4 ms·

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of T

by urthor 4y ago

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand have the highest HDI indicators of any nation globally with mean winter temperatures above 10 degree Celsius. Why? Because Australia and New Zealand have a particular cultural value others don't. They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement.

polemic 4y ago
> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. It helps to be small & pragmatic. People (mostly) follow the rules and politicians (mostly) only implement rules with broad support. Police have wide discretion to apply laws and (mostly) do this to benefit public good. That's not to say we don't have problems, of course, but this particular law is seen as a compromise approach to public health that more-or-less works for everyone.
- urthor 4y ago
  I find the root cause is not so much size... and more so younger sibling syndrome. Australia/New Zealand have a... very, very, very deep-seated feeling of inadequacy, comparing themselves to large Anglophile nations. There's a genetic urge to "impress Mother England." For Australia, also a deep seated desire to prove they're not an island of criminals. For New Zealand... a deep seated desire not to be left off maps. It's not so much size... there's just a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America. To stop people moving away. Edit: root cause. Not benefit.
  - elliotto 4y ago
    Your other statements about AU/NZ culture have been extremely questionable, but this one is just complete nonsense. The idea that there is a genetic urge to impress England is bizarre, typically about 50% of people support becoming a republic. Some recent data in [0] Australia's original status as a penal colony seems to be held onto as trivia externally but is entirely irrelevant in modern discussion (as it should be as it stopped 150 years ago). Thinking that this is something Australians think about suggests that you have a very outside perspective. I don't know what a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America means. I don't think being a good place to live is a culture, I think it's an objective of a society. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-republic-is-strong-enough-to-win-approval-in-bigger-states-poll-20220123-p59qiv.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-republic...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - polemic 4y ago
    As we'd say here: "Yeah, Nah". This is a caricature of parochial English thinking of the colonies from the 50s, and is entirely divorced of what Australia and New Zealand are like today.
    - spoils19 4y ago
      As someone from a southern US state who faces similar "caricatures", there's no need to pretend and hide your feelings. Instead, I think we should join together against those who would oppress us and keep us down and uninformed in modern society.
      - HKH2 4y ago
        Time for Australia to become a republic? I wonder how people would vote if there were another referendum.
        stubish 4y ago
        It would already be a republic if the last referendum wasn't nobbled by the government at the time, where the only choice was between the status quo or giving more power to the historically untrusted elected government. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_refer...: "With republican models of one form or another winning a majority in opinion polls prior to the referendum, it was expected that the republican referendum would pass. However, the question put was for a particular model of republic with a head of state appointed by Parliament. This was opposed by some supporters of a republic, who preferred a directly elected head of state. Some of these, such as Phil Cleary, advocated that republic supporters vote "No" in order that a future referendum could be put on the directly elected model. Some commentators—including the president of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull—identified this split within the republican camp as a key reason for the referendum's failure."
    - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
      Completely agree, this bloke has no idea what's he's yapping about.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    I'm Australian and I have never really had any interest in going to England. Australia is culturally downstream from America though, so you're right about that.
b3nji 4y ago
Or put another way, they don't take personal responsibility, and hand their decisions over to other people running the state.
- Bjartr 4y ago
  Put another, another way, they recognize the limits of their own discipline and choose to remove the temptation by social agreement.
- urthor 4y ago
  Individual responsibility is tied to economic rationalism. With 100% devolved individual responsibility, you create market failure. Nicotine based addition is a pure example of market failure. To advocate for 100% unhindered individual responsibility, is to advocate against economics. No rule-free economic market, free of arbitrary constraints, is ever truly rational. That's because market failure is the default state of nature. The rich take from the poor, the incentive to economically specialize is lost due to theft. "Personal responsibility" is a gross simplification of the complexities of political and economic science. I would never simplify the enormous complexities of human computer interaction and UX, fields I know nothing about. Don't over-simply how difficult a decision regulating nicotine was, and how many decades of academic careers have been sacrificed to come to this consensus. Cable news slogans can never summarize the efforts of thousands of doctorate wielding technocrats arguing endlessly over the solution to nicotine.
beambot 4y ago
> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. I think reasonable people could object to Australia's internet censorship laws, COVID response, climate activities, etc. There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy).
- urthor 4y ago
  There's a margin of error in decision making. By no means do they always get it right. Remember, much of the fourth estate innately will be crassly negative, for commercial reasons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars. New Zealand for example has some remarkably shrill national news stories about remarkably petty crime. > There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy). Yes, and the technocrats don't always get it right, at all. Democracy works because nobody actually trusts the technocrats. Just like nobody trusts the investment bankers, politicians, real estate developers, police, lawyers. However, Australasia has had a remarkable run of success via eventually doing what the technocrats tell them to do. The will of the people supports the technocrats.
- slj 4y ago
  I’m a resident of Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, which had the longest pandemic lockdown in the world AFAIK. It certainly was at the time the lockdown ended, at least. Victoria recently had an election wherein the government which was responsible for implementing the lockdown was re-elected. Notably, the state government’s pandemic response was dictated by facts, indeed the chief health officer responsible for informing politicians and implementing policy was a medical practitioner and undeniably an expert in public health matters. During lockdown and even still, there continue to be protests against the government for their pandemic response, despite the re-election being a clear sign that the will of the people is that they want a government led by (or at least informed by) experts who know what they’re doing. It’s important to note that there are examples within the Victorian government which show the opposite, though. They have aided logging of old-growth forests, despite saying they won’t allow it to continue. They’ve repeatedly and demonstrably used tax dollars to fund infrastructure projects in electorates where the ruling party has a slim majority (so-called marginal seats). My point is the Victorian government is far from perfect. It’s been a year since the last lockdown ended, yet the lockdown is still the thing people discuss when it comes to policy. It’s the most invasive action a state government has taken, affecting so many people. It’s what people remember. And it mattered at the polling booth last month, when people voted the government back in. They even saw an increase in the seats they hold, from last election.
haihaibye 4y ago
> Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand have the highest HDI indicators of any nation globally with mean winter temperatures above 10 degree Celsius. Why? .... culture If you want to look into temperature vs productivity you should note these populations overwhelmingly have ancestry from colder weather climates

by urthor 4y ago

polemic 4y ago

> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. It helps to be small & pragmatic. People (mostly) follow the rules and politicians (mostly) only implement rules with broad support. Police have wide discretion to apply laws and (mostly) do this to benefit public good. That's not to say we don't have problems, of course, but this particular law is seen as a compromise approach to public health that more-or-less works for everyone.

urthor 4y ago
I find the root cause is not so much size... and more so younger sibling syndrome. Australia/New Zealand have a... very, very, very deep-seated feeling of inadequacy, comparing themselves to large Anglophile nations. There's a genetic urge to "impress Mother England." For Australia, also a deep seated desire to prove they're not an island of criminals. For New Zealand... a deep seated desire not to be left off maps. It's not so much size... there's just a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America. To stop people moving away. Edit: root cause. Not benefit.
- elliotto 4y ago
  Your other statements about AU/NZ culture have been extremely questionable, but this one is just complete nonsense. The idea that there is a genetic urge to impress England is bizarre, typically about 50% of people support becoming a republic. Some recent data in [0] Australia's original status as a penal colony seems to be held onto as trivia externally but is entirely irrelevant in modern discussion (as it should be as it stopped 150 years ago). Thinking that this is something Australians think about suggests that you have a very outside perspective. I don't know what a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America means. I don't think being a good place to live is a culture, I think it's an objective of a society. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-republic-is-strong-enough-to-win-approval-in-bigger-states-poll-20220123-p59qiv.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-republic...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- polemic 4y ago
  As we'd say here: "Yeah, Nah". This is a caricature of parochial English thinking of the colonies from the 50s, and is entirely divorced of what Australia and New Zealand are like today.
  - spoils19 4y ago
    As someone from a southern US state who faces similar "caricatures", there's no need to pretend and hide your feelings. Instead, I think we should join together against those who would oppress us and keep us down and uninformed in modern society.
    - HKH2 4y ago
      Time for Australia to become a republic? I wonder how people would vote if there were another referendum.
      - stubish 4y ago
        It would already be a republic if the last referendum wasn't nobbled by the government at the time, where the only choice was between the status quo or giving more power to the historically untrusted elected government. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_refer...: "With republican models of one form or another winning a majority in opinion polls prior to the referendum, it was expected that the republican referendum would pass. However, the question put was for a particular model of republic with a head of state appointed by Parliament. This was opposed by some supporters of a republic, who preferred a directly elected head of state. Some of these, such as Phil Cleary, advocated that republic supporters vote "No" in order that a future referendum could be put on the directly elected model. Some commentators—including the president of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull—identified this split within the republican camp as a key reason for the referendum's failure."
  - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
    Completely agree, this bloke has no idea what's he's yapping about.
- HKH2 4y ago
  I'm Australian and I have never really had any interest in going to England. Australia is culturally downstream from America though, so you're right about that.

b3nji 4y ago

Or put another way, they don't take personal responsibility, and hand their decisions over to other people running the state.

Bjartr 4y ago
Put another, another way, they recognize the limits of their own discipline and choose to remove the temptation by social agreement.
urthor 4y ago
Individual responsibility is tied to economic rationalism. With 100% devolved individual responsibility, you create market failure. Nicotine based addition is a pure example of market failure. To advocate for 100% unhindered individual responsibility, is to advocate against economics. No rule-free economic market, free of arbitrary constraints, is ever truly rational. That's because market failure is the default state of nature. The rich take from the poor, the incentive to economically specialize is lost due to theft. "Personal responsibility" is a gross simplification of the complexities of political and economic science. I would never simplify the enormous complexities of human computer interaction and UX, fields I know nothing about. Don't over-simply how difficult a decision regulating nicotine was, and how many decades of academic careers have been sacrificed to come to this consensus. Cable news slogans can never summarize the efforts of thousands of doctorate wielding technocrats arguing endlessly over the solution to nicotine.

beambot 4y ago

> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. I think reasonable people could object to Australia's internet censorship laws, COVID response, climate activities, etc. There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy).

urthor 4y ago
There's a margin of error in decision making. By no means do they always get it right. Remember, much of the fourth estate innately will be crassly negative, for commercial reasons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars. New Zealand for example has some remarkably shrill national news stories about remarkably petty crime. > There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy). Yes, and the technocrats don't always get it right, at all. Democracy works because nobody actually trusts the technocrats. Just like nobody trusts the investment bankers, politicians, real estate developers, police, lawyers. However, Australasia has had a remarkable run of success via eventually doing what the technocrats tell them to do. The will of the people supports the technocrats.
slj 4y ago
I’m a resident of Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, which had the longest pandemic lockdown in the world AFAIK. It certainly was at the time the lockdown ended, at least. Victoria recently had an election wherein the government which was responsible for implementing the lockdown was re-elected. Notably, the state government’s pandemic response was dictated by facts, indeed the chief health officer responsible for informing politicians and implementing policy was a medical practitioner and undeniably an expert in public health matters. During lockdown and even still, there continue to be protests against the government for their pandemic response, despite the re-election being a clear sign that the will of the people is that they want a government led by (or at least informed by) experts who know what they’re doing. It’s important to note that there are examples within the Victorian government which show the opposite, though. They have aided logging of old-growth forests, despite saying they won’t allow it to continue. They’ve repeatedly and demonstrably used tax dollars to fund infrastructure projects in electorates where the ruling party has a slim majority (so-called marginal seats). My point is the Victorian government is far from perfect. It’s been a year since the last lockdown ended, yet the lockdown is still the thing people discuss when it comes to policy. It’s the most invasive action a state government has taken, affecting so many people. It’s what people remember. And it mattered at the polling booth last month, when people voted the government back in. They even saw an increase in the seats they hold, from last election.

haihaibye 4y ago

> Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand have the highest HDI indicators of any nation globally with mean winter temperatures above 10 degree Celsius. Why? .... culture If you want to look into temperature vs productivity you should note these populations overwhelmingly have ancestry from colder weather climates