AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
That's true, my original post was that previous governments had been so keen to outsource their decision making to unelected bureaucrats and simply rubber stamp their proposals and that it was refreshing that the current government is saying, 'No, fuck you, we're the decision makers, not you."
No it's more "Oh so you're an academic hey? So you've never really left the confines of a university or research office and held a real job. You surround yourself with other intellectuals and think you're better than everyone else. You know nothing about the desires and struggles of the ordinary people, and you want to dictate to us what we can and can not do? No, fuck you."
Or you know, its less extreme version.
"Well I can see that you're an expert in your field and your proposals will likely help reach those goals that we think in this case is preferable, but while efficient your proposals don't have much utility so we're not going to be taking them into account."
Or you know, its less extreme version.
"Well I can see that you're an expert in your field and your proposals will likely help reach those goals that we think in this case is preferable, but while efficient your proposals don't have much utility so we're not going to be taking them into account."
Disclaimer: I myself, am definitely one of those academics. Sigh 
.
.bobnowhere
Member
sounds like something an intellectual elitist would say!
That's a wild set of numbers! Not sure how much I believe them, even when they had Labor ahead last year, people in the know like Peter Lewis was suggesting the numbers are pretty skewed in QLD and WA particularly the real result was closer to 51-49 to the LNP. That may have changed over summer but 52.6-47.4 to Labor is a little out there!
What exactly is a real job and how does it provide a more accurate world view?
Real job = lawyer, going by parliament.
Because that will help objectively improve living conditions for people. See, you are so in love with the process you don't care about results. Ideology rules all for you.
Yes, because people are only able to do one thing in their whole life, and none of the people who are experts have ever done anything else. Your celebration of ignorance simply because the person is invested in the outcome is astounding.No it's more "Oh so you're an academic hey? So you've never really left the confines of a university or research office and held a real job. You surround yourself with other intellectuals and think you're better than everyone else. You know nothing about the desires and struggles of the ordinary people, and you want to dictate to us what we can and can not do? No, fuck you."
Or you know, its less extreme version.
"Well I can see that you're an expert in your field and your proposals will likely help reach those goals that we think in this case is preferable, but while efficient your proposals don't have much utility so we're not going to be taking them into account."
Disclaimer: I myself, am definitely one of those academics. Sigh
Yes, wikipedia links. You would need to demonstrate that those thing actually occur with concrete examples of how they have been detrimental if you want anyone to be convinced.
Come on man, you are smarter than this.
Yes it does, and that's a badge I wear with pride. I also reject your premise that democracy does not increase the living conditions of people. I think that ruling with an iron fist and bypassing the democratic process results in an inherit lowering of living conditions.
Except that has not been demonstrated at all. Most experts come up with processes that focus almost entirely on efficiency without any regard to fundamental rights or economic efficacy. I don't want these people writing laws, it's as simple as that. I want them to provide advice to which we, as a community can either accept or reject.
Concrete Examples: Basically any major policy from the last ten years.
Turn back the boats! Austerity vs stimulus. The mining tax. Carbon pricing/ETS. Freemarkets for Coles and Woolies.
Who do you want us to listen to? Murdoch? Gina Rinehart? The banks CEOs? Tony Abbott? Do these people have real jobs?
I define these people as having vested interests. Interests that diverge from yours and mine.
With the exception of Abbott, the rest aren't writing laws.
My beef is with arbitrary exercises of power, not community influence.
Just because they're not (directly) writing laws doesn't mean that they don't exercise power.
They wield influence, not power.
hahaha
omg
Except you have set up a false dichotomy. There are options besides direct democracy and totalitarianism.
Well, enjoy your broken society with unhappy people who are not fed, but at least they have a say in how they shiver, I guess.
That's not really going to work, and you know it.
Well yes when you put it like that it is a false dichotomy but I wasn't arguing for unchecked direct democracy. I was arguing for greater accountability. I still want scientists providing advice, I just don't want it to be treated as holy writ and I want these experts to be held to account when they get it wrong.
Could you explain how Switzerland, the worlds most directly democratic country, which has some of the wealthiest citizens in the world, which has incredible public infrastructure, and some of the most extensive civil rights in the world, a broken society? (Switzerland ranks highly for basically every single positive outcome in the world, except maybe world's most exciting country, that it is not, not by a fucking long shot).
It's like you haven't even seen Sherlock!
Same as usual. Arksy is over-estimating the average voter and we're disagreeing.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I was not aware of Switzerland's thriving culture of anti-intellectualism. The problem most people seem to be having with your posts on this topic is your assumption that increased scepticism of expert advice will automatically increase democracy in Australia. Can you actually give some concrete examples where expert advice has led to negative outcomes for which they have not been held accountable? Or explain how elected officials disagreeing with expert advice because it suits them is necessarily better than elected officials being willing to cop some flak for following politically unpopular advice?
Here's the thing, the "average" person is generally quite receptive to and supportive of the advice of experts when the benefits are communicated clearly to them, even if it causes some pain in the short term. They're willing to spend money to have their cars fixed, their illnesses cured, their computers upgraded, to forego (some of) the pleasures of smoking and drinking for their health etc... I don't see how politicians and the media entering into and distorting that relationship for reasons of ideology or to protect vested interests from inconvenient truths makes it more democratic. If Abbott and co were standing up to an authoritarian technocratic regime that had confiscated all the booze and fatty foods I'd support them in their efforts. They're not standing up for the average person's choices and freedoms here, they're helping the big end of town get their way at everyone else's expense.
EDIT: As an aside, I think you may be unaware (like many others) of the true state of Australia's environment. The 'status quo' is one of unabated decline.
Read about how lobby groups work, all of the people and groups I listed most certainly do help write the laws. How do you think the mining tax got watered down so dramatically?
Where do you think the big question mark next to climate change comes from, which is in turn winding back all of the investment and regulation designed to compensate for the flaws in the market allowing carbon pollution.
The problem with academics isn't elitist snobbery. It's the power of money in politics and the concentration of media ownership that presents them as such.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Not seeking out, appreciating the value of, and correctly applying the advice given by experts, intellectuals, and academics in the many fields of science and industry that make up human society is undoubtedly one of the absolute prime examples of a terrible leaders, whether they be political, corporate, sports, communal, entertainment, or whatever.
Like, the point is we work together, yeah? That you suck up your shit and humbly accept no matter how much power you have you're not a fucking bastion of infinite knowledge and authority on all things in life. That if you legitimately want the best for the populous at large it's in their and your best interest to accumulate as much advice and assistance from as many people as possible, particularly valuing the educated opinions of experienced personnel in specific fields.
If Australians don't want to paint their house yellow and stop the world exploding because aussie aussie meat pie cricket burnout southern cross freedom then fuck them. Selfish, ignorant decisions should be condemned and treated for exactly what they are.
Like, the point is we work together, yeah? That you suck up your shit and humbly accept no matter how much power you have you're not a fucking bastion of infinite knowledge and authority on all things in life. That if you legitimately want the best for the populous at large it's in their and your best interest to accumulate as much advice and assistance from as many people as possible, particularly valuing the educated opinions of experienced personnel in specific fields.
If Australians don't want to paint their house yellow and stop the world exploding because aussie aussie meat pie cricket burnout southern cross freedom then fuck them. Selfish, ignorant decisions should be condemned and treated for exactly what they are.
Well no he can't do that. What his media organisation can do is:
- Allegedly pressure Tony Blair to join the Americans to fight the war on terror.
- Bribe public servants to turn a blind eye to obviously corrupt and illegal practices.
- Intentionally lie and spread misinformation for the sole purpose of personal gain.
- Intentionally have his "journalists" to engage in phone hacking and spying.
- Publish actual real life private information such as addresses to the public.
- Harass individuals and their relatives.
- Blackmail and intimidate people in power.
Did you not hear about the Leveson Inquiry? It actually killed Murdock's highest circulating newspaper in the United Kingdom overnight. That's how serious the allegations were.
Rupert Murdoch won't bash you in the face like our late Lord of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, but he'll fuck everyone in the face for personal gain. He'll even illegally influence those in power to do his bidding. If he can blackmail people in power, I'd say he wields power and influence. I don't even know why you are splitting hairs between power and influence because they're basically the same shit when it comes to governments and policy.
Yes they are. When how your message is presented to the public is defined by the media, you want to be in their good books. If Gina, a woman with a lot of money, buys tons of Channel 10 shares and threatens to ditch Fairfax if she doesn't get her ass on their board, what do you think Channel 10 and Fairfax will do? They'll listen to her, of course.
Since your message depends on how the media chooses to present your message, I think governments will, by proxy, be receptive to her desires. You think governments would go "fuck it, she can't do anything we're the only ones able to create policy"? No, because you risk landing into her bad books and risk having certain media companies torpedo everything you do. She doesn't write policy but she damn well causes governments to think of her when creating policy like natural resource taxes.
Influence is power >_< I mean, power isnt just the use of force.
Anyway.
Has the government said under what legal basis they are towing boats in international waters into Indonesia?
Cause it sounds an awful lot like Piracy. The boats have not committed a crime, neither have the people in them >.>
Anyway.
Has the government said under what legal basis they are towing boats in international waters into Indonesia?
Cause it sounds an awful lot like Piracy. The boats have not committed a crime, neither have the people in them >.>
Sorry I won't be able to reply to everyone's posts.
Government has a monopoly on violence, not power. There's a very big difference between having status and influence in public and brutalising your own citizens. Let's not forget that over the last two days alone, a police officer was found to have acted with excessive force against a mardi gras partygoer, and two police officers have been arrested for raping a girl on duty.
Well....I agree....almost completely. No man, not even an expert is a bastion of infinite knowledge and we SHOULD gather as much input and advice and assistance from as many people as possible....which would be the electorate at large.
Switzerland is extremely sceptical of government initiatives and constantly vote against them. The main point is that the Swiss political class must always take into account their electorate before making any proposals. The link between elected and elector is the strongest of any country in the world..and you know what? It seems to be working just damn fine.
I don't particularly care if the average person is pro or against a particular person's opinions, what I do care about, very strongly is that the average person gets a choice in the matter of what to say.
Government has a monopoly on violence, not power. There's a very big difference between having status and influence in public and brutalising your own citizens. Let's not forget that over the last two days alone, a police officer was found to have acted with excessive force against a mardi gras partygoer, and two police officers have been arrested for raping a girl on duty.
Well....I agree....almost completely. No man, not even an expert is a bastion of infinite knowledge and we SHOULD gather as much input and advice and assistance from as many people as possible....which would be the electorate at large.
Switzerland is extremely sceptical of government initiatives and constantly vote against them. The main point is that the Swiss political class must always take into account their electorate before making any proposals. The link between elected and elector is the strongest of any country in the world..and you know what? It seems to be working just damn fine.
I don't particularly care if the average person is pro or against a particular person's opinions, what I do care about, very strongly is that the average person gets a choice in the matter of what to say.
I'm sorry, since I'm only one guy trying to respond to about ten people with varying ideas and perspectives I sometimes might confuse myself. I try my best to present my views as clearly as possibles but sometimes I miss the mark.
I brought that up only to counter the point that I should be as worried about powerful corporate interests as government interests and what I wanted to say was that because they can't exercise the kind of power that governments can exercise in terms of violence, I'm not anywhere near as worried about them.
Although Tommy DJ does present a list of worrying actions taking by an individual I would hope that person is held to account for those actions. It still pales against the power that governments wield on a daily basis.
Edit: I'd love to reply to everyone with a lot more detail but I just don't have the means to right now with regards to time. If there's something you still want to press to me feel free to, I don't mind at all. I kind of wish I wasn't the only voice of opposition in this thread but that's just the way it is.
It isn't one individual. The lesson to learn from the Leveson Inquiry is that you basically had a media organisation basically work alongside with Metro Police and high ranking Conservative politicians to run a media circus so ethically incorrect that you really can't separate them all.
Folks like David Cameron hang out with other rich affluent assholes and go do stuff like horse riding. Turns out that David Cameron liked going horse riding with Rebekah Brooks, the former CEO of News International and hired the former editor of the News of the World as his communications minister. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest somewhere around here...this isn't any different from, say, Turnbull hiring Ziggy Switkowski to run our NBN into the ground to benefit private interests.
With people like that in charge and in cahoots with the largest media business in the world, you're not worried about what they do simply because they can't directly physically hurt you? I'm really confused here, I don't believe you are that naive about private enterprises. Yes, its the government that calls the shots but at the end of the day the private enterprise often dictates what happens in most governments because they have the power to sway support. Its often not in the benefit of the general populace.
You seem to only be fixated with physical violence. You do realise there are a lot of other types of violence that have huge negative ramifications on people and demographics? These sort of warfare are not generally waged by the government but rather the people who can influence the government (i.e. workplace laws).
Well, wouldn't recall mechanisms and open primaries be a good way of clearing out the political class from all that sleaze? I'm fairly sure the population would've jumped at the chance to recall Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper from Parliament.
Recall mechanisms may help but it depends on united voters who are invested in the civic process. Many don't, as emphasized by people who vote in cult of personalities like Boris Johnson because he's a funny bumbling idiot who uses big words. Also, Sex Party, that Motorist Party in Victoria, awful proxy single issue parties that send preferences to a single entity.
Again, open primaries depend on a well informed public who is willing to invest in the civic process. So much of the political ills in many countries can probably be argued to begin via a population that is not educated or invested in the civic process and thus either don't vote or vote against their own interests.
Perhaps the poster child for this would be Japan. So many people are simply uninterested and uninvested in the politics of their nation so its basically a cycle of old people fucking each other and the younger generation. Nothing would change the condition of their political environment until the population start earnestly caring about politics in good faith. Same goes for any country with any large degree of political disinterest (so basically all first world nations).
Again, open primaries depend on a well informed public who is willing to invest in the civic process. So much of the political ills in many countries can probably be argued to begin via a population that is not educated or invested in the civic process and thus either don't vote or vote against their own interests.
Perhaps the poster child for this would be Japan. So many people are simply uninterested and uninvested in the politics of their nation so its basically a cycle of old people fucking each other and the younger generation. Nothing would change the condition of their political environment until the population start earnestly caring about politics in good faith. Same goes for any country with any large degree of political disinterest (so basically all first world nations).
Here's one for you Arksy.
Although I question the writer's sincerity when she stoops to Creationist standard shit slinging like "lol y u use iPad when you hate capitalism check mate."
Although I question the writer's sincerity when she stoops to Creationist standard shit slinging like "lol y u use iPad when you hate capitalism check mate."
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, she manages to identify one of the right's bigger problems without meaning to: the tendency to charge full speed down a slippery slope at windmills. Also, if you want a version of the Liberal Party without the AGW denial or the attacks on minorities and the ABC, try the ALP.
Generally you'd be correct.
I must admit we've historically been lucky that we were given the ALP as our center of left party. A quick glance at Continental Europe will present the stark difference between the Anglosphere's left wing parties and the violent revolutionary sentiments of their continental alternatives.
The ALP has been interested in improving the lot of poor people not by tearing down the entire system like other left wing movements, but by extending opportunities. The ALP has never really been a movement steeped in authoritarianism, envy, hate and bloodthirstiness like most continental socialist parties. It would be completely revisionist to say that the ALP has not done a lot to improve living conditions in Australia. Medicare without tearing down the private health system is one of its proudest achievements. This is not to say Labor has not had it's fair share of catastrophic policies, it has. Both sides have.
The tragedy of the modern ALP is that it's more of a party dedicated to the plight of white collar public servants than it is for the blue collar workforce. Interested in expanding the army of parking inspectors and speed camera operators, reconciliation officers, regulators and inspectors. It's hardly a surprise that the working class feel so damn disenfranchised at the moment.
Like politicians are now? Wait...
What you seem to want is the rule of the mob, which brings me to the next point:
It is not just direct democracy that is dangerous. It is direct democracy with the worship of anti intellectualism you espouse. Switzerland is not anti intellectual. You want somewhere with direct democracy and anti intellectualism? Look at California, what a wonderful place that is. Governed so well, with 100's of programmes that are unfunded because they keep adding programmes thanks to the mob, but never pay for them, thanks to the mob.
And another false dichotomy. You are ignoring all the continental leftist parties that are not about violent authoritarianism. You also seem to have ignored the fact that many of the revolutionary parties arose from countries that had dictatorships or absolutist monarchies. But continue, please.
The Swiss aren't anti-intellectual because there was never a doctrine of intellectualism in place in Switzerland. Not only did intellectualism never take root in Switzerland, there was never ever any chance of it taking place. The Swiss people have never let the keys of power out of their hands. There isn't any chance of an elite group of intellectuals coming in any proscribing half the known things in the universe because they think they know best. The antithesis of intellectualism is pluralism, not populism.
You're completely ignoring my point and picking out something I've said and bringing in some irrelevant information to add. Yes, nonviolent continental leftist parties exist, what's your point? How does that change the fact that by comparison, the leftist parties in the Anglosphere are generally far less revolutionary? The only false dichotomy here is one you've constructed in your own mind. The left in Europe, even in some of the countries that were never blighted with absolutist monarchies or dictatorships are completely different in character to the leftist parties that populate the Anglosphere states.
See, you've gone off the deep end again. 'The antithesis of intellectualism is pluralism, not populism' without me writing any of those words. But cool, explain how hating experts is not populism?
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
How much of that is the ALP and how much of it is the general service-based nature of the Australian economy? Parking inspectors, speed camera operators, nurses, teachers and bureaucrats are all working class. The modern day distinction between blue-collar and white-collar serves as little more than a rhetorical trap aimed at using social divides to manufacture political/economic ones. I also see no problem with expanding the public service if the private sector is unwilling to provide enough jobs for the workforce.
The only reason the private sector would be unwilling is because it is too constrained to grow. We're losing (well, lost) all our manufacturing and businesses because the governments came up with such oppressive legislation. This isn't about wages, this is about the stupid provisions surrounding the Fair Work Act and the Corporations Act that Howard and Gillard brought to this country.
I was merely trying to clarify a point because you were the one basically straw-manning my position as advocating for unfettered mob rule (or in more formal terms, populism).
Needless to say I'm now confused as all hell. This hasn't got anything to do with experts per se, to me anti-intellectualism is the notion that you shouldn't be afforded unreasonable power in the democratic process because you happen to hold a university degree.
To that end, I was cheering the current government restoring the natural balance back into the hands of our elected representatives, and very much enjoying the reactions from people who have had their power ripped from under them.
Edit: Oops, double post.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
- Status