6 ms·

Australians simply don't care about this shit. They've lived in an industrialised colony, with all its rewards, for too long - as long as they're still able to

by mmjaa 10y ago

Australians simply don't care about this shit. They've lived in an industrialised colony, with all its rewards, for too long - as long as they're still able to live the good life, who cares what the government gets up to .. Its a shame, because Australia has, in many ways, a culture that could produce great things. But its still ham-strung by its dependence on colonialist thinking in the halls of power.

vacri 10y ago
What do you mean by 'colonialist thinking'?
- watbe 10y ago
  Only a guess, but I think it means "the government knows what is best for its citizens".
  - ue_ 10y ago
    That is hardly unique to Australia. Britain, Canada, NZ all have no problem at all with censorship, so much that they will even censor fiction. These countries, one of whuch I am a citizen of, have not a single strand of libertarianism in government nor populace, and it's a shame.
    - vacri 10y ago
      Yeah, how shameful. Aus/Can/NZ routinely top quality-of-life measures along with the nordic countries. Libertarianism is codified selfishness, and it's not conducive to healthy societies.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        With regard to libertarian capitalism, I agree with your selfishness analysis. I wasn't referring to that, though, I was more referring to certain rights and freedoms guaranteed for example by the US constitution, and the lack of them in the countries I mentioned. Please see my reply to wycx.
        vacri 10y ago
        You can be for civil rights without being a libertarian. It's a weird US style of view that only libertarians are for civil rights. Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist. Nevermind also that the other Anglo nations have never had anything like "Free Speech Zones". Or that their police follow Peelian principles, and don't routinely send SWAT teams into people's homes. When it comes to civil liberties, Peelian police are far more preferable than US police. It doesn't really matter what the constitution says - what matters is how it's applied. Freedom of Speech is the big one in the US constitution and it's great. But Australians have a strong social expectation of freedom of speech (have a look at the Andrew Bolt court case, for example), and freedom of political speech is legally protected. Don't get misled by the blocking of ThePirateBay into thinking Australia is some sort of Orwellian 1984. And, holy fuck, the US also has a history of censorship, despite that constitutional amendment. Stuff that would fly in the UK has been blocked in the US on obscenity grounds (see Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words", for example). And let's not forget the birthplace of the DMCA, which is just another form of blocking places like ThePirateBay (of which there is no US analogue). Or the National Security Letters, that have HNers crapping on about the pros and cons of warrant canaries. In short, the 'constitutional protections' don't play out much differently in practice. They're a good thing to have, but free speech in the US is a lot more complex than that first amendment would lead you to believe.
        skissane 10y ago
        > Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist There is no legal obstacle to an atheist holding any political office in the US (federal, state or local). Now, in many of those cases, it can be a political obstacle – many people won't vote for an open atheist – but there is no legal barrier. Attempts to restrict political offices on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) are clear violations of the First Amendment. By contrast, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK: Roman Catholics are legally barred from holding the office of head of state (King/Queen). Suppose, hypothetically, Prince Charles wanted to convert to Catholicism–then by doing so he'd automatically cut himself out of the line of succession.
    - wycx 10y ago
      Others would disagree that libertarianism is absent, and that its absence is a shame, e.g. [1]. Indeed, they say that the influence of libertarianism is responsible for some of Australia's governmental problems, most conspicuously on display this past week. [1] https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/01/rundle-the-liberal-partys-inevitable-decay/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/01/rundle-the-liberal-part...
      - ue_ 10y ago
        Oh, I didn't mean this. I think I have made a poor choice of words. I was referring more to having various rights and freedoms, outside of the economic sphere, such as freedom of speech, or privacy, or free association etc. I'm an anarcho-Communist, actually. I wasn't referring to laissez-faire capitalism or neoliberalism. Sorry if this was your interpretation, I did not mean it that way!
      - ggame 10y ago
        Liberals are not very libertarian; especially under Malcolm Turnbull. There is a small strand of libertarianism and that's the Liberal Democratic Party. Australia has an unsustainable property bubble that has made a large chunk of the middle class very wealthy. This has shifted the culture from self reliance to 'don't rock the boat.' This alone is an anti-innovation tragedy. The bubble will pop eventually and the taxes will go up. Aus can't print new money and we have an untouchable entitlement culture. If you can't pay the new taxes they will use the firewall to block your site. It's going to be a mess and I wish them the best of luck.
        mmjaa 10y ago
        You nailed the entitled thing. I'm a born and bred sand groper .. So .. After quite some time abroad, getting to know the species, my sojourns back home to Australia led me to truly cringe at just how entitled folks are, down under. It was a bit humbling to have been driven off the edge of the continent by the culture, even though the land itself pulled me with much gravity, wave by dune by storm ..
    - mmjaa 10y ago
      Why must it be unique to Australia? It is a land in reflection of a great many other cultures, after all. You could find many ways to prototype social engineering in such a controlled environment.. so the argument of identity is moot, imhso.
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    Yes, I do believe in this. I strongly abhor the influence that the Australian government has on its citizens live; it cannot be denied that it enables a great body of people to live, and get along, but it must be understood that it was not without some truly human costs. Governments must be weighed by the integrity of their impact on the species; not just the sovereign, individual, citizens they have/have-not yet divided into appropriately allocated lots.
    - vacri 10y ago
      Can you give us some examples of places that do it better? And what the truly human costs are of the Australian approach? What is the Australian government doing that harms the species itself in ways that your undisclosed preferred locations don't? Give us something to go on rather than vague expressions of displeasure.
cylinder 10y ago
Australia survived and prospered due to government. It's the only way a million people on a giant remote continent could. What is the opposite of "colonialist thinking" anyways? American sociopathy?
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Why do things have to be opposite? Dialectic Materialism, another thing Australia "is good at"?
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
How does being a colony affect this? Or in what way does the meaning change versus a switch of "colony" for "country" and "colonialist" for "politicians"?

by mmjaa 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

What do you mean by 'colonialist thinking'?

watbe 10y ago
Only a guess, but I think it means "the government knows what is best for its citizens".
- ue_ 10y ago
  That is hardly unique to Australia. Britain, Canada, NZ all have no problem at all with censorship, so much that they will even censor fiction. These countries, one of whuch I am a citizen of, have not a single strand of libertarianism in government nor populace, and it's a shame.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Yeah, how shameful. Aus/Can/NZ routinely top quality-of-life measures along with the nordic countries. Libertarianism is codified selfishness, and it's not conducive to healthy societies.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      With regard to libertarian capitalism, I agree with your selfishness analysis. I wasn't referring to that, though, I was more referring to certain rights and freedoms guaranteed for example by the US constitution, and the lack of them in the countries I mentioned. Please see my reply to wycx.
      - vacri 10y ago
        You can be for civil rights without being a libertarian. It's a weird US style of view that only libertarians are for civil rights. Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist. Nevermind also that the other Anglo nations have never had anything like "Free Speech Zones". Or that their police follow Peelian principles, and don't routinely send SWAT teams into people's homes. When it comes to civil liberties, Peelian police are far more preferable than US police. It doesn't really matter what the constitution says - what matters is how it's applied. Freedom of Speech is the big one in the US constitution and it's great. But Australians have a strong social expectation of freedom of speech (have a look at the Andrew Bolt court case, for example), and freedom of political speech is legally protected. Don't get misled by the blocking of ThePirateBay into thinking Australia is some sort of Orwellian 1984. And, holy fuck, the US also has a history of censorship, despite that constitutional amendment. Stuff that would fly in the UK has been blocked in the US on obscenity grounds (see Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words", for example). And let's not forget the birthplace of the DMCA, which is just another form of blocking places like ThePirateBay (of which there is no US analogue). Or the National Security Letters, that have HNers crapping on about the pros and cons of warrant canaries. In short, the 'constitutional protections' don't play out much differently in practice. They're a good thing to have, but free speech in the US is a lot more complex than that first amendment would lead you to believe.
        skissane 10y ago
        > Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist There is no legal obstacle to an atheist holding any political office in the US (federal, state or local). Now, in many of those cases, it can be a political obstacle – many people won't vote for an open atheist – but there is no legal barrier. Attempts to restrict political offices on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) are clear violations of the First Amendment. By contrast, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK: Roman Catholics are legally barred from holding the office of head of state (King/Queen). Suppose, hypothetically, Prince Charles wanted to convert to Catholicism–then by doing so he'd automatically cut himself out of the line of succession.
  - wycx 10y ago
    Others would disagree that libertarianism is absent, and that its absence is a shame, e.g. [1]. Indeed, they say that the influence of libertarianism is responsible for some of Australia's governmental problems, most conspicuously on display this past week. [1] https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/01/rundle-the-liberal-partys-inevitable-decay/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/01/rundle-the-liberal-part...
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Oh, I didn't mean this. I think I have made a poor choice of words. I was referring more to having various rights and freedoms, outside of the economic sphere, such as freedom of speech, or privacy, or free association etc. I'm an anarcho-Communist, actually. I wasn't referring to laissez-faire capitalism or neoliberalism. Sorry if this was your interpretation, I did not mean it that way!
    - ggame 10y ago
      Liberals are not very libertarian; especially under Malcolm Turnbull. There is a small strand of libertarianism and that's the Liberal Democratic Party. Australia has an unsustainable property bubble that has made a large chunk of the middle class very wealthy. This has shifted the culture from self reliance to 'don't rock the boat.' This alone is an anti-innovation tragedy. The bubble will pop eventually and the taxes will go up. Aus can't print new money and we have an untouchable entitlement culture. If you can't pay the new taxes they will use the firewall to block your site. It's going to be a mess and I wish them the best of luck.
      - mmjaa 10y ago
        You nailed the entitled thing. I'm a born and bred sand groper .. So .. After quite some time abroad, getting to know the species, my sojourns back home to Australia led me to truly cringe at just how entitled folks are, down under. It was a bit humbling to have been driven off the edge of the continent by the culture, even though the land itself pulled me with much gravity, wave by dune by storm ..
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    Why must it be unique to Australia? It is a land in reflection of a great many other cultures, after all. You could find many ways to prototype social engineering in such a controlled environment.. so the argument of identity is moot, imhso.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Yes, I do believe in this. I strongly abhor the influence that the Australian government has on its citizens live; it cannot be denied that it enables a great body of people to live, and get along, but it must be understood that it was not without some truly human costs. Governments must be weighed by the integrity of their impact on the species; not just the sovereign, individual, citizens they have/have-not yet divided into appropriately allocated lots.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Can you give us some examples of places that do it better? And what the truly human costs are of the Australian approach? What is the Australian government doing that harms the species itself in ways that your undisclosed preferred locations don't? Give us something to go on rather than vague expressions of displeasure.

cylinder 10y ago

Australia survived and prospered due to government. It's the only way a million people on a giant remote continent could. What is the opposite of "colonialist thinking" anyways? American sociopathy?

mmjaa 10y ago
Why do things have to be opposite? Dialectic Materialism, another thing Australia "is good at"?

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

How does being a colony affect this? Or in what way does the meaning change versus a switch of "colony" for "country" and "colonialist" for "politicians"?