4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  > 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. I would heavily challenge this just because the opposition is utterly incompetent in Victoria. I am as against the lockdowns as they come and think they border on criminal as an action taken by the state against citizens. A disgusting violation of human rights I never thought I would see in Australia in my lifetime and honestly changed permanently how I viewed the moral compasses of my fellow citizens. However they were done and now I have to vote based on what is going forward and the policies put forward by the liberals in Victoria are, frankly, moronic. Matthew Guy is a buffoon who has no place in leading the party. So I gritted my teeth and voted Labor. But using that as an endorsement of lockdowns or Victoria covid policy is absurd. I know many who feel the same as me and acted similarly.
  - stubish 4y ago
    There seemed to be avenues open for people to register their displeasure at Labor, via preferential voting. Two minor parties 'Angry Victorians' and 'Sack Dan Andrews' party were obvious targets to put before Labor, along with the usual alternatives such as Green, Reason, Legalize Cannabis (although those risked electing someone instead of a Labor candidate). Yet the Labor vote was overwhelming. It very much seems that there was only a vocal minority against the lockdown policies. The displeasure with Labor seemed more about their environmental policies, with the Greens and Legalize Cannabis taking left wing votes away from Labor.
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      I don't vote for clowns or lunatics which it is fair to say both "Angry Victorians" and "Sack Dan Andrews" are both. I'll never vote Greens again until Lidia Thorpe is gone, shagging the heads of outlaw motorbike gangs is disgraceful behaviour for a member of parliament and completely disqualifies Greens as being a serious party from my point of view (at least while she remains a part of the party). And honestly the longer she remains the more I have to question the judgement that the members of the Green party show at all and makes it more likely that even if she eventually leaves I will never vote for them again. Reason I do like the look of tbh and will consider them going forward. I can't say I am the most hyper-engaged voter so can't pretend I was fully aware of them or what they stood for. But looking them up now I like a lot of what they say and prefer their general policy stances over Labor.

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.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
> 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. I would heavily challenge this just because the opposition is utterly incompetent in Victoria. I am as against the lockdowns as they come and think they border on criminal as an action taken by the state against citizens. A disgusting violation of human rights I never thought I would see in Australia in my lifetime and honestly changed permanently how I viewed the moral compasses of my fellow citizens. However they were done and now I have to vote based on what is going forward and the policies put forward by the liberals in Victoria are, frankly, moronic. Matthew Guy is a buffoon who has no place in leading the party. So I gritted my teeth and voted Labor. But using that as an endorsement of lockdowns or Victoria covid policy is absurd. I know many who feel the same as me and acted similarly.
- stubish 4y ago
  There seemed to be avenues open for people to register their displeasure at Labor, via preferential voting. Two minor parties 'Angry Victorians' and 'Sack Dan Andrews' party were obvious targets to put before Labor, along with the usual alternatives such as Green, Reason, Legalize Cannabis (although those risked electing someone instead of a Labor candidate). Yet the Labor vote was overwhelming. It very much seems that there was only a vocal minority against the lockdown policies. The displeasure with Labor seemed more about their environmental policies, with the Greens and Legalize Cannabis taking left wing votes away from Labor.
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    I don't vote for clowns or lunatics which it is fair to say both "Angry Victorians" and "Sack Dan Andrews" are both. I'll never vote Greens again until Lidia Thorpe is gone, shagging the heads of outlaw motorbike gangs is disgraceful behaviour for a member of parliament and completely disqualifies Greens as being a serious party from my point of view (at least while she remains a part of the party). And honestly the longer she remains the more I have to question the judgement that the members of the Green party show at all and makes it more likely that even if she eventually leaves I will never vote for them again. Reason I do like the look of tbh and will consider them going forward. I can't say I am the most hyper-engaged voter so can't pretend I was fully aware of them or what they stood for. But looking them up now I like a lot of what they say and prefer their general policy stances over Labor.