Wednesday, February 25. 2009When Should Democracy Be Replaced With Anarchy?...John Linton .....whenever a commercial enterprise doesn't agree with an elected government's mandate? Along with the breakdown and possible destruction of the world's financial system are we also in the throes of the break down of the taken for granted democratic forms of governments - at least in Australia? I couldn't help thinking when I read this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25100456-5014239,00.html that apart from the infantile yelling and screaming being reported that everyone attending had completely missed the point of what living in a democracy means and, just as importantly, what obligations it brings to each person who lives in a democracy. Now, anyone who reads my random thoughts will know that I regard the bunch of muppets currently posing as a Federal Government in Canberra as being the most uneducated and ill equipped group of ineffective individuals ever to be wished on the Australian people since Federation - but that is beside the point to this deeply concerning attack on Australia's democratic principles by Mark Newton (cat's paw for Simon Hacket), Michael Malone and some other self serving 'spokespeople' for the "ISP Industry" (and include me out from that bunch of self important wankers). Now, if I remember correctly from my 3rd Class 'introduction to basic principles of government from Athens to National Socialist Germany', the overwhelming principle of democracy (which I'm still under the impression is the basis of the Federation in which we live) is that it comprises of two key parts: 1) Universal suffrage 2) Regular elections of governments to carry out the 'will of the people' In Australia we have universal suffrage to a ridiculous degree - giving the vote to each Australian when they reach the age of 18. Anyone who has been 18 would know that an 18 year old is the last person any sensible human being would confer life and death (for others) decision making on. (and while that may explain why there are muppets in Canberra it isn't the point of this piece of observation). In Australia we also have regular elections and those elections are based on voting in to control of all aspects of our country's operations some group of people (usually known as a "political party" because they have chosen to use politics to have a party each time they get elected) whom we elect based on our preference for what they say they will do if we elect them versus not liking what the other 'political parties' say they will do if elected (or actually have done while in government). For Newton, Hackett, Malone et alia this is called democracy - stupid. It means, for the slower thinkers in the class, that if the majority of Australia's Federal electoral districts chooses one 'party' over all others then that 'party' get's three years to stick their snouts in the trough and they must do what they promised to do to 'buy' the votes of the people who elected them while the minority of people who didn't vote for them have to accept that the majority of Australians who did vote for them have also voted for 'them' to put into place their election 'promises' - which, coming back to the article cited, means they get to put in place their version of internet filtering - or at least trialling it. No point in jumping up and down saying they're stupid (it was always obvious they were and remain stupid) - the time to have done that was not to elect them (and don't say the coalition had the same policy - it didn't - it had a web site where if a parent wanted a 'free filter' they could get one). What's the point of electing a government if any self interest group can then say they don't agree with the democratic process so "change it to suit me personally"? Of course, self interest groups (From the coal mining industry association, the ACTU right down to any group that makes political donations or can influence votes) have money and spend it to get their 'special interests' "taken care of" by the incoming government but that's done BEFORE the election and subsequently after it but it's done quietly and with clear understanding on both sides as to what is being promised and how much it costs. All of these 'purchased' favours are either specifically included in the election promises or they are specifically excluded on the basis that they will be 'snuck through' the processes without anyone noticing. So wasting time 'grandstanding' 15 months after the majority of Australians voted for web 'filtering' is laughable. Who do these 'opponents' think they are that their votes are worth more than everyone else? Or do they see themselves as a latter day Ulrike Meinhof as their public statements have an uncanny resemblance to her: "Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more" So, for the record: It pleases the majority of Federal Electoral Districts that a bunch of muppets gets to carry out their election promises and unless iinet/internode etc intend to use RAF tactics of bombing and assassination instead of just petulantly stamping their feet then democracy is what they have to deal with. Don't like it - don't vote for it. Also for the record I think internet filtering as proposed by Krudd and Stupid Stephen is totally pointless, won't work and may have some negative effects if it's ever actually put in place - but I didn't vote for the muppets going through the motions of doing it. So, basically, this means - if you voted Labor in the last election you should realise that you SPECIFICALLY agreed to have internet filtering so what are you now whining about? PS: for those people who believe themselves technically competent enough to see how stupid Krudd's policies on this and the NBN are - how stupid do you think ALL his other policies are on things you don't consider yourself knowledgeable about? Frightening isn't it? Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"So, basically, this means - if you voted Labor in the last election you should realise that you SPECIFICALLY agreed to have internet filtering so what are you now whining about?"
I use the same argument - the response is commonly "Before election it was stated it would be opt-out". I still consider internet filtering 'wont go ahead' or 'wont last long'. The first major website that is blocked will spark enough backlash to reduce the popularity of KRudd and his retail stimulation packages. Comment (1)
People are getting snarky because the government has no mandate for COMPULSORY ISP level censorship. Labor went to the polls proposing an opt-in/opt-out system. I have no problem with a voluntary system.
Cleanfeed is not needed, not wanted, WILL NOT WORK, has NO MANDATE, will be too expensive, will break the Internet, is not scalable, is not transparent, and will be abused. http://thebernoullitrial.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/saying-no-to-internet-censorship-in-australia/ It's morally right to oppose Cleanfeed. It's only reasonable to remind our government that there are better ways to spend our tax dollars. Comments (2)
It is the voluntary opt in/out system, at the choice of each end user, that makes any proposed filter expensive and complicates for the ISP to put in place. The difference between a 'blanket' filter and a filter with individual opt in/out option is something like 50c per year per user and $5 per month per user.
Comment (1)
Interesting. Do you have an online source for those figures?
Comments (2)
Agree with both comments. Election mandate = opt-out filter. A bit like workchoices - sprung onto the electorate AFTER the election with no mandate. Whether the policy is right or wrong is not the point, they are major changes and the govt(s - yes both parties!) claimed a mandate when there actually wasn't one.
And yet all this time, part of me keeps thinking that we have filtering on TV so why not on the internet? Comment (1)
Quite true about TV filtering, in regards to internet filtering I don't know anyone that thinks the filtering is a good idea, I don't know anyone that would have a problem with child pornography being blocked though however the fear is that the good intention to block the inappropriate material won't work as intended.
I don't know anyone that believes the government is actually capable of doing it correctly, that seems to be the crux of the issue for those I have discussed it with Comment (1)
Additionally, governments get elected on a whole raft of mandates. It shouldn't be a binary choice of all or nothing, especially when it doesn't require anywhere near 100% of votes to win.
Comment (1)
Agreed. I think our system of government should be evolving faster than it has been.
Mixed member proportional voting would probably be a good start, but still wouldn't encompass everything I'd wish for in an election system. Perhaps parties could create a list of mandates, we could choose our representation and vote on mandates at the same time. That way, there would be no "but you voted for us, therefore you must want it" defence. Comment (1)
Maybe in the future we'll be able to elect a management team ("The Executive").... and have the ability to cast a vote for specific issues separately..... and as they arise in the future.
Interactive government - now that would be interesting, eh? H. Comment (1)
According to the ALP website, it wasn't part of the election platform. It was published five days before the election and received very little, if any, scrutiny.
On page 5 it says: A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries. Note that "require ISPs to offer" is not the same thing as "require ISPs to supply." The policy has morphed since the election: even if you accept the rather dodgy premise that this document represents an election promise, you have to acknowledge that the promise was for an optional censorship system. If ISPs are "require[d] to offer" it and the public refuses the offer, then we're back at the status quo. You'll also note that the policy said it was for "all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries," yet 50% of the trial participants announced last week are ISPs which only offer services to businesses. That's another policy change, another way Conroy has moved the goalposts since the election, another breach of an election promise, another voiding of any theoretical mandate. Besides, if people don't jump up and down about it and create some awareness, these idiots might get voted in again. Comment (1)
This thread is starting to sound more like a Liberal Party strategy meeting.
As John said, whether you like it or not most Australians voted for the current government. Comment (1)
Keep in mind our system is based on number of winning seats which may or may not reflect the vote proportion. I can't recall from past election if Labor did win more total votes though I'm sure they probably did. Has this ever happend in Australia?
And in regards to John's comments, the issue is voters still need to choose and I'm sure there are many voters that choose Labor (their applicable local candidate) based on more than a single policy. It's a question of on balance I'll vote labor even though some policies I'm indiffernt too or against. And when I say I'll in the past sentence I don't mean me specifically. How soon before Peter's back on the scene. Comment (1)
To blindly say "you voted them in, so put up with their antics" is completely nonsensical. Just because they were voted in, doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever they want. If the majority of people don't want a filter, they shouldn't implement one, even if it was an election "promise" (which it wasn't really).
I'll pose this question (which is exagurated, but hopefully everyone will get the point). Say there were two main parties to vote for, A & B. - Party A says they will get strict on polluting companies and cap CEO payouts. They also say that they will abolish the public health system. - Party B says they will double the international aid package and become a world leader in human rights. They also say they will abolish the minimum wage. Would you simply accept that they had a "mandate" to enact all their policies without question? Comment (1)
"Would you simply accept that they had a "mandate" to enact all their policies without question? "
That's what a mandate means. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |