Comments (16)
sorted by:
Happily_Grim [S] 30 points ago +30 / -0

You have to love how people are constantly saying that speech laws aren't that big of a deal – until they lead to this and you've already set precedent for legislating speech.
I'm not even Australian, but the shit coming out of there lately has been insane.
Although, I guess it's certainly been heading that direction for quite a while now.

Galean 20 points ago +20 / -0

Those who say speech laws are harmless are just trying to rationalize it. The "good" side wants to implement this laws so they must accept them in order to keep being good. Deep down they know how abusive and evil this laws are.

coke501 17 points ago +17 / -0

There are enough idiots that really think they are harmless. They lack the foresight or imagination that it will ever hit something they care about.

That's why I always ask myself, when I think that a piece of legislation is a good thing: "Would I want to have the person that I despise most to have the power that comes with this law?"

GoggleHead 12 points ago +12 / -0

This is why I'm starting to sour on the idea of universal voting rights. A large chunk of the population is not to be trusted with decision making power, but the alternative seems downright terrifying.

Auntie_Mildred 8 points ago +8 / -0

Voting rights should come with some sort of responsibility as a citizen or at least be limited to those who have stake in the decisions being made.

If you are voting on a millage and it won't affect your taxes, then maybe you shouldn't have a vote. Or, your vote should have less weight than the vote of someone who's taxes are going to increase.

ernsithe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds good on paper, but rapidly falls apart the moment you try to apply it in the real world.

"This law would make illegal to sue the press for defamation." Who would vote? The press or the public?

"This law would make it illegal to sue the press for defamation. It would also tax the CEOs of Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, and Viacom $1 a year." Do only the 4 subject to the tax get a vote?

Whoever decides who has "a stake" in a piece of legislation controls the outcome of the vote and the laws can be crafted with that in mind. You can write the gerrymandering right into the bill.

Auntie_Mildred 2 points ago +2 / -0

Absolutely. And this is another lame cop out answer but that kind of stuff is supposed to be handled by the state house/senate. We elect representatives to represent our interests in lawmaking. Putting propositions to the public is congress shirking their duties.

persiaprince 3 points ago +3 / -0

service guarantees citizenship

DrBarkanine 3 points ago +3 / -0

I find myself toying with the idea of changing universal voting rights too from time to time, since it does seem like a vector to erode a country's morals, values, and even prosperity. I don't think we'd need to go full Starship Trooper or only permit property owners to vote, but maybe net positive taxpayers could be fine? Harder to verify that though.

masked_ferret 4 points ago +4 / -0

Perphaps implement the Roman system. Basically, raise the age in which you can vote to 25. That way, the voters would have time to really integrate and experience irst hand themselves to the economic and 'social' aspects of their communities abd the country in general.

Even though sometimes, i feel like a full starship troopers system would indeed be the more efective system at protecting the values and morals of a country.

GoggleHead 3 points ago +3 / -0

You have people who insulate themselves from the real world well into their mid or late twenties by staying in university that long, so I'm not sure that's a solid fix. Plus there are plenty of people who are well into adulthood who have no business having any decision making power. Ultimately I think the approach that works best will depend on what kind of society we wish to fashion. Right now we're fashioning a nightmare hellscape so we need to re-evaluate our approach.

masked_ferret 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah i get you. And i put the age as a wild guess.

I guess we went back to the beginnings of the last century where we were trying to find a system that works for our current situation and again the commies are stirring shit and causing internal chaos.

Lurker404 8 points ago +8 / -0

Deep down they know how abusive and evil this laws are.

I doubt it. IMHO it's more that these laws benefit them so they're in favor. They're too ignorant to realize these laws could be turned on them.

Just like everyone thinks they're going to be the ruling class/commissars in the coming socialist revolution, and not just some random stiff in a work camp.

JuliasEbola00 7 points ago +7 / -0 (edited)

I'm Irish, and our current government is considering banning protests. There was no talk of this during the BLM nonsense, the topic only popped up when groups deemed as "far right" held several successful protests against virus restrictions. Of course the left are doing their usual bullshit about supporting peoples rights, once they aren't "harmful", and of course anyone who disagrees with them is viewed as harmful.

Kroog 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not surprising. Victoria's leader loves the way the CCP is run and wants badly to integrate the state with China.

realerfunction 1 point ago +1 / -0

operation british when