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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
service guarantees citizenship
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
operation british when