191–200 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Economic damage is real damage. If you break windows, and the govt has to repair those windows, it has less money to spend on welfare and charity and doing other stuff that a govt wants to do.
Maybe you get more window repairmen and less police, but which is better for society is still an open question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet. Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.
We apparently have differing understandings about “inalienable.”
But that's the kicker. If the government does take inalienable rights away, you still have them, it's the gov't that needs correction, not the right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more the fact that they're protesting mask mandates that were lifted months ago, lockdowns that haven't happened for almost a year, and QR code checkins that are no longer present. They are not advocating for N95 face masks out of concern that the cloth ones are ineffective.
Where are these people protesting non-existent mandates? Thats like protesting against wearing a fake moustache when there is no mandate to.
Every Saturday, to this day, there is an antivax protest through the streets of Melbourne despite the fact that there have been no domestic covid restrictions since around this time last year, and international borders have been open since Jan.
It's basically now just a social event for the Q crowd that leaves them feeling important and the rest of us feeling perplexed.
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…
The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not support them) (2) the possibility of a deadlocked legislature (because SCOTUS doesn't support them).
The Australian Constitution completely sidesteps these conundrums. A bad PM can be ousted in a day. The High Court avoids getting into Constitutional rights disputes except in limited circumstances, such as undue burdens upon the implied freedom of political communication. I consider this significantly more desirable and the US offers nothing to be jealous of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economic damage is real damage. If you break windows, and the govt has to repair those windows, it has less money to spend on welfare and charity and doing other stuff that a govt wants to do.
To nitpick- not necessarily, the extra expense just gets added to the deficit
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants. Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i…
The state exists to perpetuate itself and its power, unless an outside force acts on it. That used to be the people, but increasingly the "machine" of bureaucracy has overtaken or subsumed democratic politics. It is not only in Australia. Chuck Schumer's grave warning sums it up well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc An elected president who is head of the executive and armed forces which include these int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economic damage is real damage. If you break windows, and the govt has to repair those windows, it has less money to spend on welfare and charity and doing other stuff that a govt wants to do.
Breaking windows sounds more like physical damage
^1: or up to 10k people working an hour late, which is a cost in and of itself.
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants. Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i…
Eg games work based on a whitelist. You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia.
Australians accept this. It's no wonder to me that they will accept even further concessions on their freedoms.