62 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. In my last post at the old Road to Surfdom blog, I set out a case for a review of Australia’s ‘special relationship’ with the USA and expressed the hope that the then-new government would commission one. I cling to the faint hope that the ever-cautious Kevin might even do it one day. But in the mean time, it’s nice to see a bunch of British Labor MPs finally acknowledge publicly that ‘America’s relationship with Britain is no more special than with its other main allies’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078844.ece).

  2. I heard Sam Wylie of Core Economics on PM yesterday trying an argument from condescension against the Tobin Tax (or “Robin Hood tax” as it has been called), viz, “Tim Costello and Peter Singer are very fine people but they just don’t understand sophisticated financial economics” (the way I do).
    Given that economists as distinguished as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (both winners of the Riksbank prize in economics) and Dean Baker (one of the few to accurately call the US housing bubble and resultant crisis) and our host advocate a Tobin Tax, and Sam lacks a Riksbank medal, do you think will he accept that they understand more than he does and reverse his position? Or will the naked self interest of preserving his teaching career in “financial engineering” triumph?

  3. A Tobin-type tax (TTT) is probably the most useful thing social democratic capitalists, socialists, trade unionists, labourites and environmentalists can all agree on.

    Only capitalists and their allies within the capitalist economists fraternity tremble at the thought of a TTT.

    Left unions published “Back On Track” some time ago calling for a Tobin Tax.

    More recently the SEARCH Foundation included a Tobin Tax in its waffle. Quiggin and Stilwell are due to spruik at their Conference on 29 May. I think I have heard Stilwell support a TTT.

    Some ALP parliamentarians have tried to pursue a TTT, but the Keatingesque rightwing elements in the ALP Parliamentary Caucus stymied these efforts. In this case the TTT was sought for international issues. we now need it for domestic reasons.

    Gareth Evans and John Langmore have supported a TTT but without any real vigour.

    The issue is covered in “The Tobin Tax: Coping with financial volatility” ed ul Haq, Kaul, Grunberg.

    I assume some church groups and ACOSS would support a TTT.

    We just have to kick our ill-bred economists out of the way.

  4. Chris Warren :A Tobin-type tax (TTT) is probably the most useful thing social democratic capitalists, socialists, trade unionists, labourites and environmentalists can all agree on. Only capitalists and their allies within the capitalist economists fraternity tremble at the thought of a TTT.

    That and an economic rent tax (including variants such as mining royalties tax, unimproved land value (Georgist) tax, etc).
    In fact, I think many capitalists would be in favour of both, especially if they were partly used to reduce regressive taxes (e.g. payroll, stamp duty). IMHO Most businesses find currency fluctuations and high rents to be a burden not an opportunity. But small/medium and manufacturing businesses lack political clout compared to banks, stockbrokers, currency speculators and landlords.

  5. Phill Jones and the CRU have just been cleared by a UK parlimentary committee.

    The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

    On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

    Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

    The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

    On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

  6. One comrade doth not maketh a movement…

    In this political commentary piece appearing in `Left Focus’ this week, Geoff Drechsler questions inclinations in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to turn to ‘high profile’ ‘celebrity’ candidates. For Drechsler the real business of politics is in grassroots mobilisation and cultural struggle. If Labor is ever to return to the ‘front foot’, it is a lesson its leaders must learn…

    For more see:


  7. Chris Warren,

    Unions have sold out to the banks in all instances when they agreed to trade off direct deposits of wages for a trivially small wage increase. I would classify the Tobin tax on currency transactions (this is what it is in its original form) as mainstream economics. IMHO a Tobin tax in its original form is not sufficient to prevent or even significantly mitigate systemic risk in the future. The problems are technical and not ideological in nature. I am tired of people blaming economics rather than politics and the associated powers (legal and accounting profession and politicised unions and their various PR lots.)

  8. On a different topic, I am annoyed at the prospect of the great fire wall of Australia which the government is planning to erect. The purported reason to erect it is kiddie porn which is, obviously, a laudable objective. However, apparently most of this type of porn is propagated peer-to-peer and where it is provided via websites, the porn sites regularly change their IP addresses, hence, attempting to stifle people accessing this type of porn with a great fire wall is a very expensive and almost complete waste of time.

    What is of concern is what else the great firewall is going to block. Also of concern is Minister Conroy’s unwillingness to let the public should know what is being blocked and why in each case it is being blocked. Why can’t we know what is being blocked so that we are able to judge the reasonableness of that blocking. The likelihood is that the stuff that ‘no real Scotsman’ would object to being blocked won’t be blocked because those providing and accessing that type of material are already using methods that evade blocking (peer-to-peer and frequent IP address changes) while those sites that even many ‘real Scotsman’ would not object to everyone having access to, will be blocked and we won’t know about it because Conroy and his moral majority tea swigging christian wowsers think knowing what he is blocking from us is also far too dangerous for us to know.

  9. Given that economists as distinguished as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (both winners of the Riksbank prize in economics) and Dean Baker (one of the few to accurately call the US housing bubble and resultant crisis) and our host advocate a Tobin Tax

    You forgot to include prominant left wing economist and politician Pauline Hanson who campaigned for the same tax (under a different name) at the 1998 election. 😉

  10. Freelander – I agree. The combination of onion routers, peer to peer, and encryption make the distribution of such material beyond the influence of any government filter. The government has no hope of stopping it but every chance of stuffing up things for ordinary web users. Conroy has been told all this but somehow thinks “doing something” is a brilliant idea.

  11. TerjeP, Given Conroy can’t stop what he claims is his main target, and he knows it, his objective must be to stop other stuff he doesn’t like where posters and those who might want to read it are not going to go to those lengths to evade his Great Wall. Given that we are not going to be privy to his list of “that which must not be seen” we will be subject to an insidious piece of censorship. Also, given that Australia is such a small part of the internet, the rest of the world is not going to make much of an effort to make sure that the innocent stuff gets through their nanny wall.
    One thing that annoys me is that there is not a higher level of outrage over this in the community. Maybe that is because the purported target (the target it will miss) is kiddie porn?
    Given the silence of the opposition which has been opposing simply for the sake of it, something else that annoys me is the apparent bipartisan support for the proposal. I know this sort of censorship has strong support amongst many in the coalition. But surely there must be someone in Parliament willing to speak up loudly?
    Added to the opposition’s silence is also the silence of Rupert Murdoch’s minions and the remaining relatively free press, Fairfax et al. I suppose they don’t mind the censorship of a competing and largely superior media source that has made them unprofitable and has put them on an inevitable path to irrelevancy. Even the self labelled champions of freedom, the various libertarian ‘think tanks’. don’t see the issue as one worth shouting about. Maybe they don’t want to disturb the cosy relationship they currently enjoy with the main political parties and the traditional media? Clearly they don’t consider it a freedom worth making an effort to retain.
    There has definitely been no mandate for this, so why the silence?

  12. I don’t think I have ever seen the libertarian think tanks shout, on any topic. Public displays of outrage does not appear to be in their DNA. However I agree with the things you say. Most of the media opposition I have seen is voiced in PC magazines and the like.

    Other than the ETS Abbott isn’t much different to Rudd on the substance of things. Most of the differences are posture and posing and rhetorical baiting. They are a unified menace. I have said before that the only good thing about Abbott is that he isn’t Rudd but on several ugly points he is Rudd.

  13. Freelander and Terje re ‘fire walling kiddies porn’.

    I find your discussion informative regarding the distinction between ethically desirable and technologically possible policy outcomes. What would be an alternative policy measure to fire walling which is more effective and avoids possible unwarrented restrictions on personal liberties that might result from fire walling? Could one have ‘burning in oil’ (an expression from game theory) laws for people who get caught producing or distributing, or viewing (more than x seconds before deleting) the undesirable stuff? For example, mandatory life in prison and confication of all private assets to pay for the prison term. How would one exclude the possibility of someone being ‘framed’.? Would mandatory community work for the rest of the working life together with confiscation of private assets in excess of $x be better? If so, why? Any other suggestions?

  14. Warning folks – the Daily Telegraph cars guide is full of shonky ads
    like this one
    “LEXUS – IS250, 2006, 4d sedan, 6p auto sequential, GSE20R Sports luxury…bla bla 49,500kms etc complete with photo and phone no and the amazing price of ?? Wait for it – an unbelievable $15,700

    (true market price around 30K)

    Phone nos given in the ads which are never answered…. Email addresses given – which are responded to. Information given on chassis numbers, a rego no, engine no (three identifiers necessary for revs checks).
    So the unwitting victim would be buyer revs checks the car and it comes up showing no finance owing. Victim then puts deposit down on car after email communications with shonky seller..
    result ? Money disappears, so does seller. There never was any such car for sale

    Counted at least four of such ads (there will be quite a few more in there) in Daily Telegraph carsguide today…

    But what do the Tele care so long as the scam and likely foreign advertiser pays the advertising bill?

  15. Bernard Salt, Murdoch media insult the memory of Second World War Australians

    In 1946, US President Truman said Australia’s contribution to the Allied war effort, “On balance, the contribution made by Australia, a country having 7 millions, approximately equalled that of United States.” Yet, in 2010, Bernard Salt, a supporter of the record high immigration rate being imposed undemocratically by the Rudd Government has, in an article written for Rupert Murdoch’s “Australian” newspaper has misrepresented history in an apparent attempt to belittle and diminish this country’s proud achievements. Why?

  16. EG – I work in IT and I run filters on the corporate network and at home. They can deter those willing to be defered but if the motive is there and you control the software on you computer (ie you have admin rights on your PC) then they can be readily circumvented. I don’t think there is a technical fix and even in corporations the issue is ultimately a cultural one. Obviously serious activity leads to dismissal or even police depending on the nature of the activity.

    I used to run a consultancy looking after the IT for businesses (mostly small firms of corporate offices). I always told my guys (and one gal) that client data privacy was paramount but if they came across child porn they should call the cops. Of course the next day I went to a client site and looked at a PC and it happened that the wall paper on the desktop depicted two young girls naked in the bath. Not kiddy porn but the guys daughters.

    The worst thing I ever saw working in IT was shown to me by a very pretty young secretary who took me into her confidence to show me something “real cool”. It was a vintage video of a small boy (probably about 5 or 6) crossing a train line and getting hit by a train. It was vulgar and I let her know in no uncertain terms. She was a bit shocked at my reaction. I was a bit shocked at her depravity. Not because I didn’t know people couldn’t be depraved but more because they would be so open about it.

    I think metaphorically boiling in oil is the right approach because it addresses motive not means. However I think depravity is wide spread and we ought to be cautious about locking up people on mass. Obviously for some issues the option makes sense.

  17. @Ernestine Gross

    You have to balance blame between economic dogmas which underpin political decisions and political dogmas which underpin economic decisions.

    The dogma of Harberger triangles is used by economists to obtain political outcomes in Australia’s regulatory system. Harberger triangles are very useful if you want to push some stupid Labor minister into abolishing rent controls or into denying workers increased wages (particularly minimum wages).

    So economic dogmas can be blamed as well as stupid politics. I find it almost impossible to separate the two.

    The big dispute in economics – between objective social theory of value (neo-Marxism), and subjective individual theory of value (marginalism), is driven largely by politics.

    Politicians can also alternatively blame and evoke economics for what they want to do for other motives.

    Politics and economics coexist everywhere except in the case of Robinson Crusoe, up to the point he enslaved Friday.

  18. Kiddie porn is a difficult problem. The police seem to be doing a good job online in catching culprits currently. This seems to be achieved by monitoring who is accessing material on those sorts of sites and by infiltrating rings involved in peer-to-peer distribution of the material. And this policing is scrutinised by the issues being tested in a court. Quite different to judge, jury and enforcer being wrapped up in one Minister Conroy.

    One place where I would support a very wide ban even though, again, successfully enforcing one would not be easy, is on pornographic or offensive images on mobile phones. The reason for this is that with access to the internet on mobile phones, kids and teenagers can be watching that material on public transport not only age in appropriate but also subjecting others to and in some cases intimidating others with their viewing habits. Again, such a ban is unlikely to be successful in eliminating all such behaviour although it might reduce it, but, more importantly, this is an area that requires attention and resourcing rather than whatever texts it is that Judge Conroy (like some Judge Dread) and his fellow book burners are really intent on targeting. The types of texts that they really do object to are the material on sites like Wikileaks and elsewhere where whistle-blowing material is posted, like, for example, lists of “that which must not be seen” websites or webpages which have been blocked. Or misbehaviour by politicians which is definitely material in the “that which must not be seen” category.

  19. @TerjeP (say tay-a)


    You can probably find support for some taxation of foreign flows amongst Quadrant, News Weekly, Opus Dei, the RSL and most rightwing unions.

    But this has no relevance to the policy itself, and who cares about these groups?

  20. @Ernestine Gross

    The issue isn’t firewalling kiddie porn because that can’t be done without shutting down the internet. The issue is the real targets of the great firewall which, under the guise of solving the problem of kiddie porn, which it will not and which they know it will not, will instead block a host of things that we will not even be allow to know are being blocked.
    A simple recipe for some foreign site to be blocked would be that that site post a list of “that which must not be seen”. The secret list of “that which must not be seen” is an important part of what must be blocked and not seen. If you have had experience of nanny filters in a corporate environment they block all sorts of things that they ought not to be blocking, abortion information sites and so on. What amuses me about the Federal Government’s ‘nanny filter’ for government departments is that it regularly blocks emails from the Human Rights Commission. Apparently, even having .gov.au as part of the sender’s email address is not good enough to allow this undesirable material to get through the nanny filter. Part of the blocking is accidental but part of the blocking resulting from off the shelf nanny blockers is simply the result of the petty prejudices of those who design the blocking (not infrequently religious nutters, the word nutter being redundant). This great firewall will be no different, especially given Conroy’s expressed intention not to allow the laity to know what we are being protected from.

  21. Freelander,
    There have not been many occasions where I agree with you, but this is one. I have no confidence that it will act to exclude the material it is ostensibly aimed at, I believe it will slow down the internet for us all and I have little confidence that, once it is in place it will not be extended.
    Personally, I think its mere existence would be a standing temptation for a government to abuse it.

  22. Before we forget the real meaning of Easter…

    I must admit that I always find this time of year rather sad…

    As I know the availability of hot cross buns is coming to an end.

    Why couldn’t they have crucified him several more times?

    That way we would have more holidays and more hot cross buns. After all, he rose from the dead according to his spin doctors, they ought to have seen how many more times he could do it again. As well as keeping the hot cross buns flowing, multiple resurrections would have been truly impressive. More hot cross buns, more Easter eggs; he really should have thought more about the “little children”.

  23. Ken Lovell :
    … it’s nice to see a bunch of British Labor MPs finally acknowledge publicly that…

    There is no such animal as a “British Labor MP”, any more than there are any “Australian Labour MP”s. As each is a proper name, it should be Labour in Britain and Labor in Australia, respecting the usage of those who chose the name.

  24. @Ernestine Gross
    The Conroy filter is either not about what it says it is about or Conroy and the govt are misguided. Anyone in net security will tell you that the filter will not work to shutdown the transmission and distribution of child pornography – search on darknet if you want a bit of info on the ‘other’ internet. Serious police investigation into the illegal sex trade – whether to counteract the abuse of children or of adults – is far more worthy of funding than the Conroy proposal

  25. @Freelander wrote:

    One thing that annoys me is that there is not a higher level of outrage over this in the community.

    The outrage was there alright and almost certainly still is, just as much as there is outrage against the Bligh Government’s $15billion fire sale.

    The problem is that there is no leadership coming from the people who are in the best posittion to lead the fight against Mandatory Intenet filtering, namely the Greens.

    Thus far, for all his good work in exposing Mandatory Internet Filtering, Senator Scott Ludlam adamantly refuses to try to ge this issue put as a referendum question (or at least that’s what one of his staffers told me).

    If Rudd is prepared to put his health care reforms, for better or for worse, to a referendum, then why could’t the Greens just as legitimately demand that Conroy’s laws, that would give (or could potentially give, with small changes, with another concocted excuse such as 9/11, Bali or (almost) 12/25 last year) Governments total power to censor any website they consider a threat, also be put to a referendum?

    Instead the Greens’ ‘strategy’ appears to be confined to attempting to wheel and deal with a Senate that is overwhelmingly stacked with members who are committed to serving the interests of corporations, which have not interest in preserving free speech and not of the public.

    From the outset that strategy was a gamble. It appeared superficially viable when the Coalition came out against it. Since then the Coalition has become quieter and quieter, so to bank our hopes on them blocking it is folly.

    If a motion were put and carried by the Senate, then once the arguments for and against were considered, Mandatory Internet Filtering would almost certainly be voted down in a referendum.

    On the other hand, if it were not carried by the Senate, it would almost certainly give the very large section (if not an outright majority) of the public opposed to filtering, a compelling reason to vote for the Greens at the next Federal election.

    If they had done so, and if GetUp had got behind it, it would certainly have raised the profile of the issue much higher than it is now and the spotlight would be firmly back on Senator Steve Conroy.

    But the Greens refuse to even try.


  26. The problem is that people may be passionate about this issue but it won’t change their vote. If you’re a rusted on ALP voter and you hate this filter then you are unlikely to vote Liberal just because Tony Abbott decides to publicly oppose it. It is an issue that people are passionate about but it isn’t a vote changer. This is a classic example of the problem with product bundling in the political market.

  27. Maybe some MPs should be targeted over the issue? If Conroy was unseated, if he is up for re-election this time, that is, then maybe they would get a message?

  28. @daggett

    That’s called shouting Daggett and is considered poor ‘netiquette’. It also makes your post harder to read. Altering type attributes can be useful in emphasis but if everything is emphasised then nothing is.

  29. Fran – I think the extensive highlighting in comment #30 was a mistake and then comment #31 was sarcastic self criticism.

  30. Damn. Just out shopping and no hot cross buns! Have to wait a whole year. If only the Romans had tried replicating their experiment….

  31. Freelander – Blame the victims. The Romans crucified plenty of people. It’s just most of them could not be bothered rising from the dead.

  32. Well, I’m thinking that rising from the dead must have been quite common ‘back in the day’, because JC’s feat didn’t even make the local news. Either it didn’t happen, bite my tongue, or people were rising from the dead in such great numbers that it wasn’t even newsworthy. Josephus mentioned JC and his ignominious end but even he didn’t find it noteworthy enough to mention his death defying piece of civil disobedience. I imagine it was civil disobedience, as surely the Romans didn’t kill them simply for them to get up and ignore the incredible expense of the judicial and penal process by prancing around as if nothing had happened to them? What perplexes me is why, if Josephus did not find his rising from the dead noteworthy, why have christians made such a big deal out of it?

  33. Madang landowners fight ecologically devastating Chinese mining invasion

    Chinese government owned China Metallurgical Construction (MCC) corporation’s efforts to establish the massively destructive Ramu Nickel mine in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea — the largest investment in metal exploration and mining by the Chinese outside of China — is in serious jeopardy. Local landowners are successfully initiating court cases and protests to demand mine tailings not be dumped into the sea — poisoning fish stocks and causing extreme ecological destruction — or the mine be stopped. (Story originally published as “Resistance Growing to Ecologically Devastating Chinese Mining Invasion of Madang, Papua New Guinea” on rainforestportal.org, to whihch above link points. Also republished here.)

    My comment: The way that the Paupau New Guineans are treated by their Government and Chinese mining companies seems not that much worse than the way Australians are treated by our Govenment and Chinese mining companies.

    Yes, thanks, TerjeP, I am gald that at least one person here was able to grasp my efforts to salvage some of my pride from my botched <bold></bold> tagging of my earlier post with an attempt at humour. I gather that neither strikeout nor underscore tags work here?

    TerjeP, so do you agree with me that Mandatory Internet Filtering should be put to the public at a referendum?

    If we think about it, ‘representative democracy’ is anything but. The only people being ‘represented’ by our politicians, are mining companies, banks, land speculators, and property developers.

    It’s well past time that Swiss-style Binding Citizens Referenda became the law in this country.

  34. My first preference would be for the government to simply dump the policy. Baring that a binding referendum is highly likely to dump the policy so it would be an okay second best. I support democracy as a process but regardless of whether it is representative or direct it still gets things wrong.

    I think representative democracy is a brilliant concept but it has problems in practice. I have for some time now advocated that we stop electing senators and that we appoint them by sortition. This would be vastly more reresentative. It would disenfranchise the political parties. It would remove popularism from the deliberation process.

  35. @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    I have for some time now advocated that we stop electing senators and that we appoint them by sortition.

    As you know, I’d like a hybrid deliberative voting/sortition model to apply to the whole system, and I’d simply lose the senate. We’d have a national plan developed and passed and then modified at reasonable intervals by DD. Matters of serious division could also be resolved in this way, with parliament left to work out stuff that fell outside the scope of the plan or that they could interpret as falling within it.

    And I’d get rid of the states and local councils as well.

    So we’d have a system without career politicians or plitical parties directly in the parliament and far fewer politicians in total per capita.

    Since the sortition procesess would be issues based and the resultant parliament subject to a national plan progressively carried out and unable to be gamed, negative campaigning would be a waste of time.

    A bit radical for you though as I recall.

  36. It isn’t because it is radical that I disagree with it. I’d abolish federal tax powers which is radical so the fact that something is radical isn’t the basis on which I’d reject it. I regard myself as a radical libertarian incrementalist. Any reinvention of the system should in my book be one that can be achieved in stages with each stage being worthy in it’s own right. To replace the entire system as you outline would require a violent revolution and a period of totalitarian power unless you can break it down into more modest steps. For the moment I’ll assume you can and that your just glossing over the implementation details.

    I’d retain two houses because I think it achieves a very public process of public reflection and debate. I’d want to bolster this process with some rules that put a delay between the introduction of a bill into either house and the subsequent voting on it. I don’t think bills should be snuck in late at night and voted through without being on public display for a couple of months. Knee jerk legislation should be hampered by the system.

    I’d also retain a second house because I think it mitigates group think.

    In terms of state, federal and local government I’d shift power to the bottom. I’d give local governments constitutional standing. I’d give them the exclusive power to tax individuals and corporations. The revenue that state and federal governments could collect via fines or penalties would be strictly capped. Local governments would be required to give a fixed percentage of their revenues to the state government. The rate would varied by state referendum. In turn the states would give a fixed percentage of their revenue to the federal government and the rate would be determined by federal referendum.

  37. p.s. A national plan is useful as a guideline but not in my view as something to be embodied in legislation. As such I wouldn’t be having a system to vote for national plans. They also entail a bundling problem. In my view direct democracy is best for very specific unbundled rule changes. So a referendum outlawing the death penalty is a good use of a referendum. A referendum to accept or reject the case mix funding formula for all public hospitals is probably a bad idea. That’s probably better figured out through representative democracy with some delagation to a beaurocracy.

  38. TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    In terms of state, federal and local government I’d shift power to the bottom. I’d give local governments constitutional standing. I’d give them the exclusive power to tax individuals and corporations.

    Hundreds of different tax rates dependng on location. The cost on market efficiency alone would be huge. Curious about the reasoning behind this and why you don’t want business taxes being levied independent of geography.

  39. TerjeP wrote in response to my earlier post:

    My first preference would be for the government to simply dump the policy.

    Of course that would be mine also, but Conroy and the Government seem resolved to impose Mandatory Internet Filtering.

    To me, that’s unacceptable, when, as you agree, that it would be opposed by the overwhelming majority if they were fully informed on this issue.

    So, are we going to, yet again, let the Federal Government get away with imposing harmful policies opposed by the majority, in this case, one which has the potential to destroy free speech and democracy, altogether?

    It would appear that the Greens, together with the Coalition and, of course, the Labor Party, itself are willing to.

    As far as I am concerned, that simply isn’t good enough.

  40. TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    I have for some time now advocated that we stop electing senators and that we appoint them by sortition. This would be vastly more reresentative. It would disenfranchise the political parties. It would remove popularism from the deliberation process.

    How nice, how naive;

    Any representatives chosen in this romantic fashion would be complete prisoners of their advisors and lobbyists.

    It is a direct path to politburo/mandarin dictatorship.

    There are so many other problems with this, that I don’t know where to start.

  41. Yes, I think Chris Warren, is spot on and TerjeP is wrong.

    For all the obvious problems of election, it is far more preferable that at least our political representatives are elected.

    I thought my comment in response to a cartoon on Mandatory Internet Filtering posted to Facebook may be worth sharing:

    This cartoon is correct in a sense, but it trivialises the real threat that Mandatory Internet filtering poses.

    That threat is to give power to Governments, that are clearly serving corporations and not ordinary citizens, the power to block at will any sites they consider a threat to them.

    Obviously whether the sites are the child porn sites that Conroy claims necessitates these laws or sites expressing legitimate political viewpoints, ways to circumvent filtering can be found…. See More

    However, in the latter case, even if some are able to bypass the filter and get access to information that the Government considers a threat, the vast majority will not be able to, and so, what I believe is the true purpose of Internet Filtering will have been achieved.

    So, let’s, from now on, stop wasting so much time countering the self-serving lie that is Conroy’s case for Filtering.

    What we have to do is focus on what is almost certainly the real purpose of Filtering. Certainly, when people put Conroy’s facile arguments, we counter them at that point, but to focus on his argument is a diversion, in my view.

  42. @Chris Warren
    I agree – for sortition to work it must be much more widespread – private and public. The goal should be to prevent aggregation of power any and every where

  43. @gregh

    And that is very much how I see it. While it obviously would not cover all public goods it could cover all those where significant collective action benefits and problems were available.

    I don’t agree that Chris has made any kind of a case for the claim that this would foster the control of mandarins or a politburo …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s