And in Australia...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Spry wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Let me ask you something. Isn’t it still the law that all Australians must vote in elections and if you don’t vote the police will come and take you to a polling place to cast your ballot?

A democracy where the police force people to vote is not people to vote is not a democracy, because you don’t have freedom of choice.

You just get a small fine. Come on now. And you can just say you had a cold and felt unwell.

Seriously though, this concept of Aussies being less free than Americans must stop.

We are as free as you. The public has told the government (which is formed by the people’s representitives) to go and fuck itself over the issue of Interweb censorship.

Wait and see what happens, my friend. No censorship will occur.

BUT if it did? I should storm parliament house with my rifle? No. That would be pointless an ineffective.

AND Voting is not just a right but a duty but that’s another topic…

[/quote]

Choosing not to vote is a vote. It is saying you don’t like any of the choices. For years in America we had low voter turnouts, but we just had the biggest turn out in American history.

Australia has freedoms sure. But the freedoms you Aussies enjoy are given to you by your government’s generosity. If at any time they decide to be a lot less generous your options are limited.

I would not recomend storming parliament on your own. But what could you do if the majority of people wanted the government to allow freedom of speech on the internet and the government refused. Protest maybe? But what would you do if the protest was met with force?

62

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Choosing not to vote is a vote. It is saying you don’t like any of the choices. For years in America we had low voter turnouts, but we just had the biggest turn out in American history. [/quote]

You are only required to turn up at the polling booth. You can throw your ballot paper in the bin if you desire.

[quote]
Australia has freedoms sure. But the freedoms you Aussies enjoy are given to you by your government’s generosity. If at any time they decide to be a lot less generous your options are limited. [/quote]

I disagree. My options are the same as yours with the exception of a civil war as a last resort.

[quote]
I would not recomend storming parliament on your own. But what could you do if the majority of people wanted the government to allow freedom of speech on the internet and the government refused. Protest maybe? But what would you do if the protest was met with force? [/quote]

The senate would likely disallow the bill preventing the executive having its own way if the public did not want the bill.

I would also vote for a different government next election.

63

[quote]Spry wrote:

The senate would likely disallow the bill preventing the executive having its own way if the public did not want the bill.

I would also vote for a different government next election.

[/quote]

I am reminded of the scene in Braveheart when King Edward I has informed his son the prince that an uprising has begun under William Wallace.

Prince: “Yes, I heard. This Wallace is a brigand, nothing more.”

King: “And how would you deal with this… brigand?”

Prince: “Like any common thief. Report him to the magistrate and have him punished accordingly.”

King (gets a stormy look on his face, and bellows) : “Leave us!” (As soon as everyone’s gone, he bitch-slaps the prince, knocking him to the floor.) “Wallace has already killed the magistrate, and taken control of the town!”

This anecdote can be interpreted two ways: first, the Scots, who had been disarmed by the occupying English, nonetheless still had sufficient fighting spirit to throw off an oppressive government. Second, and this speaks directly to your post, Spry, is that there comes a point at which the normal rules just no longer apply.

Certainly, as things stand now, the governments of the English-speaking world are more benign than the government of, say, Zimbabwe. There is still a senate to overturn an unpopular bill. There is still a chance to vote the bastards out next election.

Just as the lifeboats on the Titanic were not needed at all for the majority of the cruise, perhaps we don’t need our weapons right this minute. This is not to say that conditions are not subject to change. In a regime that has gone far enough that a man’s right to bear arms must be exercised, there is no longer any senate disallowing a bill because “the people don’t want it.” And there wouldn’t be any “next election.”

We are not there yet, thank God. Nor are you in Australia, nor are our English-speaking brothers in Canada and New Zealand.

But a government is heavy-handed in direct proportion to how much the people will allow it to be, and in inverse proportion to the people’s ability to resist it. Having disarmed the people of Australia, Britain and Canada, any future government can essentially do whatever it pleases, with no fear of reprisals from the public.

We keep our arms so that in the unlikely event that we ever need to bear them in defense of our lives and liberty, they will be there.

64

[quote]Sifu wrote:
sands wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

You fail to see it because either A) you have never carried a gun, B) you have never tasted actual freedom, or C) both.

What does actual freedom taste like?

How does not owning a firearm rob me of this true freedom?

Because you and your fellow citizens have no means of imposing your will collective action upon your government. Whatever liberties you do enjoy are purely at the discretion and magnanimity of the powers that be.

Let me ask you something. Isn’t it still the law that all Australians must vote in elections and if you don’t vote the police will come and take you to a polling place to cast your ballot?

A democracy where the police force people to vote is not people to vote is not a democracy, because you don’t have freedom of choice. [/quote]

It is the law that if you’re on the electoral roll you do have to vote, however not voting as far as I’m aware results in a fine as apposed to the police taking you to a polling station. You’re also able to cast a ‘donkey’ vote, essentially a non-vote.

The electoral role is something that you sign up to before you reach 18 years of age, not something that you are on from birth.

I don’t find this to be an invasion or retraction of the freedoms that I have, though others may see it differently.

65

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:

The senate would likely disallow the bill preventing the executive having its own way if the public did not want the bill.

I would also vote for a different government next election.

I am reminded of the scene in Braveheart when King Edward I has informed his son the prince that an uprising has begun under William Wallace.

Prince: “Yes, I heard. This Wallace is a brigand, nothing more.”

King: “And how would you deal with this… brigand?”

Prince: “Like any common thief. Report him to the magistrate and have him punished accordingly.”

King (gets a stormy look on his face, and bellows) : “Leave us!” (As soon as everyone’s gone, he bitch-slaps the prince, knocking him to the floor.) “Wallace has already killed the magistrate, and taken control of the town!”

This anecdote can be interpreted two ways: first, the Scots, who had been disarmed by the occupying English, nonetheless still had sufficient fighting spirit to throw off an oppressive government. Second, and this speaks directly to your post, Spry, is that there comes a point at which the normal rules just no longer apply.

Certainly, as things stand now, the governments of the English-speaking world are more benign than the government of, say, Zimbabwe. There is still a senate to overturn an unpopular bill. There is still a chance to vote the bastards out next election.

Just as the lifeboats on the Titanic were not needed at all for the majority of the cruise, perhaps we don’t need our weapons right this minute. This is not to say that conditions are not subject to change. In a regime that has gone far enough that a man’s right to bear arms must be exercised, there is no longer any senate disallowing a bill because “the people don’t want it.” And there wouldn’t be any “next election.”

We are not there yet, thank God. Nor are you in Australia, nor are our English-speaking brothers in Canada and New Zealand.

But a government is heavy-handed in direct proportion to how much the people will allow it to be, and in inverse proportion to the people’s ability to resist it. Having disarmed the people of Australia, Britain and Canada, any future government can essentially do whatever it pleases, with no fear of reprisals from the public.

We keep our arms so that in the unlikely event that we ever need to bear them in defense of our lives and liberty, they will be there.[/quote]

Exactly, the right to bear arms is not something you may need to excercise most of the time but when you need it you need. Just like the lifeboats on a cruise ship or seatbelts on a car.

In Britain the government already has done exactly as it pleases. They canceled the refferendum on the EU constitution that was promised to the electorate at the last general election. Gordon Brown who was not elected by the people to be the Prime Minister signed away the countries sovereignty to another government without getting the peoples consent like they promised to.

In Britain 1984 is considered to be a blueprint for government.

66

[quote]AndyG wrote:

The fear mongering part of your statement is that the govt cares more about the well being of criminals than the well being of law abiding members of society. That is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve heard in my life. The purpose of gun laws is to stop criminals getting their hands on guns.
[/quote]

And the purpose of drug laws is to stop people from getting drugs.

How does that work so far?

67

[quote]Sifu wrote:
hardgnr wrote:
I really fail to see the dire need to own a gun…its got nothing to do with freedom either, I don’t buy that bullshit.

If you lived in Detroit you would get a different view. But because you live in a country with low crime you can take your safety for granted. For now. Just because you don’t see the need doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Instead because it isn’t right now blatantly glaring you in the face you assume things will never change for the worse.

Gun ownership has a lot to do with freedom. In order to make gun control work you have to infringe freedom and give the police ever increasing power to monitor, search and arrest people. [/quote]

Good point. But from the sounds of it, it sounds like you need a gun to protect yourself from those with guns. Seems like a double-egded sword. Of course I personally can’t see the need for guns having never handled one in my life, and never being a situation where a gun might be useful. I don’t assume things will not change for the worse, but then again, why would they?

68

I have a sinking feeling that the liberals will eventually roll over and support the filter. I can already foresee how the debate will go down. Those who oppose the filter will be asked “so why is it that you support pedophiles” or “why do you think that terrorists should be allowed to access Islamic militant websites”.

The Liberals will just put a couple of pissweak conditions on their support in order to save face as they vote it through.

As time goes by, the amount of content that is blocked will gradually expand. Lobby groups all around the country will push for more and more sites to be blocked.

Don’t let Australia become the only Western democracy on earth stupid and apathetic enough to allow this to happen.

Write to your senators Aussies. Let them know that supporting the filter will guarantee that you will never consider voting for them again.

Even if you trust the current government with this power, you should consider the fact that you have no idea who will be prime minister in ten or twenty year’s time. Believe me when I say that if the mandatory filter is successfully introduced, it will remain indefinitely into the future. Governments never tend to voluntarily scale back their own powers.

If you come across a local politician in public, let them know that if their party supports the mandatory component of the filter, they lose your vote forever at both state and federal level.

Write to your ISP and tell them that if they cooperate by volunteering to take part in the government trial, you will switch companies.

Here are some pertinent quotes you should consider:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
-Adolf Hitler

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
-Benjamin Franklin

“Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but, unlike charity, it should end there.”
-Clare Boothe Luce

“In a democracy, personal liberties are rarely diminished overnight. Rather, they are lost gradually, by acts of well-meaning people, with good intentions, amid public approval. But the subtle loss of freedom is never recognised until the crisis is over and we look back in horror. And then it is too late.”
-Judge Andrew Napolitano

“Democratic dissent is not disloyalty, it is a positive civic duty.”
-Shami Chakrabarti

69

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
I wish the government would hurry up and improve our internet infrastructure so we can be in the same league as the rest of the developed world.[/quote]

I think this line is the most telling line of this thread about how pathetic you Aussies are.

mike

70

That’s not a nice way to speak to a nation of people who will probably be sending aid to you in a few years time.

71

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I wish the government would hurry up and improve our internet infrastructure so we can be in the same league as the rest of the developed world.

I think this line is the most telling line of this thread about how pathetic you Aussies are.

mike[/quote]

Mike,

Thinking people are pathetic because of the internet speed available to them is pathetic.

I’m sure high speed internet is necessary for you to upload your homemade gay porn though. Good luck with that.

72

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I wish the government would hurry up and improve our internet infrastructure so we can be in the same league as the rest of the developed world.

I think this line is the most telling line of this thread about how pathetic you Aussies are.

mike

Mike,

Thinking people are pathetic because of the internet speed available to them is pathetic.

I’m sure high speed internet is necessary for you to upload your homemade gay porn though. Good luck with that.[/quote]

sigh and the fact that you think I’m referring to your dissatisfaction with your internet speed continues to make my point. I’d also like to point out for the record that I don’t enjoy this. In fact, I find it quite depressing.

mike

73

Well iinet have blasted the proposition. They have agreed to trial the filter and forward every complaint onto the minister for communication’s office. This is just an attempt to distract from the real issues facing Australia - smart politics really.

Anyone who lives near Redfern, Cronulla or Mullaloo will be able to let the Americans know just how effective Australia’s police force is when the public decides to go all angry mob. I love all the armchair experts who seem to have a deep understanding of what it is like to live here. Americans making comments about what life is like in Aus makes about as much sense as an Aussie commenting on life in America.

But hey, as you say it is a free country, so knock yourselves out. Just don’t expect anyone to put any weight to your opinions unless you actually live in the country you’re criticising :slight_smile:

74

What are you referring to Mike?

75

A quick note on the SPEED of our internet in Oz.

Our population is small BUT is also geographically widespread.

So telecommunications infrastructure (cables in the ground) is expensive since there aren’t enough customers to pay for the outlay.

I have no issue with this. Its a free market.

If an ISP wants to invest in WiMax that would be nice though.

This is a technological problem. We should be getting the CSIRO looking at WiMax, etc. (They hold a major patent on 802.11b so they should know their shit).

76

[quote]AndyG wrote:
What are you referring to Mike?[/quote]

Fist off, I want to apologize to you Aussies. I like you guys. God knows I do. But it angers me to see slavery, or the trappings of slavery in all its forms. This is what I’ve dedicated my life against.

And to see people accept their chains is one of the most repulsive things I can witness. I’ve got to learn tact. Being a dick puts you guys on the defensive, just as I automatically hit the defensive when people criticize my country. Now onward and upward.

What I’m referring to is your willing reliance on gov’t. If I want my internet speed faster I say, “Hrmm, I think I need to switch over from Verizon to Time Warner/Clearwire/ect.” Or if it’s bad enough I figure out a way to get some loans and do it myself and make a fortune in the process.

I do not automatically figure that I want the .gov to fix it. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

mike

77

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What are you referring to Mike?

Fist off, I want to apologize to you Aussies. I like you guys. God knows I do. But it angers me to see slavery, or the trappings of slavery in all its forms. This is what I’ve dedicated my life against.

And to see people accept their chains is one of the most repulsive things I can witness. I’ve got to learn tact. Being a dick puts you guys on the defensive, just as I automatically hit the defensive when people criticize my country. Now onward and upward.

What I’m referring to is your willing reliance on gov’t. If I want my internet speed faster I say, “Hrmm, I think I need to switch over from Verizon to Time Warner/Clearwire/ect.”

Or if it’s bad enough I figure out a way to get some loans and do it myself and make a fortune in the process. I do not automatically figure that I want the .gov to fix it. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

mike[/quote]

…could you provide an example where a private person created, from scratch, a nationwide data network without government assistance?

78

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…could you provide an example where a private person created, from scratch, a nationwide data network without government assistance?

[/quote]

Technology is making this a possability now.

I already explained the problem in Australia regarding geographical disspersement of our small population.

The problem in Australia is the only telco in the past was called Telecom and was wholly government owned.

Then they sold this government monopoly off which became Telstra.

But they wrote legislation fucking with Telstra and not allowing them to monopolise the market - they have to lease their data networks at “fair” wholesale rates to other companies.

This government regulation fucks everything up and now Telstra is just not willining to invest any money in building a better broadband network because they wont get to make as much money as they think they deserve.

Wireless networks are much cheaper for a geographically dispersed population (ie Australia) and this might be profitable for smaller players.

Spry.

79

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What are you referring to Mike?

Fist off, I want to apologize to you Aussies. I like you guys. God knows I do. But it angers me to see slavery, or the trappings of slavery in all its forms. This is what I’ve dedicated my life against.

And to see people accept their chains is one of the most repulsive things I can witness. I’ve got to learn tact. Being a dick puts you guys on the defensive, just as I automatically hit the defensive when people criticize my country. Now onward and upward.

What I’m referring to is your willing reliance on gov’t. If I want my internet speed faster I say, “Hrmm, I think I need to switch over from Verizon to Time Warner/Clearwire/ect.”

Or if it’s bad enough I figure out a way to get some loans and do it myself and make a fortune in the process. I do not automatically figure that I want the .gov to fix it. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

mike

…could you provide an example where a private person created, from scratch, a nationwide data network without government assistance?

[/quote]

Pony Express.

You´re welcome.

80

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What are you referring to Mike?

Fist off, I want to apologize to you Aussies. I like you guys. God knows I do. But it angers me to see slavery, or the trappings of slavery in all its forms. This is what I’ve dedicated my life against.

And to see people accept their chains is one of the most repulsive things I can witness. I’ve got to learn tact. Being a dick puts you guys on the defensive, just as I automatically hit the defensive when people criticize my country. Now onward and upward.

What I’m referring to is your willing reliance on gov’t. If I want my internet speed faster I say, “Hrmm, I think I need to switch over from Verizon to Time Warner/Clearwire/ect.” Or if it’s bad enough I figure out a way to get some loans and do it myself and make a fortune in the process.

I do not automatically figure that I want the .gov to fix it. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

mike[/quote]

Let’s face the facts. If it was commercially viable for a company to develop the infrastructure they would have.