Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #170

eplanit wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I guess if you're going to live under such rules, it's easier if you agree with them. I can only assume that you view the surveillance bill as also benevolent.

Please don't strawman me, I didn't say I agree with the surveillance bill (I do not) and I don't live in Australia - my family does though. It's a different country with a different set of tradeoffs, and is also a more free country than the United States across many important areas, which is why it rates higher in the Cato freedom index than the USA. It comes down to perspective, to take a separate topic to prove my…

Post by 0xdeadb00f » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #178

Australia is turning itself into a prison state. Citizens are allowed to go outside for maximum one or two hours, total surveillance, unconstrained searches of the property... About the same set of rights as a supermax prison inmate has, it looks like.

Post by personlurking » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #130

donatj wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I've always had doubts about direct democracy. Most people are idiots who scare easily and whose views should not be considered.

I’ve always wondered how hard it would be to start your own country, people start new companies all the time to solve problems, I think it’s time we start a new country for the first time in how many years? Maybe a government that actually does respect privacy and doesn’t just throw it out the window because of “terrorism” or whatever the thing of the moment might be. Also would be nice to live somewhere that doesn’t…

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

axguscbklp wrote: post #143

TameAntelope wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found talking about firearms in response to a legislative body acting to be reactionary and shortsighted, but also a little humorous, in a sad kind of way. I wonder if you realize you're intimating, even obliquely, that you'd be willing to kill cops, soldiers, and democratically elected officials for performing their duties because you individually don't agree with their decisions. In other words, you're…

Officials being democratically elected does not necessarily mean anything - in theory, a majority of the population could vote to literally enslave a minority of the population. I think that it is fair for a minority of the population to have some threshold beyond which they are willing to use force if necessary even if by doing so they are going against the wishes of the majority.

Post by xenophonf » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #194

cryptonector wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.

>There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. Correction: there is no legal defense. There are other defenses, historically.