4 ms·

The ban on alcohol in some communities is (AFAICT) welcomed by those communities, which have massive problems with it. There are laws in other states which allo

by Nursie 5y ago

The ban on alcohol in some communities is (AFAICT) welcomed by those communities, which have massive problems with it. There are laws in other states which allow people to declare their house a “dry place” which is then enforceable by law, to try to stop anyone from bringing alcohol into the house. I can’t tell you whether any of these measures work, but they aren’t implemented for reasons of racist suppression, from what I can tell. Also no idea on the porn bans. I’ve just moved to Australia, for the second time. The censorship you talk about is trivial and easily worked around (Video game didn’t get approved for sale? Order in from New Zealand or Hong Kong) The populace isn’t so much OK with the policy as unaffected by it. These policies usually come from SA and are usually rooted in religion, which still seems to hold sway there. The appeal of Aus to this Brit is that it has space, so much space, and sunshine. And it’s not as downright crazy as the USA (guns, employment rights, healthcare etc)

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
So your points arethat “some people like authoritarian measures” and “the censorship isn’t bad because today you can get around it”. Sounds like you have a vested interest in not realizing what these new laws mean for you.
- Nursie 5y ago
  I think the idea that the alcohol rules are authoritarian is misplaced and it’s more complicated than your summation. To have an informed debate you would need to be familiar with the situation on the ground, which I am only in passing, and (respectfully) I suspect you are not at all. The “censorship” is not really any worse than the UK’s BBFC. I know what these laws mean for me because I’ve lived here before. They mean very little.
- eru 5y ago
  > So your points arethat “some people like authoritarian measures” and [...] Well, that's how democracy is supposed to work, ain't it?
  - BoxOfRain 5y ago
    This is why I’m an anti-authoritarian first and a democrat second. Civil liberties are more important than democracy, they’re worth too much to let the masses throw them in the bin at the first scent of fear.
    - eru 5y ago
      Same for me. I'd like to see many more small countries and city states. Or at least people taking federalism and subsidiarity serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity That's because people seem to be much more reasonable when voting with their feet and wallets, then when voting at the polling booth. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for some background.) Eg in a US context, there's no reason at all why they need to have a federal minimum wage as far as I can tell. Different people have different opinions on how minimum wage works, if at all, but from what I can tell minimum wage is an issue that can be done at state or even municipality level only. There's no need to have federal uniformity here.
      - Aerroon 5y ago
        The issue is that all of those small separate states will do one thing or another wrong. This causes an outcry for centralization because the idea is that the central authority will set them right. And once the power has centralized it doesn't go back to the small states. Eventually people realize that the centralized state also does some things wrong, but now there's no alternative.
        eru 5y ago
        Where, of course, 'wrong' is in the eye of the beholder. Many people cheer on Supreme Court decisions that forbid states from making certain laws or policies that their democratically elected legislatures and governments decided on.
jakequade 5y ago
If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. There's alternatives that don't set people with problems back even further.
- Nursie 5y ago
  Do these policies push people back even further? Again, I'm not familiar enough with the causes or effects of these policies to have a properly informed debate BUT on the surface it looks like these rules have been put in place in partnership with the communities in question, in order to try to help what is evidently a severe problem. But perhaps the reality is different. (Edit - perhaps I do have the read on this wrong, and these policies were not put in place with community agreement, in which case they should be changed. In other states such as Queensland the 'dry place' legislation is far more voluntary)
- Gustomaximus 5y ago
  What if the communities are the ones creating/supporting these policies? Are the being racist to themselves? As from my reading this is often the case. I'm not an expert in this field but it seems to me you are vastly oversimplifying the policy and without context. And using language like 'punitive' seems unfair as I dont see how this is a punishment, even if one were to believe it was misguided or ineffective. And I respect this policy has flaws and questionable value, while at the same time feel its fair to recognise it is being done in co-ordination with the community itself and and with altruistic intent. What are these other alternatives you mention? Please suggest. I suspect they come with a whole set of other flaws and failures as rarely is a solution to these problems without a flip side.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  > If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist.
  - 5y ago
gorwell 5y ago
As the Australian government rapidly moves toward an authoritarian police state, does part of you wonder if they'd be so cavalier if their citizens had guns? Or if that might be a deterrent to tyranny at some point?
- Nursie 5y ago
  I don't think it is moving towards being an authoritarian police state any more than any other western country, and I wouldn't want to live in a country where citizens had easy access to guns, and suffered the violence and mass shootings that seem to come from that, like in the US. Hope that helps.
  - gorwell 5y ago
    "I don't think it is moving towards being an authoritarian police state any more than any other western country" The example on which this thread is based, and otherwise discussed within this thread (checking in every 15 minutes with the state or be visited by the police), is well beyond other western countries and especially the USA at this point. We'll see if that holds.
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  lol you're kidding yourself if you think having armed citizens would make any difference to authoritarian policy anywhere.
  - thallium205 5y ago
    I've personally witnessed a single gunman absolutely shutdown and preoccupy the entire Philadelphia police forever for several hours. One guy. You all seriously overestimate the capabilities of the police.
  - gorwell 5y ago
    You're kidding yourself if you think it wouldn't. Didn't the Taliban just win despite 20 years of military occupation?
- 5y ago
simonklitj 5y ago
I feel like the sentence “the censorship … is trivial and easily worked around” isn’t as hopeful as it sounds like. Isn’t it bad to have to work around censorship? Or maybe I’m reading too much into it.

by Nursie 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

So your points arethat “some people like authoritarian measures” and “the censorship isn’t bad because today you can get around it”. Sounds like you have a vested interest in not realizing what these new laws mean for you.

Nursie 5y ago
I think the idea that the alcohol rules are authoritarian is misplaced and it’s more complicated than your summation. To have an informed debate you would need to be familiar with the situation on the ground, which I am only in passing, and (respectfully) I suspect you are not at all. The “censorship” is not really any worse than the UK’s BBFC. I know what these laws mean for me because I’ve lived here before. They mean very little.
eru 5y ago
> So your points arethat “some people like authoritarian measures” and [...] Well, that's how democracy is supposed to work, ain't it?
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  This is why I’m an anti-authoritarian first and a democrat second. Civil liberties are more important than democracy, they’re worth too much to let the masses throw them in the bin at the first scent of fear.
  - eru 5y ago
    Same for me. I'd like to see many more small countries and city states. Or at least people taking federalism and subsidiarity serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity That's because people seem to be much more reasonable when voting with their feet and wallets, then when voting at the polling booth. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for some background.) Eg in a US context, there's no reason at all why they need to have a federal minimum wage as far as I can tell. Different people have different opinions on how minimum wage works, if at all, but from what I can tell minimum wage is an issue that can be done at state or even municipality level only. There's no need to have federal uniformity here.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      The issue is that all of those small separate states will do one thing or another wrong. This causes an outcry for centralization because the idea is that the central authority will set them right. And once the power has centralized it doesn't go back to the small states. Eventually people realize that the centralized state also does some things wrong, but now there's no alternative.
      - eru 5y ago
        Where, of course, 'wrong' is in the eye of the beholder. Many people cheer on Supreme Court decisions that forbid states from making certain laws or policies that their democratically elected legislatures and governments decided on.

jakequade 5y ago

If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. There's alternatives that don't set people with problems back even further.

Nursie 5y ago
Do these policies push people back even further? Again, I'm not familiar enough with the causes or effects of these policies to have a properly informed debate BUT on the surface it looks like these rules have been put in place in partnership with the communities in question, in order to try to help what is evidently a severe problem. But perhaps the reality is different. (Edit - perhaps I do have the read on this wrong, and these policies were not put in place with community agreement, in which case they should be changed. In other states such as Queensland the 'dry place' legislation is far more voluntary)
Gustomaximus 5y ago
What if the communities are the ones creating/supporting these policies? Are the being racist to themselves? As from my reading this is often the case. I'm not an expert in this field but it seems to me you are vastly oversimplifying the policy and without context. And using language like 'punitive' seems unfair as I dont see how this is a punishment, even if one were to believe it was misguided or ineffective. And I respect this policy has flaws and questionable value, while at the same time feel its fair to recognise it is being done in co-ordination with the community itself and and with altruistic intent. What are these other alternatives you mention? Please suggest. I suspect they come with a whole set of other flaws and failures as rarely is a solution to these problems without a flip side.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
> If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist.
- 5y ago

gorwell 5y ago

As the Australian government rapidly moves toward an authoritarian police state, does part of you wonder if they'd be so cavalier if their citizens had guns? Or if that might be a deterrent to tyranny at some point?

Nursie 5y ago
I don't think it is moving towards being an authoritarian police state any more than any other western country, and I wouldn't want to live in a country where citizens had easy access to guns, and suffered the violence and mass shootings that seem to come from that, like in the US. Hope that helps.
- gorwell 5y ago
  "I don't think it is moving towards being an authoritarian police state any more than any other western country" The example on which this thread is based, and otherwise discussed within this thread (checking in every 15 minutes with the state or be visited by the police), is well beyond other western countries and especially the USA at this point. We'll see if that holds.
King-Aaron 5y ago
lol you're kidding yourself if you think having armed citizens would make any difference to authoritarian policy anywhere.
- thallium205 5y ago
  I've personally witnessed a single gunman absolutely shutdown and preoccupy the entire Philadelphia police forever for several hours. One guy. You all seriously overestimate the capabilities of the police.
- gorwell 5y ago
  You're kidding yourself if you think it wouldn't. Didn't the Taliban just win despite 20 years of military occupation?
5y ago

simonklitj 5y ago

I feel like the sentence “the censorship … is trivial and easily worked around” isn’t as hopeful as it sounds like. Isn’t it bad to have to work around censorship? Or maybe I’m reading too much into it.