Harvester Judgment Analysis

The Harvester Judgment is inherently rooted within the context of what the Australian people owe the government and vice versa. In a more specific sense, it is concerned with minimum wage laws and equal pay. However, the broader issue at large must be considered.
While I am not (yet) employed, and seemingly have no need for minimum wage, the point still stands that I am a citizen of Australia. This means that I have an obligation to my country, while my country also has an obligation to me. The Harvester Judgment, like many other pieces of legislature, is based on the nature of these perceived duties.
However, there is a great degree of uncertainty in determining what these obligations are, and what they should be. It is simple to say that government owes us this and that, but it is difficult to acquire a meaning as to why. Many philosophers …show more content…
Therefore, any duties placed on the individual, are duties they owe to the rest of society as a whole. This means a person must work their hardest and try their best to contribute as much as they humanly can to the world. As the fruits of their efforts will be reaped by their civic brothers and sisters. Participation, chiefly, is important. Participation in labor. Participation in education. Participation in taxation. These are the paramount duties of each individual.
In my personal context, I do not feel that the social contract has been upheld - on either end. Primarily, the government acts as an entity unto itself. While Australian politicians may claim to represent the public (and I'm sure many do), it has become increasingly clear that they represent their own interests. The lack of taxes levied against the most profitable corporations in our country is one example. Electing to tax the people, but not the private sector, is a contemptible abuse of power that is only a symptom of a greater cancer