-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
I don't really know why funding should continue to a public body who has been campaigning for less liberty for the last few decades. I'm absolutely loving this wrecking ball that's being wrought on consummate anti-rights bodies.
Presuming you are talking about ADCA. If they legalised drugs you would maybe have a point. As it is, you don't. As part of a larger campaign to liberalise (heh) the social laws in Australia it would be understandable. It isn't, it is just about not spending money on harm reduction and long term social interests.
What exactly is it you think the ADCA does (did)?
Edit: For example, this is from their position paper on cannabis:
http://www.adca.org.au/sites/default/files/files/policy-positions/2003/1_5 cannabis 2003.pdf
Pretty much all drug support organisations are well aware of the serious consequences misguided drug policies have on populations most at risk of drug abuse via the abuse of civil liberties. Its basically what you'll probably end up learning in any human geography/urban history course. This is not really an Australian thing and more of an American thing. And it is there that most of the more progressive substance abuse support groups do not support the US government's so-called "war on drugs". Not only because it harms civil liberties but because it further alienates those that are most vulnerable by punishing them.
At the end of the day, governments are the ones that provide the critical resources to tackle these issues, as they're that provide the infrastructure and funding for these groups to work together to minimize the impact of substance abuse.
I'm not very familiar with ADCA but they don't strike me as a group that is hell bent in unleashing the evil of the government over the people. Looking at the cuts that will result from the axing - Drug Action Week, National Inhalants Information Service (centralized resource service), Register of Australian Drug and Alcohol Research, Drugfields (professional development assistance in the field of alcohol and drug abuse) - I can't say that they're particularly malicious or actively against civil liberties.
To me, I don't see anyone benefiting from these cuts. The laws aren't going to change to facilitate more open drug use (lol come on, the Labor and Liberal voting bases won't vote for this and both parties are full of boring people who have never seen weed before), there won't be any real good affordable resource libraries to get information about drug related matters, and smaller support groups are going to be left hanging with little to no government backing. The real losers are probably that most likely to suffer from substance abuse, to be quite honest.
At the end of the day, governments are the ones that provide the critical resources to tackle these issues, as they're that provide the infrastructure and funding for these groups to work together to minimize the impact of substance abuse.
I'm not very familiar with ADCA but they don't strike me as a group that is hell bent in unleashing the evil of the government over the people. Looking at the cuts that will result from the axing - Drug Action Week, National Inhalants Information Service (centralized resource service), Register of Australian Drug and Alcohol Research, Drugfields (professional development assistance in the field of alcohol and drug abuse) - I can't say that they're particularly malicious or actively against civil liberties.
To me, I don't see anyone benefiting from these cuts. The laws aren't going to change to facilitate more open drug use (lol come on, the Labor and Liberal voting bases won't vote for this and both parties are full of boring people who have never seen weed before), there won't be any real good affordable resource libraries to get information about drug related matters, and smaller support groups are going to be left hanging with little to no government backing. The real losers are probably that most likely to suffer from substance abuse, to be quite honest.
Notice how they fall short of stating outright they support legalization?
Not good enough. There are zero excuses now, and if they weren't actually bringing up this conversation in parliament loud and clear and constant until they were changing minds, then they were failing at their job, and they deserved their fate.
Minor parties like the Sex Party have done better work on that front with just their election campaigning then the ADCA ever did. I don't believe for a second that the entire Labor and Liberal voting bases are of one mind on the drug war, and until that question is actually asked of them, we will never know. This is not on the agenda right now in Australia as it is in the US because our politicians in their comfortable little asylum seekers bad, budget surplus good bubble still see it as a poisoned chalice. NO. It stopped being that the moment Colorado, Washington State and Portugal made it so.
Yeah, pretty sure Arksy doesn't/didn't know what the ADCA did. But he's supporting their closure anyway.
Liberals!
Absolutely, I look at it like this.
1. It's an organisation that accepts government money to lobby. Which I believe is deeply immoral. No one should be taxed to support positions they don't believe in.
2. I assumed it was the nanny statist body that advocated things like obscenely high alcohol taxes, pub lock outs and other such measures that only rob of us of rights without ACTUALLY doing anything because you know, 'wahh alcohol is evil.'
3. If they're NOT a nanny statist body asking for the imposition of bullshit, then they should be abolished because they've been wholly ineffective. We've had to eat dumb and ineffective laws from both sides of politics on this issue.
Sin taxes only penalise the poor, the alcopop taxes made cider a booming product. Alcohol taxes in Australia are obscenely high and it's done nothing to mitigate alcohol related problems. Smoking rates in Australia are higher than America despite higher taxes, a ban on advertising (which they allow), plain packaging and other such nonsense. Pub lockouts haven't made Queensland safer than the rest of the country, in Melbourne they viewed the lockout trial as a failure and when someone in NSW gets killed due to a random violent assault Chump McFarrell decides that closing down all the pubs in Kings Cross is the best way forward.
Wow, what an amazing display of ignorance, and wanting to close something down based not on understanding what they did, but what you imagine they did (or didn't) do.
Didn't have a direct impact on you, except that part of your taxes paid for it, so it must go!
Wow.
One whole minute of googling would enlighten you.
this is so bananas stupid I can't believe we're even having this conversation
if you're going to use taxpayer money to pay for EXPERTS to come up with GOOD CONCLUSIONS that can be used to guide government policy it's just about conceivable that they might come up with positions that you may not personally agree with but that are nonetheless likely to be in society's best interest. If you're only going to use taxpayer money to support positions you already agree with what's the point of even using experts
Talk about letting perfect be the enemy of the good. They are far closer to your position than the government is.
They accepted government money to lobby the government to move closer to your position.
You are happy that a voice that is pushing for changes in the direction you want them is closed.
Learn who an organisation is before making absurd claims and then trying to justify them.
The government is not doing this out of liberalisation, they are doing this because that body challenges their authority on social matters and due to lobbying from tobacco and alcohol companies.
Come on man, just because you hate government funding for anything doesn't mean you should celebrate when a government closes a national body who is working to move things closer to what you agree with.
And almost every private group that gets government funding lobbies for changes. Public hospitals, universities, health councils, all of them. You cannot put a restriction on government funding preventing lobbying for change, ridiculous.
Funny thing is they were closer to Arksy's views than the government is. And yeah, hardly lobbying.
Arksy the problem we have now is that the only 'lobby' group advising the government are the alcohol and tobacco industries.
If you're argument is tax dollars spent on anything is bad. The result of these groups heavily influencing drug policy is that alcohol and tobacco consumption will go up. Which will lead to increased health costs and extra policing.
Whilst I agree the lockout policy is shittie, it is working. I'm in Queensland and it is reducing consumption and violence. Want to prove me wrong? Unlucky champ, you just closed the independent body in charge of researching it.
Is there a better solution to throwing people on the street that suits everyone? Sure, but you just shut down the government body in charge of doing the research to find that solution.
If you're argument is tax dollars spent on anything is bad. The result of these groups heavily influencing drug policy is that alcohol and tobacco consumption will go up. Which will lead to increased health costs and extra policing.
Whilst I agree the lockout policy is shittie, it is working. I'm in Queensland and it is reducing consumption and violence. Want to prove me wrong? Unlucky champ, you just closed the independent body in charge of researching it.
Is there a better solution to throwing people on the street that suits everyone? Sure, but you just shut down the government body in charge of doing the research to find that solution.
Premise: Experts come up with good conclusions that lead to good government policy.
I reject that premise wholeheartedly.
Premise: Societies best interest
We, the public, get to decide what's in our best interest.
Premise: I don't personally agree with them.
Chances are from the responses, I do. That's not the point.
Premise: I'll only support causes I believe in.
Well it's hardly democratic when you're appropriating our money in order to fund political activism. I don't get a say in whether that's a good use of our money or not. I get that tobacco and alcohol will throw money at lobbying, and that's their right. It's VOLUNTARY. This isn't voluntary, I get no control over which causes my tax money goes to, which is why it's immoral.
You call me ignorant yet you display an amazing contradiction in your post.
No direct impact on me.
I pay taxes for it.
No direct impact on me.
I pay taxes for it.
Conclusion: It does impact me, I pay taxes for it.
I kind of get that, on the question of cannabis.
But.....
Here they are, advocating for higher taxes. They're arguing to fuck poor people over. Sounds like a really good use of our money. Giving it to a group who lobbies for greater poverty in the community.
Not only that, but a simplest glance can tell you that it's all bullshit. America has less alcohol and tobacco consumption than we do without having to resort to excessive taxation and stupid laws.
For reference:
Tobacco Consumption Rate
Australia 27.7% males. 21.8% Females.
United States 26.3% males. 21.5% Females.
Pure alcohol consumption among adults (age 15+) in litres per capita per year
Australia: 10.02
United States: 9.44
if you're going to reject the idea that experts know what they're talking about and can with better accuracy than the general voter predict the likely outcomes of situations then I don't know we have any common ground anymore at all
you may not have to listen to them and enact what they say - democracy contains the right to democratically fuck ourselves, too, of course - but at least acknowledge that they're experts for a fucking reason!
Do you possibly know everything that your tax money is spent on? Do you have to agree with 100% of all government decisions made in every department in every aspect in order for your money to be validly used? If a judge declares a criminal guilty, and you think they're innocent, do you gain the right to retrieve your .5 of a cent that goes into that judge's salary?
you may not have to listen to them and enact what they say - democracy contains the right to democratically fuck ourselves, too, of course - but at least acknowledge that they're experts for a fucking reason!
Do you possibly know everything that your tax money is spent on? Do you have to agree with 100% of all government decisions made in every department in every aspect in order for your money to be validly used? If a judge declares a criminal guilty, and you think they're innocent, do you gain the right to retrieve your .5 of a cent that goes into that judge's salary?
Bulbagarden
Member
An hour ago, @AusElectoralCom tweeted that the application by the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics party to change its registered name and abbreviation respectively to Freedom and Prosperity Party and FAP has been approved.
With that kind of abbreviation, I can only think they're trying to court preferences from Sex Party voters.
With that kind of abbreviation, I can only think they're trying to court preferences from Sex Party voters.
That's not it at all
I'm not saying experts have no idea what they're talking about in their field. They usually do. Some experts are of course terrible, others are excellent.
That's not the point. Just because you're an expert in wheat growing doesn't necessarily mean you're good at coming up with good policies. In fact it's usually the opposite, I believe.
They've spent their life in their field, they don't necessarily understand economics, rights, fundamental freedoms, the effects it might cause on other industries. No expert can account for anything. Which is why we shouldn't give them the keys to the castle.
Every policy is framed in how efficient it will be, and chances are the experts are right in that it will make for a more efficient system. I just don't accept efficiency over utility and the idea that we should sacrifice flexibility for efficiency.
Sure, I'd be (personally) happy to reinstate funding for the body to conduct science and only conduct science. Not create reports, just bring us the cold hard facts.
But don't we have multiple other bodies that can conduct this sort of science and data crunching?
so: collecting data = aokay, drawing conclusions from that data = fuck you stop taking our liberty
Sure, and when are you going to decide that doing science = having a political position and cut their funding too
if i seem a little mad it's because i feel like i'm doing the political equivalent of having a conversation with a Great Old One
Sure, and when are you going to decide that doing science = having a political position and cut their funding too
if i seem a little mad it's because i feel like i'm doing the political equivalent of having a conversation with a Great Old One
How...how would anyone bring you facts without...uh, reporting them
"Alcohol consumption rates are costing us 2 billion in health costs every year." - Fine.
"Alcohol consumption rates are costing us 2 billion in health costs every year. Plz raise taxes." - Not fine.
No man is an island.
Ahahah. Fair enough.
Well this is simple enough really. As soon as I saw that they were advocating for greater taxation on alcohol and tobacco products their fate in my mind was sealed.
It wasn’t just that taxes are bad, mmkay. It’s that SIN TAXES ARE BAD, mmkay.
Sin taxes do not affect dependency. If you’re dependent on alcohol and tobacco all a sin tax is going to is make you poorer, and if you’re already poor, you’re fucked.
If you’re moderately wealthy and still dependent you can eat up the tax no problem. All a sin tax does is curb the moderate users, who probably won’t suffer the plethora of adverse effects to anywhere near the same extent. That way, people can go “Yay…we decreased smoking rates by 4%!!!! They were all moderate pack a week smokers, but shhhh.”
Elaugaufein
Member
Independent research shows the policy is working (at least in Newcastle).
Interestingly it even shows that geographic displacement doesn't happen (to a noticeable extent). which surprised me. It appears that what happens is temporal displacement: people go out earlier, meaning they a) have less time to drink at home before hand and b) have a greater chance of having access to public transport when they are calling it a night.
This may suggest that there's finite limit on how early you can do the lockout / closing though since the temporal displacement effect will be limited (people can't leave to go clubbing too early after all), and that it might not be a terrible idea to run public transport all night from CBD areas on Friday to Saturday and Saturday to Sunday (but this would cost money so hahahaha).
Interestingly it even shows that geographic displacement doesn't happen (to a noticeable extent). which surprised me. It appears that what happens is temporal displacement: people go out earlier, meaning they a) have less time to drink at home before hand and b) have a greater chance of having access to public transport when they are calling it a night.
This may suggest that there's finite limit on how early you can do the lockout / closing though since the temporal displacement effect will be limited (people can't leave to go clubbing too early after all), and that it might not be a terrible idea to run public transport all night from CBD areas on Friday to Saturday and Saturday to Sunday (but this would cost money so hahahaha).
Elaugaufein
Member
I don't agree with your hypothesis that what society wants is inherently in societies best interest in practice. There are many power groups that have incentive and ability to spread misinformation which means that societies understanding of some issues are objectively speaking wrong.
For example the majority of Australian people seem to think refugees are economic migrants. Which is bizarre. Would you get on a boat that has a decent chance of sinking and killing you, or dropping you off in the wrong destination, and that will involve terrible living conditions for days or weeks, for a 10% increase in income? People believe this even though it makes no sense at all because our media finds it to be a useful narrative and they keep repeating it.
The same thing happened with violence in King's Cross, the media found a useful narrative and kept repeating it even though violence in King's Cross has been decreasing in places that aren't fantasy land.
I'd love to live in a world where accurate information was disseminated widely enough that it was even mildly probable that what society believes is in its best interests actually was on all issues.
For example the majority of Australian people seem to think refugees are economic migrants. Which is bizarre. Would you get on a boat that has a decent chance of sinking and killing you, or dropping you off in the wrong destination, and that will involve terrible living conditions for days or weeks, for a 10% increase in income? People believe this even though it makes no sense at all because our media finds it to be a useful narrative and they keep repeating it.
The same thing happened with violence in King's Cross, the media found a useful narrative and kept repeating it even though violence in King's Cross has been decreasing in places that aren't fantasy land.
I'd love to live in a world where accurate information was disseminated widely enough that it was even mildly probable that what society believes is in its best interests actually was on all issues.
As soon as you talk about 'best interests' that's where things become fuzzy. Everyone has their own idea about what society should look like, the point is, given that everyone conflicts, we should have a way to resolve such conflicts. There is no such thing as a purely objective utopia, you can only start talking about such a place in reference to selected criteria which individuals have given their own weight.
Except these taxes go back into funding things like, oh, I don't know, HOSPITALS. BTW you don't think that a higher tax won't encourage poorer people to consider things like rehab?
Maybe we should reduce taxes on them so that the poor people aren't as poor anymore.
It's so genius I don't know why no-one had thought of it sooner.
But yeah, fuck hospitals and anything to increase funding to the healthcare system. Better off we have that pittance we saved by shutting down an advisory board.
And let's not forget the reason why it was shut down:
Duplication. Before admitting that it's not actually duplicated. Clever.
So why get rid of the board?
Edit: Unless the "we raise much in excess" is the damage caused by things like smoking and drinking. The last part of your post is a little hard to grasp. It sounds like you're talking about us raising more money from the taxes of things than what they cost, but that doesn't make sense in the context of your argument.
Elaugaufein
Member
This is true, but I don't believe that people can give selected criteria their own weight subject even to their own subjective desires when the objective information used to create weighting is wrong.
You can't meaningfully ask people to rank the importance of safety vs liberty when the Council for Police States completely dominates the media with reports of how improving safety has no negative effect on happiness, but even mildly increasing liberty will lead to the world exploding tomorrow.
Even subjective weighting subject to personal desires requires accurate information and society simply doesn't have that on the massive scale required. This is I think probably the major disagreement between your view and mine: I don't think unlimited voluntary lobbying's net outcome is neutral because it leads to a spiral in which power reinforces power and dissent is stifled. Even in a situation in which publicly funded research exists oil and coal lobbies create the impression that climate change is not a matter of scientific consensus and in a situation where no public science was done no one would even know that the data cited is selected to be deliberately misleading. The only way that truth can even get a foot in is if there's both limits on voluntary lobbying and the present of (as) neutral (as possible) publicly funded research.
My apologies.
I mean that overall, our policies regarding taxation on those goods isn't made in reference to the health costs of those goods.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but I had read several times that the amount we raise in tax far exceeds the costs in terms of health and damage.
Also, from the report;
So to me this is sounding more like a sin tax at best, attempting to, with good intentions, curb the general use of a 'bad product', or a cynical tax grab from poor people at worst.
There are reasons for this.
Outright decriminalization of drugs is not something a lot of drug groups support, as far as I am aware of. Most advocate the removal of punishments for the possession of certain drugs.
The US war on drugs is essentially the same as our asylum seeker issue. There have been evidence that it is used as justification for aggressive foreign policy as well as domestic goal scoring to win votes with the middle class. The end result is the "pacification" of "bad" urban areas and mass incarceration of African Americans.
The aggressive American response for legalization, or removing the harsh punishments for possession and use, is a result of how aggressive the US government is. Hence why I doubt there will ever be in vogue with Australian politicians and people.
Anyway, the reason why they don't outright state that we should legalize drugs is because they see to as a bit of a slippery slope. The argument is that legalizing it without careful implantation of regulation will result in an alcohol or tobacco situation where responsibility goes out the window and lobby groups push governments to deregulate.
Sex Party has some neat social platforms but you have to remember who they represent and their economic stances. They act as a grassroots group but they're the Australian sex industry who most definitely wants to get into the market of selling drugs (they apparently already do). There's a clear reason why they're pushing what they're pushing so strongly. Their economic stances show very clearly that they're just here to create an environment where they can create a lot of money.
Very well argued. We're getting back to the argument we had earlier regarding the dissemination of information. To a point, I agree, what we'll probably disagree on is the solution to the problem.
I'm not saying that governments should not conduct scientific research. They should, because we should know things that don't have intrinsically commercial applications. There is a marked difference between say, the CSIRO, which conducts research apolitically on a vast array of cutting edge issues, and the body before us.
I'll happily whinge and whine and join everyone else in protest if they start cutting the CSIRO or other like organisations, but I'll happily cheer the abolition of ADCA.
Let's be honest, neither does the average voter
Elaugaufein
Member
It's always fascinating discussing/arguing things with libertarians of beliefs similar to yours for me, because our views on a number of subjects are very similar (e.g free speech is something I value very highly and chilling effects and societal censorship concern me), while they wildly depart in other areas (like whether money is speech). Trying to locate the points of divergence (and why we diverge) is interesting.
AdventureRacing
Member
So who should we listen to then if not experts in that specific field?
How would society know what's in their best interest? I'm not going down that road of talking about how dumb the average voter is even if i think it's relevant. Even if you're well educated it's impossible for you to understand all of the different things that a government has to control. Health, defense, the economy whatever it's impossible for the average person to understand all these things. That plus people only think of themselves short term so even what they think is in their best interest often isn't.
That's kinda what led us to this shitty political situation in the first place. Sure in theory it sounds great, of course we should get to choose how decisions are made. In reality it's a bunch of selfish people only looking out for themselves and not even really having the understanding to do that.
That's not it at all
I'm not saying experts have no idea what they're talking about in their field. They usually do. Some experts are of course terrible, others are excellent.
That's not the point. Just because you're an expert in wheat growing doesn't necessarily mean you're good at coming up with good policies. In fact it's usually the opposite, I believe.
They've spent their life in their field, they don't necessarily understand economics, rights, fundamental freedoms, the effects it might cause on other industries. No expert can account for anything. Which is why we shouldn't give them the keys to the castle.
Every policy is framed in how efficient it will be, and chances are the experts are right in that it will make for a more efficient system. I just don't accept efficiency over utility and the idea that we should sacrifice flexibility for efficiency.
Personally i hold the opposite view. Too often are policies made without using the best available evidence from experts. Politicians who simply don't know enough about their respective field making decisions that have a huge negative impact.
I don't think experts in each field should be 'given the keys to the castle' and i don't think that is the case anyway. However policies should absolutely be based around the information provided by experts in the field.
Elaugaufein
Member
To say nothing of the average politician given that politicians are a less diverse field (and not coincidentally usually from backgrounds who are disproportionately favoured by the political status quo to start with).
roosters93
Member
I think Arsky's fantasy is of a future where democracy is SO direct, that every minute of the day the populace is voting on every single thing possible (eg every cent of how tax cash money is spent) resulting in a non functioning government.
To me it seems like what they're saying in the paragraph you quoted is they really think the funds raised from the sin taxes they helped lobby for should go back into health and prevention but the government controls that and happened to ignore their advice on what to do with the tax funds.
this is how I imagine the conversation between ADCA and the gov't went
OH A TAX YOU SAY? OKAY. HMMM OH YOU WONDER WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE PROCEEDS? SOMETHING ELSE.
this this this this this
I find it disheartening that Arsky believes this
while ignoring the result that will have. Almost makes me feel depressed.
Oh. Umm... nevermind?
"If the majority voted to jump off a cliff would you do it?"
(The answer is probably yes)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-03/abbott-announces-intended-changes-to-qantas-sale-act/5295700
Abbott practically opens up Qantas to privatization. It won't happen until at least the next Senate though, because Labor and the Greens will block it.
Abbott practically opens up Qantas to privatization. It won't happen until at least the next Senate though, because Labor and the Greens will block it.
I don't really know where you get that from. Thing's I've actually advocated for in this thread.
Recall elections: Forcing a by-election in an electorate. Usually for issues such as corruption or bad behaviour. When it's been used for purely partisan reasons it usually backfires and cements the incumbent's power. See Stephen Harper in Canada, and the Governor of Wisconsin.
Open Primaries: Having an open election to the electors within an electorate to determine the candidate for a particular political party. Why? Because current mechanisms allow representatives of safe seats to vote with impunity, and the political parties have to much power over MPs.
Citizens initiative: The Swiss model of proposing grassroots laws. Basically copy pasted from Switzerland would be the way I'd do it. Because the current tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum method of politics basically gives us a choice between atrocious policy A and terrible policy B. Plus that way we could repeal laws we hate without having to replace the government wholesale.
Devolved Powers to the States: Because decisions should be made as close to the people they affect. Jefferson put it best.
I don't see that turning into 'vote #1 to criminalise Wayne breathing.' If you see it that way there's probably very very little I can do to convince you otherwise.
I've said the current media landscape in this country is fucked a few times now. I don't give a shit that Murdoch is spewing bullshit all the time. I do give a shit about the fact that his media empire is basically the only public voice now. Pluralism requires many voices, and currently those voices aren't really being heard. The solution, however can not be to silence or neutralise or censor him. The solution to me, has to be allowing other voices to be heard.
Don't be ridiculous, that's not the point. The point is that forcing people, against their will, to fund political campaigns that they fundamentally disagree with, is immoral.
This isn't about controlling every cent of tax we pay, that's democracy. We decide what we spend our taxes on in a general sense. That's fine. Of course we might disagree on the fine details but democracy settles that and I defer to the better judgment of my peers. I can only try to convince them next time, that I know a better way to arrange our affairs.
I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT.
This isn't a judges salary, this isn't government paying people to do necessary jobs. This is the government getting involved in the system. It's government corrupting the democratic process.
Direct democracy isn't exactly helpful if the majority are complete shitheads. You've got the whole minaret rubbish and the fact that woman's suffrage in Switzerland took a bajillion years because men can often be misogynistic twats if given the option.
Judging by how we vote, I wouldn't trust Australians with direct democracy any time soon.
Edit: Basically, what it can result in is the tyranny of the majority, which crushes the voice of the minority. The Swiss example shows this very clearly with the kneejerk backlash legislation against the Turkish (who can't do shit because they're a minority ethnically and religiously) and the constant refusal to let women to vote. 1991 was the date that every woman, anywhere in Switzerland, was allowed to vote on local issues. Its not as good as you keep on believing it to be unless you're suggesting these sort of results are OK because they're voted by the people.
Judging by how we vote, I wouldn't trust Australians with direct democracy any time soon.
Edit: Basically, what it can result in is the tyranny of the majority, which crushes the voice of the minority. The Swiss example shows this very clearly with the kneejerk backlash legislation against the Turkish (who can't do shit because they're a minority ethnically and religiously) and the constant refusal to let women to vote. 1991 was the date that every woman, anywhere in Switzerland, was allowed to vote on local issues. Its not as good as you keep on believing it to be unless you're suggesting these sort of results are OK because they're voted by the people.
Then who's going to fund those campaigns? Commercial interests aren't going to do it. Are you going to kickstarter expert analysis for a brighter democratic future? Is that a sustainable funding model? The government has to get involved in the system. It has to continually ask if there's a better way, and if elements of it are convinced there is a better way, they has to advocate for it, because there's nobody else in society who's going to do that on a regular and sustainable level.
Tax dollars fund research in all kinds of areas that guide government policy - in defence and regional political analysis, in trade, in science - in everything. If it guides government policy, by default under your analysis it's corrupting the democratic process, since we don't get a say in what we do about it (disregarding the fact of course that in order for it to do anything it needs to be voted on by our appointed representatives etc). Maybe I could see your point better if you were exclusively targeting, say, tax-payer funded campaigning advertising during election season. But the idea that you can't fund experts to research matters and offer solutions because you might not agree with them because it's immoral is preposterous.
Tax dollars fund research in all kinds of areas that guide government policy - in defence and regional political analysis, in trade, in science - in everything. If it guides government policy, by default under your analysis it's corrupting the democratic process, since we don't get a say in what we do about it (disregarding the fact of course that in order for it to do anything it needs to be voted on by our appointed representatives etc). Maybe I could see your point better if you were exclusively targeting, say, tax-payer funded campaigning advertising during election season. But the idea that you can't fund experts to research matters and offer solutions because you might not agree with them because it's immoral is preposterous.
roosters93
Member
Sorry to make you type all that for a joke.
I would vote for that though. Wayne's a dick.
I remember you wistfully comparing our situation to the American media landscape a few times but do you having any ideas of how to allow for those other voices currently? Propping up voices with a little help from the public sector seems like a good idea to me but I'll leave that at that.
I wonder what the media landscape will look like when the newspaper dinosaurs have finally died their slow death. Murdoch is a cunning old fart though so I imagine he (or his head in a jar) will still have a finger in a few pies.
I would vote for that though. Wayne's a dick.
I remember you wistfully comparing our situation to the American media landscape a few times but do you having any ideas of how to allow for those other voices currently? Propping up voices with a little help from the public sector seems like a good idea to me but I'll leave that at that.
I wonder what the media landscape will look like when the newspaper dinosaurs have finally died their slow death. Murdoch is a cunning old fart though so I imagine he (or his head in a jar) will still have a finger in a few pies.
The system is a tangled mess of positive feedback loops. Someone has to counter-act those effects and the only ones who are both in a position to do so and willing to do so is the government.
I'm a pacifist who disagrees with current border patrol measures. Additionally I'm an atheist, secular humanist who thinks mining is an environmentally irresponsible industry, and the electricity cartels are unduly supported with their trading terms for cheap energy like coal and lng.
Will you send me a refund for the proportion of my taxes that go to supporting religious education, chaplains in schools, tax breaks for churches, mining companies, coal power plants, as well as the proportion used to pay for illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and detaining refugees in camps where they are assaulted by local police.
Thanks.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I think Arksy distinguishes these actions from "government funded lobbying". However there are issues with such a distinction.
The ADCA wasn't a government body but it's not like it was a lobbying organisation for a for-profit interest either. The positions in its reports that Arksy objects to were included not to advance an ideology or vested interest but because of a perceived evidential base. A different example would be the Climate Commission which was established directly by the Government; it influenced the public debate but its remit was established by the very politicians it reported to.
Another problem with the distinction is that everything is politics; you don't need to be specifically recommending or lobbying for things to influence policy and discourse, as your examples demonstrate. Arksy supports funding the CSIRO, but an anarcho-primitivist could call that immoral. A social Darwinist could use that same reasoning to attack the public health system. Obviously you can say that these are extreme positions that shouldn't be given the time of day. However, once you do you're acknowledging that these aren't natural laws but value judgements.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked