Darth Vader

The Government in our daily lives

   20 members have voted

  1. 1. Our Government should consult us more before bringing in new laws?

    • Yes, Much more (the pollies and bcrats are out of control)
      13
    • A bit more would be nice please
      3
    • Its all good as it is
      2
    • They should just do what they think is right
      2
  2. 2. Is the Government getting too controlling and invasive?

    • Yes, its like George Orwell 1984 these days
      9
    • Its a bit over the top but not too bad
      8
    • Its all good as it is
      1
    • We need more more more laws to control people these days
      0
    • I'm so drunk i cant remember what the question was
      3

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

147 posts in this topic

I'm interested in what people think these days. Am i the only one who fears knock on the door?

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in what people think these days. Am i the only one who fears knock on the door?

not so much a knock on the door, just death by a thousand cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned with where policing is at now. My bigger concern is that there is little societal pushback on these things and yet there once was. Now our governments give the police more powers and we near universally applaud it. We watch on TV as police brutalise someone with a taser and we think these people are in a position to be given more power. I know I know you cannot tar them all with the same brush but this is the point you cannot trust all of them either.

I read the removalists as a student and maybe it had a more profound effect on me than I thought at the time as I have had no real qualms with police over the years in my personal life. They have always been fair to me, or even perhaps more than fair at times. I do not want to live in a society where police have the powers to randomly stop anyone. I would prefer to see police respond, react be a physical presence. Not cameras and dogs sniffing you as you walk around the city doing your business. And my biggest concern around all thsi is I get the feeling this is all only just the beggining. At some point we are going to look back and wonder how we let it happen. How did we give up so much control of our own lives.

On the consulting question I said yes they should consult more but I am not even sure if this is what I would prefer. I would prefer fewer laws uniform in there applications and simpel in there construction. It is like 2000 years ago Jesus could frame a person living well in a handfull of words basically think of your neighbours and do to them what you would have them do to you. Yet today we need thousands of regulations around everything we do from day to day.

A legal system as the one we have is perfectly capable of judging people fairly without regulation that just seems to bugger everything up. I actually think less time shoudl be spent around minor laws it is big picture stuff you steal you go to prison, you hurt someone you go to prison. I cannot see why we need various laws specific to various occasions and situations. It would seem preferable to me that it was left as it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned with where policing is at now. My bigger concern is that there is little societal pushback on these things and yet there once was. Now our governments give the police more powers and we near universally applaud it. We watch on TV as police brutalise someone with a taser and we think these people are in a position to be given more power. I know I know you cannot tar them all with the same brush but this is the point you cannot trust all of them either.

There has never been a better time to become a libertarian(before its out of control). Welcome on board Tom. Internet censorship anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has never been a better time to become a libertarian(before its out of control). Welcome on board Tom. Internet censorship anyone?

I was just thinking that perhaps these things go in waves like other things. It gets to a point people like ourselves start to get upset and then all at once society strikes a balance once again when enough people get upset aboput where it is headed. When you mentioned in the poll George Orwell it was no doubt the very intention of his writing. You would think that would have some long term effect on democracies deciding on the way forward. I seem to recall Georges world in 1984 had a democracy of sorts yet total police control.

Where do I sign up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government has less control now due to an increase in the openness of communications.

I also think that in general people that are not used to making laws do it badly at first.

Hence I voted for both being alright at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government has less control now due to an increase in the openness of communications.

I agree with that.

And the general selfishness, legal entitlement and rights of individuals has never been higher. Australian society = a bunch of spoiled brats being babysat by lazy parents that are too worried about being PC and making it easy on themselves.

HTFU and bring back the biff:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i voted for "I'm so drunk i cant remember what the question was" because it's the most funny option i've ever seen in a poll!

i think big brother is watching - the banner ad when i opened this thread was a govt water consultation one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saw a show in foxtel about some super cop car some cops designed,

had extra cup holders, reverse seat belts in back for easier man handling of " passengers " , cut out seats so guns wouldn't be uncomfortable while driving, IR camera for looking around at night.

im sure of the cops actually had to spend their own money, they may have cut a few of the extravagant options, but thats kinda the prob with big gov, they spend other peoples money like there was no end to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I think Australia is possibly a bit over regulated, I actually think that is a response to what the Australian public wants, the politicians are responding to us. Everytime there is some high profile accident, there will always be calls for some sort of extra rule to try and prevent it happening again.

Sometimes these can be extremely worthwhile, like laws against drink driving, and sometimes they can be petty, like signs pointing out the obvious, that a smooth surface may become slippery when it rains on them. I also think the ltigious nature of our society is responsible for a lot of regulation as well, with everyone worried about being sued for public liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal pet peeve is the new child restraints laws, mainly because I have a small, quite economical car and modern car seats are mammoth great things that you NEED an SUV to fit them into. I have been unsuccessful at finding modern car seats that fit in my car so I've had to resort to secondhand ones that are probably not legal (the modern variants look the same, just have 10x more padding), simply because I can't afford a SUV and I really, really need a car.

You need to keep your kids in car seats until they are 7 ... some 7 year old kids are as tall as their parents. Some 7 year old kids weigh more than I do. Why can't you just take your kids out of a car seat when they are tall enough to look out of the windows? Has there been a spate of accidents lately in modern cars that has been killing children under 7?

At the same time, as a pedestrian you can wander around with your kid tucked under your arm, you can let a 7yo roam around, you can push a pram without 5 airbags and a 5 point safety harness, and frankly being on foot or pushing a pram is more dangerous these days, what with all the fancy safety features and crumple zones in your average modern car.

I think the whole thing might be a ploy from the car seat manufacturing business to make us buy a new seat every couple of years instead of just buying one reversible one that lasts 4 years, and then you just stick your kid on a little booster seat. Its not a bad racket considering most seats out there cost $400-800 each and you aren't supposed to sell them secondhand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a spate of accidents lately in modern cars that has been killing children under 7?

Nah we just started paying people to breed and want to protect our investment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that is a response to what the Australian public wants, the politicians are responding to us. Everytime there is some high profile accident, there will always be calls for some sort of extra rule to try and prevent it happening again.

I am not sure it is what the public wants. The media has to fill the hours, the easiest way is to be sensationalist. This, I think, has become part of the psyche; in that more people seem to have stronger feelings about things and fewer have mediocre feelings.

The end result is that the noisy ones get heard because the media doesn't really want me going "meh it'll work itself out eventually" because that is boring tele. They would prefer a bunch of whack jobs protesting a pedo living somewhere.

Feedback loop and suddenly the politicians are inundated with whack jobs calling for something to be done. The whack jobs even start voting for politicians that are stupid enough to make promises regarding the daft ideas.

Fortunately the politicians pandering to the whack jobs never seem to have any workable solutions and the judicial system shuts them down often enough that we don't end up out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is Zaph and my fault. For the record I am pretty sure he was joking and I wouldn't be capable of coming up with ten names.

(oh and we are over here now, Lord Vader saw the derailment and started a separate topic)

correct. you'd want some sort of theme to the names. i have a friend called james

his parents met and 5 kids

June and John met and had:

George, Jennifer, Jane, Julie and James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct. you'd want some sort of theme to the names. i have a friend called james

his parents met and 5 kids

June and John met and had:

George, Jennifer, Jane, Julie and James

See I would do the old school techie thing and try name them all as norse gods or something after 5 or 6 I would run out and end up calling the next one "Child 7".

Just like so many networks out there :)

One of the brisbane schools has this exact naming convention. I was not responsible for it.

At one place we had FileMaestro as the f&p server hehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I would do the old school techie thing and try name them all as norse gods or something after 5 or 6 I would run out and end up calling the next one "Child 7".

Just like so many networks out there :)

One of the brisbane schools has this exact naming convention. I was not responsible for it.

At one place we had FileMaestro as the f&p server hehehe

child 7 would be a pretty cool name. better than prince tor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tried to post over there. I'm not allowed. Don't know why. So I'll put my post here, having spent some minutes writing it. Perhaps a mod could move it over there. Also, some comments were directed to me on a thread I was involved in about trading options. For some reason I've been prevented from replying. Again, I don't know why. An explanation would be appreciated.

Anyway, this is what I tried to post:

Attitudes to law, and the enforcement thereof, are based on past traditional and cultural practices.

Countries like Greece and Italy have no problem with enacting new laws when instructed to do so by the EU. A country like the UK has big problems with accepting new EU laws and enacting them. It stems from completely different perspectives on the meaning of laws.

In countries like Greece they see things as right or wrong. If something goes wrong, like there is a car accident where they decide someone did something wrong and should be punished, they will use the law to achieve the punishment which they decide is appropriate for the wrong doing. But they will not go around trying to enforce that same law in the absence of a problem. A classic Mediterranean utterance is “what's the problem?” Another example is traffic lights in Rome. Traffic lights there are used only for guidance (despite the law). People go through red lights with care, without putting lives at risk, and don't have to fear the police. But the law still exists for situations where someone caused an accident without taking care. Again, the law is there to be used if there is a problem. The law is NOT viewed as something to be enforced.

In general, the UK has a policy of law enforcement. In line with that, cameras now completely cover almost all central town areas in the UK. Australia's historic connection has resulted in it having the same attitude to law. Laws are to be enforced regardless of whether there is a problem. Therefore, when the EU instructs the UK to adopt laws the UK seriously considers its agreement or opposition because it knows that it is going to enforce such a law. The EU has made Britain make it a criminal offence to sell stuff at so much per pound weight, even in a street market. When the law was first enacted a trader selling in pounds was prosecuted and jailed. That was enforcement and it sent a message to others. Such enforcement, against traditional practices, would never happen in Greece.

At the core, is the issue of enforcement. In Australia, like Britain, the police have been given to understand that it is their job to enforce the law – independently of whether there is a problem. No one, neither politicians nor the public, have disabused them of this role. And, of course, going around enforcing laws, like RBTs speed cameras and dog sniffing, is much easier than dealing with problems like assault and theft.

I take the view, like the Greeks, that the law should be viewed as a tool to be used when necessary. But it isn't up to me and I see most people in Australia want the laws to be enforced. Tom expressed his concern that random testing/searches/inspections could be extended to peoples homes. It already happens. Swimming pool fences can be, and are, randomly inspected in Queensland. Those pools are a part of peoples homes. You could be screwing your missus in the pool when the inspectors arrive. They have the power to force entry on a random basis without suspicion that a crime is being committed. Random drug searches in homes, random computer hard disk searches...........soon.

An interesting post so I quoted it here.

In my martial art we have a bunch of rules. One of which is regarding fighting people from a different martial art. This is a great fun activity and many of us really enjoy it (on both sides).

Officially it should not happen without a 3rd dan present to supervise. Mixing the styles can lead people to get excitable and so an experienced person that can keep things under control is specifically desired. Given that when isshu jiai is occurring there are no actual rules regarding various techniques which are allowed and some of those are quite dangerous techniques this makes a hel of a lot of sense. We are all martial arts people and obviously there is a lot of ego at play. Some people start using foot sweeps (not allowed in either style when done "natively") and some use aiki techniques, knee rolls etc. All of these techniques can make it a hell of a good time. Or they can turn it into an awful ego driven lot of craziness.

Most of the southern european (say france and down) countries regard this 3rd dan rule as a guideline; get someone that can keep things under control. Most of the northern countries (say the netherlands and higher) regard it as a flat out rule; a 3rd dan, by definition, is someone that can keep things under control.

I have trained at dojos in most of the countries or with students from the countries. Both systems work until they come into contact with each other.

Comparing the two when stand alone is kind of pointless, the same end goal is achieved.

Using half of one sides rules and half from the other sides is a nightmare.

If we were to have the northern european ideas of property being sanctioned (where I suspect the climate has made a more private lifestyle standard) combined with the idea of authority figures having a much wider range of choice I think we might end up with a pointless conflict in society.

I do not see random searches of home or hard drives likely to happen in either society because of the nature of each society. One would regard it as an invasion of privacy and the other would regard it as a stupid act by authorities.

That said both the southern and northern people bitch endlessly about their system and the others system. Self centred behaviour is a universal I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On speed cameras, I own shares in Redflex- a speed and red light camera Australian company. If one looks up Redflex in google, they are absolutely hated in the USA, where they have some contracts (and some cancelled contracts). It is perhaps the libertarian approach (or tea party approach?) there, that rails against the intrusion of such cameras. On buying RDF, I spoke to my ethical sounding board, my gf, to ask her what she thought of such a company. Coincidentally, she had studied speed cameras, and thinks they are highly "ethical". She's a pedestrian, who doesn't drive. I imagine most walkers, and perhaps cyclists, might feel differently about speed cameras, than might drivers. On the "why" of speed cameras, she studied the science of them, and said the revenue raising aspect is rubbish- the science is purely based on accident zones, etc. As for me, I thought I might have run one last night (most of the roads I travel are now 50km zones, and some 40km zones. Realising i was driving at 60km's for a part of the road, I checked one of the sites that shows speed camera locations, and visited the RTA site. The science is written on the RTA site- whether people think that is just propaganda or not is another thing.

I think Redflex has given up on new contracts in the USA (although it seems a US competitor in the field is one of the suitors who wishes to take them over). However, RDF has just got a contract in Saudi Arabia. There is perhaps less of a libertarian approach there, although we'll see. In the USA, there was litigation against RDF, by individuals, and by States- all about invasion of privacy. Here, we just pay the fine and lose the points.

On sniffer dogs, I read some years ago- not sure if it has changed- that dogs can't go into cafes, but can go into pubs, and of course into public areas. Probably best to nick into a cafe if doggies are near.

On the 1984 possiblities, I had an ex-gf who came from a supposedly communist, but clearly fascist, govt, who encouraged neighbours to dob on each other if they believed there was anti-govt business happening in their neighbour's home. It is little wonder that people have wanted to immigrate to Australia. The closest I can think of for a similar dob-in approach has been the dob-ins for social security irregularities, and dob in a terrorist.

On tasers and capsicum spray, tom, you might have seen a lot of the campaign work that's been done around this. I do wonder if there's been an over-representation of the mentally ill and the other usual visible targets, who have been subjected to capsicum pray and to tasers. I've cetainly seen enough protesters being capsicum sprayed to know that it looks painful for those in the firing line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wanna go again?"

I expected better than that from you tin.

Rabble rousing is exactly how goebbels et al got to do their sh*t. Invoke a simple to understand example and therefore the case is closed.

Yes I agree that police and naturalised citizens have to live to higher standards than native born people because they have taken an oath to do so whereas natives and non naturalised people have not sworn that oath and so don't have to live by it.

However making the taser thing your core argument is pretty weak.

I would simply counter with the shootings in NSW and Victoria in the 90's to show that we are less of a dictatorship than we were.

Logically of course _NO_ dictatorship becomes less of one through choice or public opinion, almost invariably they become less through a cataclysmic event.

Therefore if we are less of a dictatorship and no dictatorship has become less so in a simple quiet period it would stand to reason that we probably weren't then and can't possibly be one now.

I, and I think many others in this thread, are actually interested in discussing where we are now and how we get better.

Comparing a taser incident to the murder of millions of jews, fags and gypsys not to mention the soldiers that died fighting that regime denigrates their murder, your argument, the soldiers and is just plain illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State companies, aka the federal government, state governments and their departments ROUTINELY do not obey the law, and abuse their position of power. The parliament on occasions pass unlawful statutes (thanks to corrupt and incompetent attorney-generals and an AWOL head-of-state), the executive routinely ignore the law for their own benefit, and the judiciary is used by the fore-mentioned to discourage dissent and pillage the common people... a judicial review costs over a grand and is out of reach of most people screwed over by the government and dragged through the court system.

The ATO cannot even prove that it was lawfully created: http://www.clrg.info/2010/08/australian-tax-office-not-a-legal-entity/

Saying 'obey the law' may sound simple, but, what if laws conflict? What if a statute is unlawful? What if you have no contractual obligation (to a company)? What if the government company is not a legal entity? Personally I would rather learn the system and f*ck the system over if they want a pound of flesh from me.

Sally touches on an important point. Police should not be used to enforce policies or raise revenue, they are peace officers and their duty is to maintain the peace. It is the role of the judiciary to enforce the law through the court system. Another point about cops, states are forbidden from raising military forces (S114 Const)... when did the people consent to state police military forces? My understanding is that UK and New Zealand cops cannot carry guns for a similar reason.

Note: for those who are unaware anybody can press criminal charges, you don't need to wait for the cops to do it.

The problem for me is that you are coming across as a first year law student.

I don't care if the ATO is legal or not. Mostly I don't care if many things required to make society work are legal or not.

I do care when a single person decides they won't pay their taxes because they are smarter / better / whatever than the rest of us.

Society is a cooperative deal. If you don't want to cooperate then stop using everything given to you by that society. Seems a fair exchange.

If you want to change society good for you, knock yourself out, there are loads of people doing it and some of them I agree with and applaud for their efforts.

If you want to not pay taxes / speeding fines / etc because you have a smart lawyer or whatever you are being unethical unless you also forgo all of the benefits brought to you by that society.

If you were to go and attempt to fix up laws which allow corporations or gov departments to evade the law I would heartily applaud you. If you are doing this so you don't have to pay taxes whilst utilising the outcome of those taxes you are openly stating you are a selfish arsehole and I would drop you as soon as look at you[1].

[1] I wouldn't of course but f*ck me I would want to.

Solipsism and intellectual skills are awesome until you bring them to your daily life. Then you just become a selfish arsehole sponging off others.

Oh and NZ & UK cops generally have guns, normally kept in the car though from memory. A gun does not a soldier make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for a bit more consultation for Q1

Government is obligated to make decisions in the countries best interest. If a decision is unpopular then they need to sell the policy with good reasoned argument.* I can't think of a single policy in recent years which has been implemented in this way.

The internet censorship laws are worrying. There are plenty of other laws that are outdated, biased etc. Look at that illegal abortion case in Qld. Ridiculous. I'm pro choice but from either perspective, you either enforce the law or it should be removed from the books.

Police powers are a different matter. Tazering somebody as a punishment is manifestly wrong and I believe it is most likely illegal. The officers responsible should be subject to the same penalties as others in regard to assault.

I don't think corruption is a huge issue in the government/APS. It most certainly goes on in places but that is human nature. You'll never stop it completely. An independent investigative body is usually a good idea to try to stamp it out.

Cameras were responsible for me getting busted peeing in the parliamentary gardens late one night. It's personal with that particular camera. I don't believe that the cameras necessarily prevent crime but they do make me rest easier in that my assailant will be bought to justice.

I don't mind speed cameras so much - I drive an Astra and don't speed. (much) . <_< Sniffer dogs I find hard to take. Drug laws in general annoy me though. But there's plenty to be said on either side of that one. As a general rule I don't care what people do as long as they don't negatively affect someone or something else while doing it. Some iced up maniac might stab me but by that logic we should ban alcohol. See what I mean? No way to get 100% agreement.

*

1. State the problem clearly and the objective of the policy

2. Work out the alternatives to achieve the desired outcome

3. Pick the least worst one

4. Implement it and measure if it's working, if not go back to step 2 and repeat.

They also need to address equity concerns and phase in the change to give people time to adjust to the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to keep your kids in car seats until they are 7 ... some 7 year old kids are as tall as their parents. Some 7 year old kids weigh more than I do. Why can't you just take your kids out of a car seat when they are tall enough to look out of the windows? Has there been a spate of accidents lately in modern cars that has been killing children under 7?

nah, not car seats - really? booster seats, sure, but not car seats. a 7 year old in a car seat would be a bit bizarre i think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society is a cooperative deal. If you don't want to cooperate then stop using everything given to you by that society. Seems a fair exchange.

Hey tor, don't look now but you're sounding a little socialist:)

haven't we had debates before where you were more rights of the individual and I was more social cohesion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Wanna go again?"

Its what the cop said in the clip. The screams from the victim were quaint eh?

WA police need 9 guys to taser a suspect 13 times in a secure area for refusing a stripsearch. But I have seen two coppers immobilise a crazy 120kg dude 10 years ago when they 'protected and served'. They can legally stop me on the street and search me without cause and if I have my Victorinox or Sailing knife I'm toast.

This is a society developing?

The National Socialist Party of Germany took power in a legit manner and then eroded rights slowly at first. In fact in 1933/34 Nazi policy was fairly moderate.

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/total/n-german.htm#total-society

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,

habe ich nicht protestiert;

ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,

gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

(When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.)

-Sermon (January 1946), as quoted in Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (1984) by James Bentley, p. 177

Where do we draw the line as to 'what is acceptable' by govt and paramilitary authorities (WA police went that way about 8-10 years ago)?

Lets do nothing Tor. Lets not publish videos of the paramilitary basically conducting torture in one of our cities (not Abu Ghraib, not on the violent streets, but East Perth lockup) to illicit public comment. Lets not question why so many guys are not patrolling the streets exhibiting their presence as a deterrent but having fun at the lockup with a helpless victim?

Why can I own a hunting bow with an arrow set than can drop a Water Buffalo dead at 50 yards but not an Air Rifle?

What about that I can own some swords that cleave a Leg of Lamb in two, a Machete, some 12inch bowies but carrying a pocket knife can get me arrested?

What about when I'm 80 and arthritic and booked for riding my mobility scooter home from the pub at a fast walking pace on the footpath even though its unlicenced and I don't need a riding permit?

Why can't I ride my bicycle to the shop without a helmet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now