61–70 of 397 posts
It's a good thing everyone surrendered their firearms to this same government. Once they know you can't resist anything they can do anything to you. I'm guessing NZ is next now that they've confiscated nearly every firearm they could.
Yes. If we had our firearms we could shoot back. Pew pew!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the problem anymore for the brains that fled.
Kinda weird for the attitude toward governments allegedly violating freedom to be “it’s okay as long as it doesn’t affect me.”
Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living. Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
Interesting. I’m not from Australia but I thought the concept of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a way to offload work from the main court system. According to Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal Court of Australia. [1] While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the…
This is your daily reminder that FISA was originally created as a way to provide oversight for intelligence agencies after things like MK Ultra and COINTELPRO. Instead it became a rubber stamp legitimizing their actions.
In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…
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.
And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions.
Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri...
EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer"
People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…
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.
Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…
So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if they deserve trust.
This is how I would choose, which places to visit.
Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like it is common in other places - are still quite rare.
My experience with australian police officers are a friendly warning for me, for ignoring a red light while at foot. And a asshole police officer stopping and handing out a hefty fine for us, for not "deadstopping" at a stop sign at a empty roadcrossing at night - explicitely, because we were driving a backpackers car and not a local one (he said so)
So all in all, I would probably visit again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?
Democracy leads to dumb laws. It's a tyranny of the bottom 51%ile. I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so. Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would…
Of course, at the time this almost exclusively meant wealthy white men - which is obviously a terrible way to run a voting system.
The converse of this is the "bread and circuses" problem with Democracy. This was supposed to be mitigated by the "House of Lords" equivalent in the U.S. - The Senate.
The Senate was supposed to have been a buffer that protected against popular vote because they were assigned by the state legislature. They were beholden to the welfare of the state, not to direct-democracy political campaigning and all its ills.
Personally, I think its time to re-evaluate the 17th amendment to see if it had the desired effect, or resulted in massive unintended consequences.
In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.