Support NeoGAF

[AdventureRacing]

Well yeah, I'd love to quit the UN, and I'd love for advisory board positions to be elected, but neither of those positions are really feasible. I do believe them to be the most moral courses of action, though. Boards have to be appointed by someone, why not make it someone who has the confidence of the public?

Well because the public is generally uninformed and has no idea who would fit the role (especially when it comes to an international organisation). I'd rather see the most competent people being given the job than who the public thinks deserve it.

I realise that logic could probably be applied to elections as well and i know the problems with that but in this case i'm ok with it.

It's not like we're forced into following what the UN recommends as is made clearly evident on this page. We already get to elect the people who make the final decision, i don't see why we need to vote for the ones making the recommendations from the UN as well.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I can get cheering on your side when they reject an outside organisation criticising their policy. But Hunt 'showing up' the BBC World Service?

''Look, with great respect, you can swear on international radio, you can invite me from Australia to do this, you can be profoundly rude, I'm happy to answer but I'm not going to be sworn at.''

In response to the word "crap". In a direct quote from his leader. After saying he'd looked up bushfires on Wikipedia.

 

[roosters93]

Well yeah, I'd love to quit the UN, and I'd love for advisory board positions to be elected, but neither of those positions are really feasible. I do believe them to be the most moral courses of action, though. Boards have to be appointed by someone, why not make it someone who has the confidence of the public?

Why are they?

 

[Arksy]

Well because the public is generally uninformed and has no idea who would fit the role (especially when it comes to an international organisation). I'd rather see the most competent people being given the job than who the public thinks deserve it.

I realise that logic could probably be applied to elections as well and i know the problems with that but in this case i'm ok with it.

It's not like we're forced into following what the UN recommends as is made clearly evident on this page. We already get to elect the people who make the final decision, i don't see why we need to vote for the ones making the recommendations from the UN as well.

Well I find that to be an incredibly cynical and negative view of your fellow people, but I know that's a common and frustrating view that people take. I disagree, and believe that people do know what's best when it comes to their own circumstances, but I know I'll never be able to convince you otherwise.

The thing about elections is that they allow something I consider to be crucial, an amount of accountability. I mean, if I appoint competent person X who never does anything wrong and makes society a better place, that would be awesome, but humans don't work that way. People, even very smart people, get things wrong. People might vote along ideological line normally, but if they perceive that someone they normally agree with is doing a rubbish job, they'll vote to get rid of them.

We need to hold people who have power in check, and elections force the appointee to have to convince people about their arguments. I don't see how scrutiny is anything but a good thing, on all sides, to every argument.

Even if what you say is true, and that elections allow bigots to control public policy, surely you see that there is a substantial utility in having elections...

 

[Jintor]

Why are they?

Sovereignty reasons, I'd guess?

If the Abbott government wants to speak out against an unelected unaccountable foreign element with a political agenda they'd best shore up those trade deal agreements that are actually going to allow US companies to sue us if they don't like our regulations. Bit more of a worry than the UN, frankly.

 

[Arksy]

Sovereignty reasons, I'd guess?

If the Abbott government wants to speak out against an unelected unaccountable foreign element with a political agenda they'd best shore up those trade deal agreements that are actually going to allow US companies to sue us if they don't like our regulations. Bit more of a worry than the UN, frankly.

Sovereignty is a big one, but I dislike the U.N. on a much, much more personal level. I guess I should be clear on that.

Also, what on earth are you talking about?

 

[markot]

They're not wrong though, the UN is an organisation that's meant to be the arbiter of peace between nations, it's not designed to be a political organisation meddling in the internal politics of member states.

The UN was shown up for being what it truly is, a meddlesome organisation bent on trying to create global governance.

Might want to read the UN charter. Article one, its right there, and Australia was a big part of its formation.

Also the fact that pollution doesn't stop at our borders....

 

[Jintor]

I'm sorry, apparently we are now recanting on that position despite what I recalled from early election rhetoric (We were talking about ISDS provisions in free trade agreement talks a while back).

Sovereignty is a big one, but I dislike the U.N. on a much, much more personal level. I guess I should be clear on that.

What did the United Nations ever do to you man? Did they vote for Alexander and he won the game before you could get to space victory?

 

[Arksy]

I'm sorry, apparently we are now recanting on that position despite what I recalled from early election rhetoric (We were talking about ISDS provisions in free trade agreement talks a while back).

Sorry, I missed a fair chunk of the election campaign.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Well I find that to be an incredibly cynical and negative view of your fellow people, but I know that's a common and frustrating view that people take.

In this case i'm including myself. The UN is an organisation set up to look at these issues from a global perspective. I simply don't have the information or the know how to be able to vote on people representing that organisation.

I disagree, and believe that people do know what's best when it comes to their own circumstances, but I know I'll never be able to convince you otherwise.

I've met enough people to see what they base their voting decisions on to know that this simply isn't the case. I'm not going down that rabbit hole, it's a completely different discussion to this one.

The thing about elections is that they allow something I consider to be crucial, an amount of accountability. I mean, if I appoint competent person X who never does anything wrong and makes society a better place, that would be awesome, but humans don't work that way. People, even very smart people, get things wrong. People might vote along ideological line normally, but if they perceive that someone they normally agree with is doing a rubbish job, they'll vote to get rid of them.

We need to hold people who have power in check, and elections force the appointee to have to convince people about their arguments. I don't see how scrutiny is anything but a good thing, on all sides, to every argument.

Even if what you say is true, and that elections allow bigots to control public policy, surely you see that there is a substantial utility in having elections...

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have elections. I'm saying that we shouldn't have elections for officials in the UN. How would you even do such a thing? We already vote for our local government and they are the ones who have to actually enact the policies recommended to them so what's the problem anyway?

Again this is a whole other discussion but i disagree with the idea that elections are the only way to keep people in power in check. An organisation can hold it's employees accountable without necessarily having a vote. I'm not arguing that people in the UN shouldn't be held responsible, i'm saying that having Australians vote for UN members isn't necessary for that to be the case.

 

[Jintor]

I think when AdventureRacer says 'the general public is generally uninformed' I believe he means in relation to mega-specialised areas such as, let's say, climate science, the politics of the middle east, socio-economic factors that may lead to mass starvation and other issues to which the UN generally has people looking into things. So the public's not necessarily in a very good position to judge that kind of thing, so they're not in a real good position to judge how much other people know about that kind of thing either.

 

[markot]

We have elections. Governments appoint members to the un, they setup the organisations infrastructure... Etc...

Ban ki moon was elected and leads the un.

The un has no power.

 

[AdventureRacing]

I think when AdventureRacer says 'the general public is generally uninformed' I believe he means in relation to mega-specialised areas such as, let's say, climate science, the politics of the middle east, socio-economic factors that may lead to mass starvation and other issues to which the UN generally has people looking into things. So the public's not necessarily in a very good position to judge that kind of thing, so they're not in a real good position to judge how much other people know about that kind of thing either.

Exactly. I'm not trying to say everyone is dumb or something to that effect. We're talking about extremely specialised areas which unless you have specific training in you really won't know what you're talking about.

For example if the official being elected was for something to do with health i'd have a good idea of whether they are good for the job. For most other areas i simply wouldn't know and shouldn't be expected to. Having people who really don't have that specific know how voting on who should represent those areas is a flawed process, at least to me.

I just don't see how an election would be feasible for something like the UN and i don't think it's a suitable process for an organisation like that anyway.

 

[Arksy]

I think when AdventureRacer says 'the general public is generally uninformed' I believe he means in relation to mega-specialised areas such as, let's say, climate science, the politics of the middle east, socio-economic factors that may lead to mass starvation and other issues to which the UN generally has people looking into things. So the public's not necessarily in a very good position to judge that kind of thing, so they're not in a real good position to judge how much other people know about that kind of thing either.

I disagree. We're not having a vote on whether the science is valid, we're not having a vote on whether there's conflict in the middle east. We're voting on what we should do about climate-change. We're voting on whether we send our aid to the middle east, or send peacekeepers.

Those have very real impacts on the local population, from taxation to people being lost in wars. I agree that there can be issues with information gaps, but that's an issue with the lack of easily accessible information, motivation (both to disseminate the information, and to learn about it), I don't think that's a good indictment of the entire system.

Edit: If catastrophic climate change is coming (I say if because there's a real question to the extent of its impact, not the question of whether it's actually happening, I agree with that), and we constantly say we don't want to do anything about it, we have to bear the consequences of our choices.

 

[markot]

I disagree. We're not having a vote on whether the science is valid, we're not having a vote on whether there's conflict in the middle east. We're voting on what we should do about climate-change. We're voting on whether we send our aid to the middle east, or send peacekeepers.

Those have very real impacts on the local population, from taxation to people being lost in wars. I agree that there can be issues with information gaps, but that's an issue with the lack of easily accessible information, motivation (both to disseminate the information, and to learn about it), I don't think that's a good indictment of the entire system.

None of that has to do with the UN.

Our government decides to send peacekeepers, foreign aid and what to do on climate change....

The UN can't make us do anything. Its ignored at will by all nations.

Our choices effect more than ourselves. Its like having a house that's a fire hazard and saying you can't be forced to clean up, even though when it goes up in flames, the neighbourhood is at risk, not just your plot of land.

 

[Arksy]

None of that has to do with the UN.

Our government decides to send peacekeepers, foreign aid and what to do on climate change....

The UN can't make us do anything. Its ignored at will by all nations.

Not at will, you can't for example, ignore security council resolutions. We HAVE to impose sanctions against Iran, to our great loss as it would have been good to take advantage of the fact that no one else was really doing business with them.

Well we don't HAVE to listen, but they can enforce the sanctions by shooting down our trade vessels and other such measures.

 

[markot]

Not at will, you can't for example, ignore security council resolutions.

Depends on the sort. And good? You just said the only good thing about the UN was keeping peace, generally thats the only reason the sec council will issue a resolution.

 

[markot]

Not at will, you can't for example, ignore security council resolutions. We HAVE to impose sanctions against Iran, to our great loss as it would have been good to take advantage of the fact that no one else was really doing business with them.

Well we don't HAVE to listen, but they can enforce the sanctions by shooting down our trade vessels and other such measures.

The UN can't. Other nations can. If we don't play by international rules, other nations will exclude us... That's the way it goes since before the Un.

 

[Arksy]

The UN can't. Other nations can. If we don't play by international rules, other nations will exclude us... That's the way it goes since before the Un.

Yes, but if we weren't part of the UN, we could still trade with Iran and no one could enforce the sanctions against us. The Security Council can only bind member states.

 

[markot]

Yes, but if we weren't part of the UN, we could still trade with Iran and no one could not enforce the sanctions against us. The Security Council can only bind member states.

They could, and would, put sanctions against us even if we were not members.

 

[Arksy]

They could, and would, put sanctions against us even if we were not members.

They wouldn't dare. We're way too valuable to them.

I feel like we're getting a bit off topic, back to Abbott and the UN. I feel like the UN this week attempted to meddle in our internal affairs by telling us well firstly an unconfirmed fact (I haven't seen any evidence presented that the bushfires are linked to climate change), and that we should have a carbon tax, or pay a high price.

Abbott in return has told her to go jump, firstly that she's wrong about the link, and that we are a free and independent people who have chosen to scrap it. So sod off.

In return, I am happy that our PM has taken this stance, championing the edict of the people.

 

[Jintor]

One day I'll actually get immersed in the science so I can actually argue this stupid thing with people on the internet. But from a sovereignty standpoint, I just don't think waving our sovereign dick at everyone being "LOOK HOW INDEPENDENT WE ARE! FUCK YOUR FACTS" is a wonderfully responsible world attitude to have.

To reiterate an earlier argument, I also disagree that we a free and independent people have chosen to scrap a damn thing, at least until next July, the public votes governments out not in, no mandate, yadda yadda yadda...

 

[Arksy]

One day I'll actually get immersed in the science so I can actually argue this stupid thing with people on the internet. But from a sovereignty standpoint, I just don't think waving our sovereign dick at everyone being "LOOK HOW INDEPENDENT WE ARE! FUCK YOUR FACTS" is a wonderfully responsible world attitude to have.

LOL

Right or wrong, it IS a course we can take, and for better or worse, we're taking it. We will have to bear the consequences of this course of action, the important thing is that we had a choice.

Also I don't know if these bush fires are linked to climate change, the UN was a bit equivocal saying that they've resulted in heat waves in other parts of the world, and the Bureau of Meteorology has came out and said that they have not been able to establish a link between the two.

Not saying that it's not possible, but I feel like the UN's statements were tenuous at best and spreading FUD at worst.

Edit: I see your second paragraph as an argument FOR strengthening our democratic credentials, to which I would wholeheartedly agree! Or just have a damn referendum on the two different policies, with an option for 'Do Nothing'.

 

[Jintor]

I don't know how much of a choice I had in it, but I guess that's democracy for you

frankly I'm finding it very difficult to follow what you're saying. between the climate science, the international politics and what exactly 'we' are hypothetically voting for re: the UN on this hand, and my actual work which I'm supposed to be doing into the regulation of synthetic drugs which is filled to the brim with science things and stats I don't know a lot about, I think my brain is getting a little overworked

 

[Arksy]

I don't know how much of a choice I had in it, but I guess that's democracy for you

frankly I'm finding it very difficult to follow what you're saying. between the climate science, the international politics and what exactly 'we' are hypothetically voting for re: the UN on this hand, and my actual work which I'm supposed to be doing into the regulation of synthetic drugs which is filled to the brim with science things and stats I don't know a lot about, I think my brain is getting a little overworked

If anything I've said doesn't make sense, or I haven't made myself very clear, I'm sorry.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

They wouldn't dare. We're way too valuable to them.

I feel like we're getting a bit off topic, back to Abbott and the UN. I feel like the UN this week attempted to meddle in our internal affairs by telling us well firstly an unconfirmed fact (I haven't seen any evidence presented that the bushfires are linked to climate change), and that we should have a carbon tax, or pay a high price.

Abbott in return has told her to go jump, firstly that she's wrong about the link, and that we are a free and independent people who have chosen to scrap it. So sod off.

In return, I am happy that our PM has taken this stance, championing the edict of the people.

This isn't really what the UN rep said. Whilst no individual event can be linked to climate change, trends can be. A warming climate will increase fire risk and prolong the fire season. That these fires would occur regardless does not change that. As Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is in a unique position to help Australia avoid a future where catastrophic fires are more commonplace, not by dropping by Bilpin to drive a truck, but by encouraging collective action to combat the greenhouse effect, setting an example to follow and facilitating increases in knowledge and understanding. So far he has refused to do any of these and in fact has taken a number of steps backward from the previous government. You said earlier that if 'we' choose to not act 'we' will bear the consequences. This is incorrect. Everyone will bear the consequences. This is not an issue solely of individual responsibility, but of collective action.

 

[seanoff]

Not at will, you can't for example, ignore security council resolutions.

Well we don't HAVE to listen, but they can enforce the sanctions by shooting down our trade vessels and other such measures.

Fucking arrant nonsense.

Do we trade with isreal?

sanctions are enforced sometimes, often with massive hypocrisy thrown in. The french, germans etc often trade through sanctions against the wishes of uncle sam. We do it too. The USA are by far the worst. Its mostly do as i say not as i do. And they wouldn't dare touch us, we'd just broadcast all their intelligence. We could trade with whoever we want, we choose not to, publically at least. Privately, you probably dont want to know.

Sorry your world view is intensely basic. The world is many shades of grey, not your black and white view.

And yes, a lot of this is inside info.

 

[Arksy]

This isn't really what the UN rep said. Whilst no individual event can be linked to climate change, trends can be. A warming climate will increase fire risk and prolong the fire season. That these fires would occur regardless does not change that. As Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is in a unique position to help Australia avoid a future where catastrophic fires are more commonplace, not by dropping by Bilpin to drive a truck, but by encouraging collective action to combat the greenhouse effect, setting an example to follow and facilitating increases in knowledge and understanding. So far he has refused to do any of these and in fact has taken a number of steps backward from the previous government. You said earlier that if 'we' choose to not act 'we' will bear the consequences. This is incorrect. Everyone will bear the consequences. This is not an issue solely of individual responsibility, but of collective action.

Well the discussion was re: scrapping of the carbon tax. I don't believe either the liberal DAP or the carbon tax will result in a world where climate change will be reduced. I strongly believe that if we are to take this threat seriously we need to reduce consumption, not production.

Butt...that's my own idiosyncratic non-mainstream view.

snip

You're calling me out on a technicality on an argument based on technicalities. They wouldn't enforce but they clearly could. The question was over sovereignty and how (at least on the black letter of the law) it was being reduced by being a member state of the UN.

 

[Dryk]

The federal government is completely ruining Adelaide's urban rail system and road upgrades. So they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: If catastrophic climate change is coming (I say if because there's a real question to the extent of its impact, not the question of whether it's actually happening, I agree with that), and we constantly say we don't want to do anything about it, we have to bear the consequences of our choices.

Which would all be well and good if the consequences were restricted to those of us who made the choice. I don't remember 8 billion votes being counted in the last election and I know I certainly didn't choose to die in a fire.

 

[seanoff]

I strongly believe that if we are to take this threat seriously we need to reduce consumption, not production.

Butt...that's my own idiosyncratic non-mainstream view.

What lever are you going to use to do that.

People are price sensitive, so one way to reduce consumption is to increase the price. Simple 1st yr micro economics. Ergo a tax on the consumption to increase the price and therefore reduce the consumption.

What are the other methods you are going to use reduce consumption. You have to do it on a mass scale. Kw/hr limit on houses, reduce the generation. ?????????????? Make it palatable, you have to be re-elected.

 

[Arksy]

What lever are you going to use to do that.

People are price sensitive, so one way to reduce consumption is to increase the price. Simple 1st yr micro economics. Ergo a tax on the consumption to increase the price and therefore reduce the consumption.

What are the other methods you are going to use reduce consumption. You have to do it on a mass scale. Kw/hr limit on houses, reduce the generation. ?????????????? Make it palatable, you have to be re-elected.

I can't.

I read a few articles recently about New York City, and how the public there think they're one of the worst polluters in the world, but in fact they're one of the most green given their size. The reason is that people live in high rise apartments and all catch the metro. Everyone catching the subway decreases demand for obvious reasons but it's a lot easier to heat entire buildings than it is to heat an equivalent number of homes. Homes are very large living spaces that take a monstrous amount of energy to heat up and cool down compared to the smaller apartment sized living spaces. With condensation you can limit distribution points so that cargo ships don't have to traverse as much road to reach a greater number of people.

I would personally want a huge increase in sustainable apartments in urban areas of Australia and far more robust public transportation networks.

But it's basically impossible because everyone wants a big house out in the burbs with 2-3 cars. I don't really blame them, but it's that kind of paradigm that has led us here.

 

[trinest]

Regardless of your opinion on climate change, people shouldn't be debating a tax, we should implement said tax, but make sure no ifs or buts that its raised money goes towards research and expansion into climate based projects, such as renewable energy, green programs and education.

 

[seanoff]

I can't.

I read a few articles recently about New York City, and how the public there think they're one of the worst polluters in the world, but in fact they're one of the most green given their size. The reason is that people live in high rise apartments and all catch the metro. Everyone catching the subway decreases demand for obvious reasons but it's a lot easier to heat entire buildings than it is to heat an equivalent number of homes. Homes are very large living spaces that take a monstrous amount of energy to heat up and cool down compared to the smaller apartment sized living spaces. With condensation you can limit distribution points so that cargo ships don't have to traverse as much road to reach a greater number of people.

I would personally want a huge increase in sustainable apartments in urban areas of Australia and far more robust public transportation networks.

But it's basically impossible because everyone wants a big house out in the burbs with 2-3 cars. I don't really blame them, but it's that kind of paradigm that has led us here.

The carbon tax was an easy method of pushing the society that way.

Imagine the uproar if all new suburbs required extensive public transit links, a ban on cars etc, much increased density, walkable shopping. it would make the carbon tax seem quite mild. The states would be in revolt. The cost would also be an interesting impost.

The tax was easy. Almost every other method is impossible

 

[hidys]

Might want to read the UN charter. Article one, its right there, and Australia was a big part of its formation.

Also the fact that pollution doesn't stop at our borders....

I'm pretty sure H.V Evatt (leader of the Labor party in the 50's) had a hand in writing the thing.

 

[wonzo]

i couldn't possible work out just what andrew bolt might be wanting. hmmmmn

 

[Dryk]

That's the same interview where he starts sulking about aboriginals again yeah?

 

[wonzo]

That's the same interview where he starts sulking about aboriginals again yeah?

it probably is but i don't read the herald sun so i wouldn't know

 

[hidys]

That's the same interview where he starts sulking about aboriginals again yeah?

When doesn't he?

 

[Dryk]

it probably is but i don't read the herald sun so i wouldn't know

I skimmed it as I was leaving because it was advertised on the front page of the 'tiser as "Andrew Bolt grills Tony Abbott". Turns out he was grilling him over the ABC and recognising Aboriginals in the constitution.

 

[lexi]

I have a great new idea for a TV show.

'Let's hunt and kill Andrew Bolt' It could follow after Big Brother's timeslot.

 

[hidys]

I have a great new idea for a TV show.

'Let's hunt and kill Andrew Bolt' It could follow after Big Brother's timeslot.

There would be moral issues, but on the plus side the ratings would be higher than The Bolt Report.

 

[Shaneus]

i couldn't possible work out just what andrew bolt might be wanting. hmmmmn

To Andrew Bolt, there is no such thing as "loaded questions". Just "questions".

 

[Mondy]

Abbott likens the Carbon tax to Socialism.
I guess it was only a matter of time before he brought US far right style rhetoric to the debate. This is the stupidity were dealing with here

 

[Jintor]

yes, that price-based market mechanism sure looks a lot like socialism to me

 

[lexi]

Abbott likens the Carbon tax to Socialism.
I guess it was only a matter of time before he brought US far right style rhetoric to the debate. This is the stupidity were dealing with here

The difference being those fuckwits are in opposition in America, not leading the country. We're fucked.

 

[Arksy]

Australian Government shutdown in 3....2.........1

 

[PhantomZone]

Electricity Bill

One Term Tony


Interesting day of politics

 

[hidys]

yes, that price-based market mechanism sure looks a lot like socialism to me

Certainly it is unlike the very capitalist industry subsidy scheme which The Great Abbott proposes.

The difference being those fuckwits are in opposition in America, not leading the country. We're fucked.

There is still a world of difference between the Tea Party and Abbott.

 

[Arksy]

Certainly it is unlike the very capitalist industry subsidy scheme which The Great Abbott proposes.



There is still a world of difference between the Tea Party and Abbott.

Subsidies amount to nationalisation. Totally capitalist.

*fleeeeeeeeeees*

 

[hidys]

Subsidies amount to nationalisation. Totally capitalist.

*fleeeeeeeeeees*

Hell of a lot more interventionist than a tax/ETS.