Let's talk about how Australia is now a police state instead.
Some people happen to consider women's rights important.
The police state affects everybody's rights, not just the rights that are politically fashionable at any given time. This is the beauty of libertarianism: each individual has rights as an individual, not as a label.
You really don't get this do you? If Australia is a police state (I don't believe it is) it is so through the choice of it's population, not necessarily a decision I agree with but one they are certainly entitled to make. Simple as that. That's the beauty of democracy, the people get to chose what they want in their country.
Those that didn't vote for the police state didn't get what they want did they? The libertarian view is that imposing your own particularities on others is immoral: no person can vote away another's rights to life, liberty, property or privacy. This was the idea of the US constitution: a specifically government-limiting safeguard against police-states. But now people think it's okay to ignore all that if it gets you what you want.
But this is assuming that the police state was voted for. Very few police states were brought about solely through democracy. There is an awful lot of acting on behalf of the populace. For example, Bush and Obama's executive orders, and also the EU's unelected committee that dictates 80% of policy in Britain. Despite your irrational trust in democracy, you cannot support that, surely.
Are you upset she did Gillard did not stick up for Julian Assange. Seriously, Assange is not quite the hero some make him out to be. He has several admirers who came up to him and asked if he would read his book, and he said he would not bother. He has blatantly stole other men's girlfriends, and seems to get involved in a lot of weird sexual misconduct cases in Sweden. I know some herald Assange as a brave journalist, but he has always come across as someone who is out for himself. I would enjoy Gillard dressing him down on that, but she has better things to do. Three cheers for Julia Gillard.
I haven't said anything about Julian Assange. There is subtly to my opinion about him but I'll save that for another time maybe.
My point is that some parliamentary debate about sexism is so irrelevant when this woman is enacting a police state upon her country.
I was just curious if you were upset about her not sticking up for Assange, because I was reading a blog where several Australians compared Australia to the police state because she did not plead his case. Honestly, I was just curious.
Not upset, no. Julian Assange is most probably a government-sponsored agent intended to be as disruptive as possible, and as a result of that make a bad image out of the hacktivist/whistle-blower movement. This predicates special measures to make government more secret, and introduce draconian internet legislation.
However, it is important to defend Assange because we have to protect the rights of journalists. Really, he only uncovered the tip of the iceberg.
This is an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
So us women should shut up and talk about what you want to talk about.
Nope, nothing sexist about that.
Why not start your own thread about your topics instead of hijacking this one in a rather ironic fashion.
The Australian constitution is a little different a I understand it but as I say, their country, their choice, not your choice. Of the two choices the labor government I guess is the bigger government of the two and they were elected twice in a row so I guess yes that is what people voted for now by all means you can dislike their choice but you don't have the right to tell them what they can and can't chose for their own country.
There is no such thing as executive orders in Australia or even an executive branch of government and Australia is the topic. Now just because you dislike the choices of the Australian people has NOTHING to do with the debate some people are trying to have about female equality in society (which you may notice is what the thread is actually about). If you don't think it's an important issue so be it, don't comment, many people myself included do.
"A threat to justice somewhere is a threat to justice everywhere", I may be paraphrasing, probably getting it completely wrong, but the spirit behind it is true.
The Australian people, by voting for a police state, are not only giving up their own rights, but enforcing it upon those who didn't vote for it. Individual rights, are absolute everywhere in the world, and for each individual. This is wrong, whether it is Australia, the US or Tanzania, whether they have a democracy or not. Democracy is not a get out of jail free card to wave at libertarians to excuse tyranny.
Of course the exact opposite is completely true, if we ceded to the demands of those who don't want a "police state" (again assuming Australia has such a thing which I do not believe) then that would be superseding the rights of those (the majority) who do want that system to choose how their government is run. Thus libertarianism is in this case the greater constriction of the freedom of the people because it restricts the freedom of the majority to choose how they want their country to be governed.
It is not really being honest to say that libertarianism is the philosophy of 'freedom'. The only freedom we like is the non-aggressive type. So yes, I agree, we do favour the curtailment of the freedom to spy on, steal from and kill people. We do not believe dictatorship nor democracy should have the power to do this.
How is an idea judged? Is it judged on its intellectual merits, or how many people agree with it? According to you, an idea is best when it is agreed upon by the majority. The possibility of the minority being right is nil. A fool can see through this fallacy.
You say that we have the right to disagree, and then go on to say that I have 'no right to tell them that they can't'. As a pacifist I am obliged by my conscience to speak out in attempt to prevent all aggressive violence within this world, so I will NOT be peer-pressured into debating this ineffectual, intellectually bankrupt subject instead of doing so.
This is precisely the point democracy is not about choosing the "best" system if that were the aim we would be ruled by a team of economists, scientists and psychologists who would use their actual knowledge and expertise to make the best choices. Democracy is about people choosing which system they want most and giving that system to them. That way at least most people get the system they want, it's unfortunate that it's impossible to please everyone but that is just how it goes.
Now I am a socialist and you are a libertarian and neither one of us lives in a country with that system in place, the difference is I respect the rights of people to choose the system they want their country run by where as you dismiss democracy in favor of your own ideological tyranny. For example I very very very much do not want to live in a libertarian/anarchist system, I have and it was horrible so if you were to impose such a system on not only me but the vast majority of people who also do not want this system that would be tyranny.
In a real world scenario the fairest option is to let the majority chose what government they want and leave others the right to leave as they wish. What you favor is imposing a system against the wishes of the majority which is much more tyrannical.
You really don't understand. I am not imposing any particular society on anyone. The libertarian says: hands OFF and leave people alone. In a libertarian society, you can go right ahead and form a socialist community if you want. I have NO problem with that whatsoever. Hell, if it works out great, then I'll go ahead and join you.
This is far superior to countrywide monopoly of violence that is the government: you have the freedom to move to any one of numerous and varying societies within the nation (states rights, but better). Your way, I have to move countries, and submit to financial penalties for doing so (any potential benefit of moving away is numbed by these). Also, there's a high chance that in the police state I may not even be allowed to move. Do I still have to submit to it, since it's a democracy and that's A-OK? Can you see the violence now? Violence is the key. Look for the gun in the room, and you'll see a tyrant.
Democracy is not the will of the people. It is the will of two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
But that is exactly the point, the small community itself is being enforced on people. I can't speak for all countries but all countries that I know well most people WANT that country to exist, being a prt of a nation provides massive benefits which is why in the tribal era tribes began alliances to form nations, a large country has more capability for defense, if one area of it is devastated by a natural disaster it can rely on the other areas for aid etc. etc. etc.
So given that most people (the vast majority in most cases) want to live in a unified nation why should they not have the right to? So long as they let others who are born in it leave of course.
If for example tomorrow you held a vote asking Americans if they want the country to cease to exist as an entity no more than maybe two or three percent would vote for that. So imposing your vision of "freedom" on people is tyranny itself.
Now as for government force of course it's not what anyone wants but eventually force in governance is essential, for example there always needs to be a force to bring criminals to justice, so you don't want to get rid of force of governance you just want to make the centralization of that force smaller so stop orating about the evils of it and deal with the subject maturely as a necessary evil which it is, that you perhaps want to limit.
Everybody in the small community has gotten involved voluntarily, and so agrees to any rules and regulations the community offers. On the other hand when you've been born into a nation with a government, you have not committed to it voluntarily yet are still forced to abide by their laws. Libertarianism/anarchism is not necessarily a land without rules, it is simply a society where the only rules that are absolute for everyone are the ones which restrict violence.
Of course these people have the right to live in a unified nation, just so long as they don't force others to participate in it if they don't want to. Nobody has the right to take away the rights of others.
There was a time when a few smart people had that philosophy of "violence is evil, but is necessary, so we shall build a government but try and keep it limited", and they created the United States. A few hundred years later and it has turned into the biggest government the world has ever seen. This was because people like you came along and said that the rights enumerated in the constitution like life, liberty and property were negotiable just so long as everyone agrees . . . and by everyone you mean the majority out of less than 43% of the population that actually votes. Thanks very much for the police state, the drug war, the American empire and an epically stunted economy. There is a reason we believe this stuff you know, it's not just because we're weirdos, it's because things like the above would not happen if these principles were followed absolutely.
So no. I won't. I will continue to point out evil when I see it til I'm blue in the face.
How about you start another thread and put together a convincing argument as to why this is so. Please take into account how the Federation of Australia actually works in governance including the different branches. State vs Federal vs local and what powers of veto are held by each.You'll have to go beyond the repeated statement of "it's a police state because I say so" though to make it convincing.
As an Australian I say you're wrong. And you're selfishly derailing a topic which affects 51% of the population here.
Now onto the topic at hand. Go Julia! This has been long overdue. While I don't necessarily like all of the Labor Party's politics, and this term of government has been stifled due to the minority government, I have been shocked by the conduct of Tony Abbott and the Liberal (read conservative) party. They have a lot of media power and have been using it to their advantage. Most of the attacks on Julia Gillard have been couched in very sexist terms. Terms that would never, ever have been used against a male Prime Minister. Abbott has been fanning those flames. He needed to be put down more than a peg or two. Not that it did more than bounce off his massive ego plating.
This lecture made earlier this year by Anne Summers from Newcastle Uni gives some of the "highlights" of what has passed for political debate here in the last couple of years.
http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her- … k-r-rated/
Josak and I are having a debate about political philosophy, not whether Australia is a police state, but I shall oblige.
I'd still like to see you justify your confident statement that Australia is a police state, it seems to be a fundamental premise of your argument.
That's why I said I'd oblige. Hold your horses.
How about you start a new thread to do so rather than continuing your lesson on how us silly women can't even discuss the "right" subject.
I'm an Australian and I'm not understanding your point at all. By what measure do you say we live in a police state? Can you be more specific, please?
Let's talk about one thing at a time. And let's learn how to have a conversation where you engage in other people's ideas rather than just talking over them with your own. Unless that is too "uppity" of us.
The answer to this thread is: it's irrelevant. What does Gillard know about women's rights when she doesn't respect individual rights in general? That's the point. Excuse me for raining on anybody's moralising parade.
What does Innersmiff know about women's rights, have you experienced life as a woman??
Would you not accept cancer treatment from a doctor if he himself had not had cancer?
You hate police states but have no problem with a man telling women they can't discuss sexism and are wrong to even think it is an issue. You want to dictate not only the answer, but the question. If you can't see the problem here, that only proves the point.
You are doing the thing you criticize. Setting the entire agenda, valid discussion space, a validity of opinions from a position of self-anointed superiority.
You aren't telling us we have cancer. You are telling us that we don't, despite they tumors we can see on out bodies with our own eyes.
You are telling woman they don't suffer from sexism or that suffering is trivial despite the fact i earn $20,000 less than a male with identical skills--and I experience it for myself every damn day. Despite the fact I work with female victims of domestic violence and have experienced the same in my own family.
It's outrageous how hypocritical you are being on multiple levels. You are saying your theory is more important than my experience of my own life because, what...? Seriously? How do you get to do that?
Make an 'Oz is a police state' thread to discuss that and let other people have other discussions without you. Seriously.
Go ahead and discuss sexism! I'm simply pointing out that the subject is irrelevant when EVERYBODY's rights are affected by the police state! This includes sexism too, and all the problems with inequality in the West (seriously, where did I say that there wasn't sexism?) I don't believe I'm being off-topic here at all - you're being distracted by popular talking points that only scratch 10% of the issue whilst your rights as an individual are being taken away by the second.
Gillard hates sexism? Great, whoop-de-doo, fandabby dosey, what a WONDERFUL person she must be! But no, she's a tyrant of the worst order, and I'm not going to ignore that simply because she stood up for herself as a woman. Margaret Thatcher suffered from sexism too but I'm not going to start excusing her for all the tyranny she did either. Jeez.
You really do have problem ! Don't you ?!
How dare you say the subject of sexism is irrelevant. The only accurate statement you have made is to state that Margaret Thatcher caused tyranny.
You don't get it at all. Maybe when sexism is the least of your problems you will.
Maybe when you are able to honestly state that sexism has created mammoth problems in your life you'll understand what the rest of us are discussing, 'till then, just learn.
Margaret Thatcher was the puppet of men. The biggest conformist of them all.
You are neither a doctor nor a woman. Furthermore, I might accept treatment from a male oncologist but I'd never let him preach to me about women's experiences, just as you'd never accept treatment for cancer from me.
Julia is one good Taffy ! Hope you Blokes listen !
She is from Barry, not Cardiff, therefore is not a 'taffy'. We are ashamed, yet strangely relieved that she left Wales and foisted herself upon poor Australians By the way, you do realise she was supporting the (ex) Speaker and his disgusting tweets to a homosexual regarding the appearance of female anatomy?
I don't agree with all of Gillard's policies but credit should go where it is deserved.
Her speech on this issue rocked.
I feel late, but I'm confused. I've never heard my Australian friends describe Australia as a police state.
And I learned from someone on here that my country Canada is a dictatorship Amazing what you learn about your own country from those who have never been there isn't it?
People imagine a police state to be a place where stormtroopers line the street and conduct regular armed searches of property for no reason at all, with cameras in every house blah blah
In real life, police states are much more subtle and don't readily reveal themselves to the section of their population that serve their purpose. By deduction from the actual definition of 'Police state', most countries in the West qualify, including the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. Surprising only to those who agree with the tyranny.
by James Smith4 years ago
Police state definition: a police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.A breakdown of incursions into civil...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
What kind of America do you want to live in? Do you want it to remain the "Land of the Free", or do you want it to be a police state where people can be thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial, at the...
by Ron Montgomery6 years ago
Our state has run out of humans to hate
by kerryg5 years ago
Just read a really interesting article on social democracy by Tony Judt called "What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy."I recommend the whole article, but this is one passage that stood out to me...
by Stump Parrish5 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/ar … paragraph3Amen, the only threat they posed our government was the threat of discovery. Not that it matters, most in this country feel this country has the right to rule...
by weholdthesetruths5 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. ...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.