career possible. (Even though she definitely was a “self-made” billionaire starting without massive capital).
Billions is so much you can practically never spend it. And no one can work literally >1000x harder than someone else. Or generate something so worthwhile they deserve billions.
You don’t need the profit motive for people to create great things. The creator of insulin sold the patent for $1. And countries like Denmark (while still be capitalists) are proof that more people would be entrepreneurial if they have more of a safety net to try. We’re probably missing out of tonnes of innovation simply because the person hasn’t been given the chance through education or they’re in poverty.
And we only have poverty because we live in a system where you can amass unlimited wealth, on the backs of everyday people, instead of the workers sharing in the profits of their labour.
Without the labour of others, or the proceeds from the labour of others (advertising, investment, etc), it’s impossible to make a billion dollars.
- Comment on Three Australian millionaires say the nation’s super-rich should face higher taxes 5 days ago:
We could abolish billionaires entirely. No one needs a billion dollars. No one “earns” a billion dollars.
- Comment on Australia quietly builds tariff wall on Chinese steel exports 1 week ago:
We really ought to do more processing here. It’s pretty silly that we ship of raw resources
- Comment on Sydney protest: NSW premier defends police in ‘impossible situation’ after accusations of violence against protesters 1 week ago:
It’s because they don’t give a shit about accountability or democracy.
- Comment on Tanning apps that offer ‘safe’ sun routines undermining efforts to tackle skin cancer 1 week ago:
I dunno about you, but I’d much rather take a vitamin D supplement/vitamin E fortified foods, than get skin cancer
- Comment on Help open the source of the myGov Code Generator app 2 weeks ago:
I hate the fact I can’t use my own 2FA app (Kepass)
I don’t like the idea of losing access to my myGov account just because I lost my phone…
- Comment on Company handling Australia’s immigration detention playing key role in Trump’s ICE migrant crackdown 2 weeks ago:
It’s fucking insane how much of government work is outsourced.
This is just the latest shocking example. :(
- Comment on Why most Australians won't get a weekday off for Anzac Day in 2026 [but Western Australia and ACT do] 3 weeks ago:
This feels illegal!
- Comment on The capsicum paradox: new Australian supermarket pricing a ‘massive transparency fail’ for customers 3 weeks ago:
Where is the goddamn ACCC? I swear they do a good thing once in a blue moon, if that…
- Comment on Woolies' new AI system fundamentally changes the role of the shopper 3 weeks ago:
This would be incredibly easy to get a refund for under Australian consumer law, at least.
Not that I believe most people would do this.
Nor that any fines will be handed down for this despicable behaviour…
- Comment on Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know 3 weeks ago:
Go ask the vast majority of Australians this same question and you’ll get roughly the same answer: because the number of guns in the community makes it more likely to be stolen and more likely to fall into the hands of people who will misuse those guns.
It’s the fact people can get access to guns, which is literally what happened at Bondi. The cunts had recreational licenses. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that it would not have been harder for them if recreational licenses didn’t exist? They legally owned those guns.
This isn’t America, the debate you’re having is no where near you side in this country. People don’t generally think you have a right to have a gun for fun. I would be willing to bet many people will judge you here for even being a hobbyist gun owner. As they should.
The actual hobby doesn’t bother me. I don’t doubt you won’t hurt anyone. But you’re lying to yourself and everyone if you’re going to try and deny the risk to the community recreational licenses present.
Its the number of guns out there and the ease of access that presents the risk.
In conclusion, get a new hobby. I’m in no way apologising for that position and it’s very self-centred if you can’t accept that allowing hobbyist gun ownership is a risk to the community, just because it’s fun for you.
It would suck for you if recreational licenses hopefully get removed one day, I get that, but seriously. You need to suck it up.
I hope we don’t need to have another massacre before we finally get rid of hobby licenses, and I think it’s ridiculous that wasn’t included in these law changes, considering that’s how the weapons were acquired in the first place.
Guns are necessary, but for fun? Nope.
- Comment on Civil Groups Urge NSW Police To End Protest Restrictions Ahead Of Australia Day 3 weeks ago:
I’m not a lawyer, and don’t know what the law is about telling people to break the law.
But when you look back at history, sometimes people have had to break the law when it’s fucking stupid, and make it unenforceable by popular will.
If you don’t stand up before it’s too late, then things will get worse.
These new laws at the state and federal levels are an affront to the principles of democracy and freedom of speech.
I hope that Sydney-siders do the ring thing this weekend.
- Comment on Australia Post rival shuts operations without warning 3 weeks ago:
Libs still want to destroy it.
As is natural, for neoliberal capitalists.
They hate everything that’s for the public good, instead of being run for a profit.
Fingers crossed the latest breakup of the coalition is permanent and the power vacuum shifts us (and hopefully the Labor party) further to the left.
- Comment on Four-year-old boy dies after car crashes into shopping centre in Canberra 3 weeks ago:
It seems to me they are saying that the community massively under-appreicates how much death and danger we accept from the use of cars.
And that our cities are STILL being designed for cars, despite decades of evidence that it’s a dumb idea (with some decent urban planning sprinkled in from time to time).
Australia has massive car-brain.
This death was assisted by that, because we don’t design our cities properly.
Cars kill. And people need to wake up to that, especially when they’re behind the wheel, which many have no choice but to do because of the design of our cities.
- Comment on Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know 3 weeks ago:
The number of guns you need for recreation is zero. Get a different hobby ffs.
- Comment on Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know 3 weeks ago:
We should limit the number of guns for recreation to zero. It’s honestly dumb it’s allowed at all.
There are legitimate uses for guns, “fun” is not one of them.
- Comment on Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know 3 weeks ago:
gun number limit is also a kneejerk reaction
Please explain how limiting how many guns people can have isn’t sensible.
Honestly, why do we allow “recreation” as a legitimate reason at all? Like, sorry, but when a hobby endangers the community, then it should be allowed. People will mental gymnastic a reason why it’s unfair to stop them enjoying their hobby, but I remain rather unconvinced.
I’m not across the new laws, but the limiting the number of guns someone can legally own part just doesn’t scream knee-jerk to me.
- Comment on Australians Overwhelmingly In Support Of Gun Law Reform 1 month ago:
Yes to everything except the gun control.
In what world does legitimate need for a gun include unlimited guns per owner? In what world does a hobby count as a legitimate use? (both things that lead the shooters to having the guns in the first place).
Sorry gun hobbyists, get a new hobby. Like how is it a sane position that you can have a hobby that puts the community at risk. Do archery ffs. It’s way cooler and you can’t kill a bunch of people in rapid succession (I mean, unless you’re Legolas)
Collecting every element as a hobby could be done responsibly, but we don’t allow that either, and for good reason. We, as a society, deem it an unacceptable risk.
Unfortunately this tragedy will be co-opted for the other bad things you mentioned, but tightening our kinda loose gun laws is not one of them.
Farmers, the military, specialised police and animal control need a certain amount of guns. The current laws do not achieve this.
- Comment on Leaked plan to limit blocking of abortion on moral grounds 2 months ago:
Good. Don’t become a doctor if you can’t separate your personal beliefs and doing the job
- Comment on A vote to approve an AFL stadium on Hobart's waterfront will now pass 2 months ago:
Ahhhh, socialising the risk and privatising the profits, a tale as old as neoliberalism
- Comment on As of December 10th, You need to be sixteen to use Aussie.Zone 2 months ago:
I suspect if this comes to a head you can just change instances to one offshore .
If they start blocking tiny websites “not complying” then shit has really hit the fan.
My pet conspiracy theory is that corporations pushed for this so they can collect your ID and even more personal information you should never share with anyone on the internet.
Fuck this law is so dumb
- Comment on Australia’s under-16s social media ban is weeks away. How will it work – and how can I appeal if I’m wrongly banned? 2 months ago:
Ahhh I see.
I mean, who’s reading the chat history anyway?
If you add someone to a chat you should say hello! Problem solved.
Further, people are already used to this with WhatsApp which functions on the same protocol (with Meta harvesting the metadata and connections of course)
- Comment on Australia’s under-16s social media ban is weeks away. How will it work – and how can I appeal if I’m wrongly banned? 2 months ago:
There is chat history, you just have to back it up
- Comment on WeRide: Cycling community celebrates reinstatement of e-bike standard 2 months ago:
As someone who rides an e-bike with 250w power, 250w is plenty for one person.
Perhaps cargo bikes should be permitted to have higher wattages.
Want more than that? Should be licenced as a motorbike, in my humble opinion.
- Comment on Australian wholesale electricity prices are falling. So when will power bills stop rising? 2 months ago:
It’s almost like privatisation of natural monopolies makes no sense 0_0
Bring back the Victorian State Energy Commission (to be the retailer and distributor).
Hell, private generators and commerical users can keep their purchase agreements for all I care. We don’t need to nationalise every single part of the energy system (though, that’d be preferable, in my view).
But for the rest of us retail users, let’s stop doing this stupid dance where you “shop around” for an electricity plan, and get a way better collective deal by bringing back public ownership of this key infrastructure.
At a minimum distribution and retail of electricity should be publically owned and operated. Obviously.
It worked just fine in the past.
Privatisation hasn’t worked.