The man known as the "human headline" confirmed he will fight a $150 fine for not voting in the last state election.
Hinch, who said he has never voted in his life and doesn't believe casting a vote should be compulsory, has vowed to represent himself in court and fight the fine on principle.
"It's happened before, but I thought this time 'bugger it, I'm going to fight it,'" Hinch said of the fine.
Its about time we joined real Democracies and stopped forcing good Free Citizens to Vote.
“In Australia, with compulsory voting, elections are won or lost often on the most irrational of reasons.”
- Olympian Ron Clarke, head of the Council of the Encouragement of Philanthropy in Australia.3
These are the 10 countries that enforce compulsory voting:
Argentina (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70. However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated every time the voter wishes not to participate.)
Australia – Compulsory enrollment and voting for state and national elections for all eligible adults (18 and above). In some states local council elections are compulsory too.[8]
Brazil[9] (non-compulsory for citizens between 16 and 18 years old, those older than 70 and illiterate people)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ecuador (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65
Luxembourg (only for the regionals and if signed up)
Nauru
Peru (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70)
Singapore[10] (compulsory for citizens above 21 years old with effect from 1st January of the year of election)
I find it pretty shit that people whinge about being required to attend - and let's be clear, you're *not* required to vote, you're required to sign the attendance register.
If you don't want to vote, then take your green and white slip and just put them empty in the box as you leave.
I find it pretty shit that people whinge about being required to attend - and let's be clear, you're *not* required to vote, you're required to sign the attendance register.
If you don't want to vote, then take your green and white slip and just put them empty in the box as you leave.
There is evidence of strong popular support for compulsory voting. The first Australian Election Study, after the 1996 election, showed 74% of respondents supported compulsory voting at federal elections.
The Australian Election Study after the 2004 election was still showing 74% in support. A Morgan poll in 2005 showed 71% support, and an Ipsos-Mackay Study, also in 2005, showed 74%.
Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.
It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:
High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107
ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13
seriously ... it's like 20 minutes out of your day once every 2 years. harden up and vote. I'd rather compulsory voting be in place than being forced to view corny "rock the vote" events.
I think that voting should be compulsory and that you should be required to show valid photographic ID such as a drivers license, age card or passport that should be checked for likeness.
This would allow us to verify everyone on the voter role and go a long way to reducing welfare fraud. Anyone who didn't vote at the last election without reason loses their benefits. Part of providing a reason would include identifying yourself as above.
Nah he had a liver transplant. He was, however, just released from house arrest after he was convicted for saying the names of sex offenders.
He's a douche bag. That's his job description. The media call them "shock jocks" - I just prefer "dickheads".
FaceMan - you seem to take a big interest in political issues such as Global Warming, yet you do not want to have your say when the time comes to elect someone who represents your views?
I would NOT take anything that dickhead says seriously, he is a fucking retarded cunt monkey, and is driving the GC into the ground. He's such an out of touch wanker.
The significant impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections appears to have been a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to less than 60% at the 1922 election.
I wonder if disillusionment with The First World War had anything to do with people shunning Democracy ?
It went up above 90% after Compulsory Voting was brought in.
If you want to help select the douche or the turd sandwich then go ahead but why force me to do it ?
I dont really care if 99% of ppl supported Compulsory Voting.
I consider it a Human Rights violation to force me to Vote.
FaceMan - you seem to take a big interest in political issues such as Global Warming, yet you do not want to have your say when the time comes to elect someone who represents your views?
Because I know how pointless Democracy is.
No Political Party represents my views but i do feel strongly enough about Global Warming to vote Liberal. Unfortunately that would mean tacit support for ALL of their other Policies.
The real benefit of compulsory voting is it means no matter how apathetic the population is, they may whinge about voting all the way to the booth and back home and for the next 40 days and nights, but because everyone is forced to vote the political parties have to compete on the middle ground and extremists/outliers don't have a real chance.
A big turnout by some extremist minority group to try and get their like minded elected doesn't do anything, because their 'big turnout' is still a tiny minority of the voters.
FaceMan - you seem to take a big interest in political issues such as Global Warming, yet you do not want to have your say when the time comes to elect someone who represents your views?
Any reason you assume that's the only argument here?
I don't really have a firm opinion one way or the other, but the general argument against compulsory voting is that a large percentage of the people that compulsory voting forces to make a vote that otherwise woudln't have are people that are completely uneducated as to what they are actually voting for.
You are one of twenty two people who are stranded on a life boat after the pleasure cruiser sinks.
Yes there is enough room and supplies for all of you for the immediate future so no decision has to be made as to who has to be thrown overboard.
However there is one problem: the skipper / navigator has gone down with the ship and no one actually knows which direction to row to ultimately reach the shipping lanes.
Even though no one knows for sure, eleven members of those on board have formulated ideas. Some think they can operate the sextant which has been saved, some believe they can tell which way to go by the currents, some by the sun, and some by the prevailing winds. The problem is that there is no general consensus from all these theories, and existing provisions will only allow for one attempt.
It is ultimately decided that a vote has to be taken to decide whose theory will be accepted to decide the course to follow. Because the decision may well result in the life or death of everyone on board it is decided that everyone will have the right to vote.
Even though you yourself have come to no theory, you decide to vote with one person who, to you, gives the general impression of being slightly more astute and knowledgeable than the other amateur navigators.
This leaves the remaining ten occupants. Not only do they have no idea which is the best direction for rescue, they also share equal faith in all of those who have suggested theories. Therefore because they fear their vote may lead to the wrong decision, they have decided to abstain from voting.
Will you allow the ten to abstain from voting or will you insist that, because lives are at risk, they must partake in the vote?
Any reason you assume that's the only argument here?
I don't really have a firm opinion one way or the other, but the general argument against compulsory voting is that a large percentage of the people that compulsory voting forces to make a vote that otherwise woudln't have are people that are completely uneducated as to what they are actually voting for.
Yes, but I see that as a different argument.
That argument is not so much about compulsory voting as much as lack of education (on how democratic countries run and the responsibilities of voters).
Churchill on democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I agree with trog's sentiment, only stupid people are forced to exercise their democratic rights, but at the same time, why should you force them to?
I wasn't really having a sentiment, just pointing out that the majority of people seem to want compulsory voting according to that AEC data, so if you live in a democracy then that seems like a fairly rational reason to have it - because the people spoketh so (to me, anyway)
I find it pretty shit that people whinge about being required to attend - and let's be clear, you're *not* required to vote, you're required to sign the attendance register.
If you don't want to vote, then take your green and white slip and just put them empty in the box as you leave.
That is still technically illegal, and if you get caught, it is a fine. So it is still ridiculous in a free society to be forced to do something as simple as vote.
That is still technically illegal, and if you get caught, it is a fine. So it is still ridiculous in a free society to be forced to do something as simple as vote.
Typical non-point from QGL's most esteemed dumbcunt.
That is still technically illegal, and if you get caught, it is a fine. So it is still ridiculous in a free society to be forced to do something as simple as vote.
Part of the cost of living in a free socie- whoa. deja vu. I forget you would rather live Mad Max styelz where the corporatatroxes tell us what to do!
How do you feel about jury duty, out of interest? Do you think that is the state cramping the style of the small businessman by forcing them to participate in the process of justice!? I can only assume that you must given your extremist militant civil libertarian positions on pretty much everything else.
That is still technically illegal, and if you get caught, it is a fine. So it is still ridiculous in a free society to be forced to do something as simple as vote.
Heh, if it wasn't mandatory, the lower fatigued and apathetic socio-economic classes wouldn't vote and you and your elitist pluralist comrades would be free to have your way everybody! ;P
Just can't help but post insults with no content, huh fpot?
Seems my post limit is still 3600 seconds and I contribute around 1 million times more than fpot in terms of content, I'll post an extra here in edits
From the AEC website
Both elections require full preferential
voting, which means voters must indicate the order
of their preference for election for each and every
candidate on the ballot paper
I guess if you contravene this it is somehow overlooked. Excuse me for assuming a government agency enforces its rules by law. It usually does with the more stupid ones.
How do you feel about jury duty, out of interest? Do you think that is the state cramping the style of the small businessman by forcing them to participate in the process of justice!? I can only assume that you must given your extremist militant civil libertarian positions on pretty much everything else.
Maybe you don't quite understand how simple it is. You can't force someone to sit in a courtroom against their will. You can ask for volunteers, and I think there would be plenty of people interested in participating.
Who are you to determine which day is appropriate for anyone to take time out of their important business to do some errand for the corrupt court system? Oh, that's right, the state, who is made up by the same fallible individuals that you claim need protection from themselves, somehow know what's best. Logic win.
The content bit was saying that the dumb thing you said was impossible and a total non-point. I just threw the insult in there for fun.
I like how instead of answering trog's post (because I am sure your answer would just make you look like a bigger tool) you just have a cry about my post instead. Everything okay there dude?
Jury Duty ?
Does the Judge get paid the same as a Juror ?
Does the Prosecution get paid the same as a Juror ?
Does the Defense get paid the same as a Juror ?
They get paid well for their duty so should a Juror.
welp, looks like you edited your post to answer it. And I was right! It does make you look like an even bigger tool.
edit:
You can ask for volunteers, and I think there would be plenty of people interested in participating.
Yeah that's what you want on a jury. People who really want to be there! That is a sure way to make a trial fair and impartial.
If you lived in the real world like the rest of us, you'd understand that a bit of 'jury reluctance' is necessary. If the only people acting as jurors are people who really want to be there then you run the risk of having a jury full of people with their own agenda and bias and the trial will be a farce.
yor dum. And your post limiter should be longer imo.
dazedandconfused - Here, this should spell it out for you:
It is not an offence to vote informally in a federal election, nor is it an offence to encourage other voters to vote informally. However, anyone who encourages electors to vote informally, or to vote ‘1,2,3,3,3...’ etc on a House of Representatives ballot paper, will be encouraging electors to waste their votes as no vote will be counted from these ballot papers.
Both elections require full preferential
voting, which means voters must indicate the order
of their preference for election for each and every
candidate on the ballot paper
Section 239 and 240 right? That reads to me as just instruction on the proper way to fill out a ballot form. How did your deformed mind ever come to the conclusion that it was saying it was an offence to fill out a ballot form incorrectly?
professional jurors. more consistent decisions, jurors who can understand legal and scientific mumbo jumbo, and always available.
professional jurors can have their own professional body, undergo professional development and training, the options are endless. a public servant that is actually beneficial.... imagine that
So what you are saying is you have no understanding of how jurors work in the legal system at all and that you actually do believe that the justice system should be handled by a private corporation.
I was kind of joking when I made my last post in this thread :/
Jurors need to be selected as random members of the community for a reason. When a prosecutor/defence makes their case and brings in expert witnesses they need to be able to explain their case in a way that a total laymen will understand. What good is it if a witness is talking scientific mumbo jumbo if the only people in the room who can understand it is the witness giving the testimony and the jurors? What about the magistrate, the defence/prosecutor, victim and the accused? They need to be able to understand what is being said as well. Having a jury full of regular people and not experts ensures that things will be explained properly and the testimony will not just be an indecipherable jargon pile.
Then there is the issue of corruption among the jurors. If there are professional jurors people who wish to corrupt them will know exactly where to go. Sure, it is also possible to get to other people in the courtroom, but a panel full of randomly selected people is a much harder target.
This is just typical libertarian talk. The libertarian ideology is a funny thing. It is perfectly logically sound, works great on paper, would be an awesome society to live in if it worked, and is just all round a pretty smart idea. This is why wannabe intellectuals like you and dazed jump all over it and make endless shitty internet posts about it. Look at how logically clever we are! All you moderates don't believe in nothing and have no cognisance (heh remember when dazed busted that one out) unlike me and my logically superior brethren *vulcan symbol*
Unfortunately when you try and interlace the ideology with the real world you get a jumbled mess and something that just doesn't work, just like any other political ideology which sits on the far end of a spectrum (communism). The insatiable need to sound clever and cognisient (I just made that word up) overrides this little thought process, and we have to keep reading more 300 reply long threads of you both just not getting it.
That is still technically illegal, and if you get caught, it is a fine. So it is still ridiculous in a free society to be forced to do something as simple as vote.
Unfortunately when you try and interlace the ideology with the real world you get a jumbled mess and something that just doesn't work, just like any other political ideology which sits on the far end of a spectrum (communism). The insatiable need to sound clever and cognisient (I just made that word up) overrides this little thought process, and we have to keep reading more 300 reply long threads of you both just not getting it.
Unfortunately when you did apply it properly you had the most free and most prosperous country in the history of the world.
You don't even know modern history and you're here telling me I can't read. You clearly haven't even bothered to read anything by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson.
A man was locked up in jail a few years ago for telling people how to vote "informally". He was saying you can number the ones you want and number the rest with the last number so no preference can be given to contenders you do not like. i.e 123444. "They" sent him to jail because he wouldn't stop saying it.
Yeah, because that vote won't be counted at all. You can tell people to vote informally, but you can't mislead them by saying an informal vote will be counted.
A man was locked up in jail a few years ago for telling people how to vote "informally". He was saying you can number the ones you want and number the rest with the last number so no preference can be given to contenders you do not like. i.e 123444. "They" sent him to jail because he wouldn't stop saying it.
Yeh, that sounds like a good thing; people like that subvert democracy and if the penalties are not severe for that it basically puts the government up for sale to whoever can subvert it the most (see: USA).
no, the courts would still remain an independent arm of government, jurors are just paid like soldiers and other public servants.
I am really struggling with these extremist militant civil libertarian/capitalist political views because I can't see how they're internally consistent. Y'all cry "socialist" at the first opportunity but you're happy for the state to pay for certain things - in this case, jurors, and apparently soldiers.
As an aside, it's good to know about the soldiers - I was mentally planning my next post in this thread last night while failing to get to sleep and it was going to be asking how you and the other socialist alarmists rationalise your libertarian views with things like having a standing army, having roads, and all that stuff. What would happen if there was a massive food shortage, or aliens invaded, or we needed to block out the sun? Some things just can't be handled by the private sector. But I digress.
I spend a significant proportion of my mental energy these day thinking about "internal consistency". I am not sure why, but it has roots in things like when I used to be anti-drugs and would still happily drink alcohol. I do not think I can drink alcohol and be anti-drug use - to me that is an internally inconsistent position and the only "rational" thing I can do is change my mind.
I like to think of myself as a "libertarian" - I strongly believe that the state should stay the fuck out of decisions that people should be able to make for themselves. Things like drug use, playing violent video games, jumping out of airplanes, euthanasia, gay marriage, hacking their PlayStation 3, are examples of things that I think the state should, generally, stay the fuck out of.
However, I also strongly believe that the state needs to do things to take care of its citizens. Providing medical care is one of those things (to ensure a healthy populace) and providing a strong, reliable and just legal system is another. Also they need to build roads, and provide a police force, and all that other stuff.
So as far as my "civil libertarian" outlook goes, I have tried to draw a clear line (as mentioned in the last discussion on this) between "things the state has to do to keep the country rolling along nicely" and "things private enterprise should do".
However, I also believe there are things that the citizens have to do in order to keep the country rolling along nicely. One of them is pay tax. One of them is jury duty. And one of them (I would argue the most important) is voting.
I understand the civil libertarian view (which I will from now on refer to as the "extremist militant civil libertarian view", an intentional misnomer deliberately used in response to the growing alarmist use of the term "socialist" to mean "anything the government pays for ever") means that people should even have the freedom to not vote, not do jury duty, etc.
So how do I rationalise my desire to be a "libertarian" against my desire for people to actively be engaged, even against their will, in the process of government in my perfect internally consistent world?
Speaking for myself, I (generally) have huge amounts of pride in Australia and I feel lucky every single day that I get to live here. To me, the absolutely insignificant amount of time that will get taken up out of my life voting - actively participating in our democracy and shaping the future of our country - is a price that is easily worth paying to live here, and it is a price I feel all citizens who are lucky enough to live here should be willing to pay as well.
Now, I find this relatively easy to gel for me in my internally consistent mindframe. Because, shit, I already pay a fuckton of taxes, right?! That is something that impacts me every single day - having a massive chunk of one's paycheck taken out every single time they get paid surely is much more irritating than having to go to a polling booth every couple of years, right? It is just ANOTHER PART OF THE COST that I have to pay for living in Australia.
To summarise: just like paying taxes is a requirement to live in Australia, so is voting.
If you are an extremist civil libertarian to the point where you don't think people should have to vote, or have to do jury duty, or have to do anything else that contributes to society that they don't feel like doing, then to me it follows that - in order to be internally consistent with your thought process - you should also be a tax protestor and refuse to pay taxes. But that would be crazy, right?
I am open to (rational) comment on my thought processes as this is all a fairly new way of thinking to me and I am not sure if it will pan out.
you should also be a tax protestor and refuse to pay taxes. But that would be crazy, right?
I remember some guy who tried to pull that stunt a while back - it didn't end well for him. I think he was harking back to some clause in some document in ye' old England days. Look it's a private Police force! :)
Omni Consumer Products' Security Concepts division
Jurors are valuable to society and the contribution to society that service provides should be properly recognised.
The State should just pay jurors their regular wage while serving. Less impact to business, more opportunity to attract a truly random sampling of the accused's peers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the sooner we are all ruled by a super intelligent yet benevolent AI, the better.
You are a massive troll. I can't believe you have the gall to label others as one.
On topic, small events like this are what changes the law as we know it. There are gaps in the law that can be challenged and perhaps changed by the high court.
It would be unlikely Hinch himself is really pushing the movement. He likely has a QC friend who wants to try some argument out in the HC. make history.
People who complain about having to participate in society, i.e. so far up their own individualistic Ayn Rand loving ass, should leave the country to make room for some more awesome immigrants who obviously desperately want to take part in our awesome society.
Also Faceman, what you posted on page 1 about voting does nothing to disprove the fact that you are not required to vote. You are required to attend and to mark a ballot sheet. If you honestly feel so strongly about it that you can't stand any of the options then you're perfectly entitled to do a donkey vote.
On topic, small events like this are what changes the law as we know it. There are gaps in the law that can be challenged and perhaps changed by the high court.
Only if the gaps in law are not immediately filled by legislation, and in this case I suspect there is political will to do so, even with a hung parliament.
I am open to (rational) comment on my thought processes as this is all a fairly new way of thinking to me and I am not sure if it will pan out.
I tend to agree with you, I feel its the Governments responsibility to ensure stability and growth for the population, its not the Governments responsibility to be the parent.
the problem is, sometimes taking the role of the "parent" helps with stability and growth, and it really needs to be managed on a case by case basis. any idealistic approach tends to avoid grey areas at a detriment for society.
I like to think of myself as a "libertarian" - I strongly believe that the state should stay the fuck out of decisions that people should be able to make for themselves
Like choosing to Vote ?
You cant link Paying Taxes to Voting.
Tourists to Australia pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
Australian Companies pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
Foreign Companies pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
If I believe in Communism why should I be forced to take part in Democracy ?
Some Religions are excused from Voting.
extremist militant civil libertarian view
Im sorry, here take away my Rights and Freedoms and give them to your Majority then we can all be friends.
As an aside, it's good to know about the soldiers - I was mentally planning my next post in this thread last night while failing to get to sleep and it was going to be asking how you and the other socialist alarmists rationalise your libertarian views with things like having a standing army, having roads, and all that stuff. What would happen if there was a massive food shortage, or aliens invaded, or we needed to block out the sun? Some things just can't be handled by the private sector.
The panic of what will we do when Government cant protect us.
It takes a mighty big Government to do all of those things.
Dazed sent me this video that addresses some of your questions:
Wow, it's like you didn't read any of the rest of my post!
You cant link Paying Taxes to Voting.
Well, I did.
Tourists to Australia pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
Tourists can "vote" by not coming to the country. That is how I "vote" in Fiji, China, and several other countries that I refuse to go to until they sort their political shit out. Going to a country with which you have major issues with the political system and dumping money into their economy is basically the same as voting for their government!
Australian Companies pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
Foreign Companies pay Taxes and they dont Vote.
This is sort of a boring "if all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles must be squares" argument
If I believe in Communism why should I be forced to take part in Democracy ?
Because, as noted in the rest of my post, I consider it part of the price that you have to pay for living in this country. I disagree with the NBN policy by Labor, but I'm not going to stop voting just because they're in power. The correct way for you to effect a change if you're a communist is TO FUCKING VOTE FOR A COMMUNIST PARTY which is amazingly a right you get living in Australia
Some Religions are excused from Voting.
really? I almost find it hard to think that is a bad idea. In fact maybe we should forbid all religious people from voting. OK, you've changed my mind!
People who complain about having to participate in society, blah blah should leave the country blah blah blah our awesome society.
While I'm not surprised there are some bogans out there that would think such a thing, I am shocked that this was said by someone as educated and worldly as my high school captain.
really? I almost find it hard to think that is a bad idea. In fact maybe we should forbid all religious people from voting. OK, you've changed my mind!
I'd say the religious groups that abstain from "encouraging" power struggles aren't the same type of religious group that I'd want out of politics.
While I'm not surprised there are some bogans out there that would think such a thing
what, that having expectations on you from society is required to be part of society?
last edited by Captain Lateral at 17:30:49 12/Jan/12
You can't convince people they deserve to be free, they need to realise it themselves. Most people are so lazy and unmotivated that they enjoy government making decisions for them.
It's almost as though the world is a very different place to what it was 100 years ago.
Nice blanket explanation. Care to explain why this would require the generation of a country's currency in a central bank instead of Treasury? That should be a fun read.
That has nothing to do with what I said. What I was saying (and read very carefully here because I know you struggle with reading) is that your childish little political views may have worked back in the Jefferson era (I am only taking your word that they did you might even be wrong about that. American history is probably the most boring topic on earth), but they don't work now for reasons that should be self-evident but if I really need to explain it just ask.
^ actually I have made a mistake here. When I said the world has changed in 100 years in my last post, I actually meant the world has changed since the Jefferson era.
And just a little question for you: it was really hilarious how badly you misinterpreted that thing you quoted as meaning that it is illegal to make an informal vote. Do you ever just like, wipe the froth away from your mouth and think that maybe those sort of gross misinterpretations find their way into all of your little theories? It kind of reminds me of the time you linked me to an article about VACCINE CONSPIRACIES where the link between vaccines and deaths was only established by a statistician.
(I know I bring that up a bit but come on, there is enough lols in that little fuck up to last a lifetime, and now this. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you are such an obvious frothing little dumbcunt?)
If you are an extremist civil libertarian to the point where you don't think people should have to vote, or have to do jury duty, or have to do anything else that contributes to society that they don't feel like doing, then to me it follows that - in order to be internally consistent with your thought process - you should also be a tax protestor and refuse to pay taxes. But that would be crazy, right?
That has nothing to do with what I said. What I was saying (and read very carefully here because I know you struggle with reading) is that your childish little political views may have worked back in the Jefferson era
Don't worry, they didn't even work back then *cough* trade embargo *cough*
"if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong."
that quote is completely non-sensical. no one is suggesting liberty extends to owning another person i.e. slavery. every person is equally free to own property. every person is free to also enter into commercial transactions with others. if both parties do so freely, then how is anyone wronged?
to limit this ability to freely enter into bargains, or to own property, is to restrict each person's inherent freedom as an individual.
the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights.
why is ownership of property incompatible with equal human rights? who should own the property then? the entire concept of property rights is fundamental to human society and yet the author of that quote is arguing against it.
the competitive spirit of humankind for self-improvement, to accumulate wealth is what drives innovation. the freedom of people to exchange property and to enter into bargains which permit them to acquire property they desire is what liberty is all about.
the government limits this with laws against property acquisition, compelling people to do things that otherwise free people would choose not to do.
I have agreed previously that the role of government is to tax to the minimal amount required and provide essential services and the legal framework for free people to go about their business.
Now for your second attempt I'd like you to read the first part again, sound the letters out if it helps too.
the author used a moral absolute and then sought to extend it to the concept of property. furthermore the author used the subjective term "large", so who gets to choose what is "large amounts of property". and why is large amounts of property so offensive if its accumulation has been via the free choice of humans owning that property.
The thing I like about Australia's voting system is:
1. If you want to vote for anyone in Australia and participate in 'democracy', if you want to call it that. You can 'get registered' thus you are taking responsibility for your affairs (but not as a 'man') with the electoral office.
1a. You don't HAVE to vote, you can simply get your name ticked off the register on voting day and be none the wiser and not vote at all. But it might be a help to put the piece of paper in the box unmarked if you DO NOT WANT to vote. There we go, freedom of choice to 'be counted'. In the United States its voluntarily and remember all those years, when people didn't vote. Then in 2008 they did vote and there was a massive swing.
1b. You don't need to be registered to any-one specific party like it is in the United States to vote for that party. Even though you still need to be registered in the AEC to be required to vote (i.e: Makes life less complex).
2. If you (the person) do not wish to vote, then you don't have to participate (ie: register with the AEC). But this is worth mentioning, because there will always be people who say "If I had registered voted for... and now x party is doing y... I hate it..." and if the citizen isn't registered with said electoral office, they have no basis for complaint and thus those that vote get counted. Think of it as 'you are getting the right numbers' when there are certain countries that get taken backstage and slashed.
Then you wonder, why everyone wants to come to our country. As a country we must be doing something right. Democracy? Loaded word once again.
Who knows if electoral fraud happens in Australia? Maybe you'd like to go down to the election office (or as a citizen) after the morning of the act of voting and ask them to find your vote with your initials on it. That might be interesting in terms of accountability.
3a. I'm not sure about this, but I think Australia still uses the hand count system, not the computer system like the United States does. If anyone was following geopolitics during 2000? there was a 'hanging chad incident'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
Interestingly enough Diebold make banking machines as well, you might like to take note of the machine your using when you use an automatic teller machine, next time you withdraw cash from which ever bank it is that you use:
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/atms/bank_equipment.html
As for Mr Hinch; He is like Alan Jones. When he feels strongly about something he will stick to his guns.
Either that or he likes to gain attention. Attention like anything is a dangerous thing. It can go one way or the other. It can woo the crowd or flank the masses. You might also like to consider what Hinch's intention is for making such a fuss. Is it a good intention, a bad intention? What is the undercurrent? Ah, yes; Next year there is another election.
Am I a patriot for Australia? That is a very loaded question. In rough rock times, it is hard to not fall on one's passion for one's corporate low level security prison and still be happy, satisfied and content. Am I content? Yes I suppose I am. The system works for the most part.
Do I like the Australian electoral system? In some ways, yes, as listed above, it has a lot of merit, and in some ways, no. Two tiered party system. Funny (has yet, serious), how it always comes in sets of twos in every country. Interesting that it never changes. 2013? Good luck with that. I'll be observing the outcome of this years election with great humorous and chagrin.
Is Australia's political system backed by a corporate interest. The only answer I can come up with is this; That remember Australia has a lot of interests in being a large mining pit and a good producer of metal, uranium, opals and gold. Have you seen much of that profit as a sovereign member of your country? Has it benefited your town? your family? your city? your state? maybe your community? maybe... you?
I leave that question, once again, up to you to answer.
But that is just my two cents. What I've observed of our corporate-low-low-low-level-security-prison-mining-pit (NOT police state, mind you and yes we are *still* a penal colony) that somehow I still manage to call 'home'.
the competitive spirit of humankind for self-improvement, to accumulate wealth is what drives innovation.
I am taking this quote massively out of context as I generally agree with you on the property thing, but, I would say - that line is true in some cases, but it is clearly not true in all. See: NASA.
But that is just my two cents. What I've observed of our corporate-low-low-low-level-security-prison-mining-pit (NOT police state, mind you and yes we are *still* a penal colony) that somehow I still manage to call 'home'.
we aren't a penal colony? a penal colony doesn't get to run its own military and police force.
we are very much an independent self governing rich nation.
Have you seen much of that profit as a sovereign member of your country? Has it benefited your town? your family? your city? your state? maybe your community? maybe... you?
do i need to remind everyone that the labor government has twice roughed up the mining industries top earners for more money for "the people".
If a person has freely entered into a commercial transaction, have they been exploited?
Isn't history littered with examples of people who have been "exploited" (otherwise known as working hard for little pay), saved their pennies and then made their move?
Or maybe everyone should just have a meagre, safe existence. No risk, no wealth, just middle of the road for everyone. No excitement, no competiton, no failure, no success, just predictable same ol' same ol'.
Every immigrant who arrives immediately just connects onto the medium payment system, no risk of failure, no potential for wealth. Imagine a flat rollercoaster. Sounds thrilling doesn't it.
Are you even alive?
Also, still waiting for your answer on donating blood, Trog. Is it an essential civil duty?
If a person has freely entered into a commercial transaction, have they been exploited?
Quite possibly! There are a bunch of consumer laws that exist specifically to stop people from getting exploited. That is one of the many duties of the ACCC, without whom Australians would be getting fucked sideways with a chainsaw in many ways.
Also, still waiting for your answer on donating blood, Trog. Is it an essential civil duty?
no.. I can't really see what parallel you're trying to draw there
Actually, the ACCC doesn't stop exploitation Trog. It stops deceptive and misleading and unconscionable conduct, it stops scams, it ensures product safety, it implies a number of warranties into goods and services for sale, but doesn't protect people from entering into bad deals.
Believe it or not, people are allowed to enter into bad deals, because people are allowed to fuck up. That's part of life.
In regards to donating blood: you have submitted that voting is essential, jury duty is essential, so should donating blood be mandatory too? If not, why not? You try to make yourself sound libertarian but everything you say has this communal altruistic undertone, surely donating blood which costs the donor NOTHING should be mandated.
Actually, the ACCC doesn't stop exploitation Trog. It stops deceptive and misleading and unconscionable conduct, it stops scams, it ensures product safety, it implies a number of warranties into goods and services for sale, but doesn't protect people from entering into bad deals.
Believe it or not, people are allowed to enter into bad deals, because people are allowed to fuck up. That's part of life.
That is why I said "quite possibly" and not "most definitely all the time". The ACCC and entities like it exist to ensure unbridled capitalism doesn't take over the world and result in the corporatroxes from gradually eroding consumer rights to the point where almost any commercial transaction becomes some type of exploitation.
Given the state of lawmaking the USA it seems crazy to me to think that any sort of extremist capitalism could ever be considered a good idea - they are now quite seriously in the age where their laws are practically being drafted by corporations to protect their commercial interests.
In regards to donating blood: we have estalished that voting is essential, jury duty is essential, so should donating blood be mandatory too? If not, why not? You try to make yourself sound libertarian but everything you say has this communal altruistic undertone, surely donating blood which costs the donor NOTHING should be mandated.
Oh right. No, I don't think donating blood should be mandatory. That is something I see as just "doing a nice thing to help someone who needs blood" rather than "this is something we need to help keep civilization together".
In a crisis situation I probably wouldn't have too many problems with government incentives to try to make people give more blood (on a competely unrelated note, there is a great scene in book Cryptonomicon where one of the characters gets shot... "Some major artery gives way, and it’s necessary for Shaftoe and the minister to go out and yank Swedes off the streets and persuade them to donate blood.") However, 9/11 showed me that people will go to all sorts of ridiculous legnths to donate blood when it is really really needed in a crisis; I remember stories of people queuing patiently for like 6 hours to donate.
So no, I don't think blood donation is one of the things that keeps our society functioning
Isn't history littered with examples of people who have been "exploited" (otherwise known as working hard for little pay), saved their pennies and then made their move? Or maybe everyone should just have a meagre, safe existence. No risk, no wealth, just middle of the road for everyone. No excitement, no competiton, no failure, no success, just predictable same ol' same ol'.
Why do you always take such extreme stances on everything?
You're arguing a point which I won't even reply to because it has nothing to do with the original quote.
you have submitted that voting is essential, jury duty is essential, so should donating blood be mandatory too? If not, why not?
because donating blood requires the violation of your human body if its not voluntary... which is wrong? babies are required to keep society going but you don't see us legalizing rape.
Isn't history littered with examples of people who have been "exploited" (otherwise known as working hard for little pay), saved their pennies and then made their move? Or maybe everyone should just have a meagre, safe existence. No risk, no wealth, just middle of the road for everyone. No excitement, no competition, no failure, no success, just predictable same ol' same ol'.
Isn't this the Russian "communist" mantra? weren't they the first country in space? first country to land a probe on another planet? first animal and person in space too?
last edited by Captain Lateral at 17:46:52 13/Jan/12
PM
WWW
