5 ms·

Everything in Sydney is now illegal- including fun

17 points by siquick 11y ago

dalke 11y ago
What a well-written article. Even an outsider like me could follow what's happening, the explanation for what's happening seems entirely reasonable, and the references I followed all supported the evidence in a believable way. The headline of the Tyler Brûlé description "Nanny state rules making Australia 'world's dumbest nation'" seems entirely appropriate. And, WTF!? Routine strip searches at concert venues in NSW?!
deciplex 11y ago
Considering that, every time we have a gun control discussion, every person in Sydney on HN will come out of the woodwork to lecture Americans about how wonderful Australian gun control is and, gee, what a great idea a nanny state is in this one particular instance at least - no I can't say I am all that surprised, disheartened, or sympathetic to the fact that stupid rules and an overbearing legal regime have choked the life out of the entertainment economy in Sydney.
- dalke 11y ago
  That would make sense if the reasons behind both were the same. But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" More specifically, this article suggests the changes in Sydney are partially as a way for "evangelical christians to implement a framework of religious policy" and "actively shutting down any small business that it can find that doesn’t agree with its small minded evangelical 1950s view of the world." As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher gun control laws in Australia. For "nanny state" to be meaningful, it must be able to encompass both movements. But the article also points to Amsterdam and other places which have an active night life and strict gun control laws. Thus, it can't be that both are the result of some "nanny" tendency by the government. Which is why I don't understand why "nanny state" makes sense for both cases. Well, other than for some libertarian philosophies where nearly all government regulation is classed as being part of a "nanny state".
  - deciplex 11y ago
    > But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" Well, anybody is going to do that, even the author of this piece, so your observation does not give you as much insight as you seem to think, even if accurate (which it is not e.g. I would not classify overbroad copyright legislation into the 'nanny state' category, even though I think it makes for shitty policy). > As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher gun control laws in Australia. No, it is not completely different: both are instances of the governing class adopting policies formed from a mindset that they know better the morality that the people should adopt as they go about their lives. They believe partying into the early hours is wrong, and they give this away with the victim-blaming nonsense and misleading statistics, if not outright lies, they offer regarding crime in Sydney, which this article rightly tears down. Likewise, the Australian government (and most other national governments) would have you believe that owning a gun is morally wrong, and the data they use to support this assertion are generally about as convincing as the arguments made to support these ridiculous restrictions on nightlife in Sydney. Indeed, anyone who has participated in or even observed a gun control "debate" should be pretty familiar with the sort of statistical dirty tricks perpetrated here by the City of Sydney. At any rate, as an aside, in the future try to keep the ratio of strawmen to sentences in your post somewhere south of 1:1. It's not just that it's irritating to the person reading it - it also weakens your argument: your assertion of what I think makes a nanny state, and your implication about my political philosophy, are both widely off the mark.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
h0l0cube 11y ago
So can all those cool tech companies leave all the killjoys up in Sydney and set up shop in Melbourne already?
_0ffh 11y ago
The author has a very strong point to make, but ruins his article by being disingenuous throughout. Many of the cited articles say nearly-but-not-quite what he claims them to say. Why not just keep it real, instead of putting people off by trying to manipulate them?

17 points by siquick 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

What a well-written article. Even an outsider like me could follow what's happening, the explanation for what's happening seems entirely reasonable, and the references I followed all supported the evidence in a believable way. The headline of the Tyler Brûlé description "Nanny state rules making Australia 'world's dumbest nation'" seems entirely appropriate. And, WTF!? Routine strip searches at concert venues in NSW?!

deciplex 11y ago

Considering that, every time we have a gun control discussion, every person in Sydney on HN will come out of the woodwork to lecture Americans about how wonderful Australian gun control is and, gee, what a great idea a nanny state is in this one particular instance at least - no I can't say I am all that surprised, disheartened, or sympathetic to the fact that stupid rules and an overbearing legal regime have choked the life out of the entertainment economy in Sydney.

dalke 11y ago
That would make sense if the reasons behind both were the same. But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" More specifically, this article suggests the changes in Sydney are partially as a way for "evangelical christians to implement a framework of religious policy" and "actively shutting down any small business that it can find that doesn’t agree with its small minded evangelical 1950s view of the world." As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher gun control laws in Australia. For "nanny state" to be meaningful, it must be able to encompass both movements. But the article also points to Amsterdam and other places which have an active night life and strict gun control laws. Thus, it can't be that both are the result of some "nanny" tendency by the government. Which is why I don't understand why "nanny state" makes sense for both cases. Well, other than for some libertarian philosophies where nearly all government regulation is classed as being part of a "nanny state".
- deciplex 11y ago
  > But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state" Well, anybody is going to do that, even the author of this piece, so your observation does not give you as much insight as you seem to think, even if accurate (which it is not e.g. I would not classify overbroad copyright legislation into the 'nanny state' category, even though I think it makes for shitty policy). > As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher gun control laws in Australia. No, it is not completely different: both are instances of the governing class adopting policies formed from a mindset that they know better the morality that the people should adopt as they go about their lives. They believe partying into the early hours is wrong, and they give this away with the victim-blaming nonsense and misleading statistics, if not outright lies, they offer regarding crime in Sydney, which this article rightly tears down. Likewise, the Australian government (and most other national governments) would have you believe that owning a gun is morally wrong, and the data they use to support this assertion are generally about as convincing as the arguments made to support these ridiculous restrictions on nightlife in Sydney. Indeed, anyone who has participated in or even observed a gun control "debate" should be pretty familiar with the sort of statistical dirty tricks perpetrated here by the City of Sydney. At any rate, as an aside, in the future try to keep the ratio of strawmen to sentences in your post somewhere south of 1:1. It's not just that it's irritating to the person reading it - it also weakens your argument: your assertion of what I think makes a nanny state, and your implication about my political philosophy, are both widely off the mark.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

h0l0cube 11y ago

So can all those cool tech companies leave all the killjoys up in Sydney and set up shop in Melbourne already?

_0ffh 11y ago

The author has a very strong point to make, but ruins his article by being disingenuous throughout. Many of the cited articles say nearly-but-not-quite what he claims them to say. Why not just keep it real, instead of putting people off by trying to manipulate them?