American thinking of moving to Australia. some questions.

I did not suggest taking away all forms of coercion. I am saying that the only morally legitimate role of government is the protection of legitimate rights. True, if I was arguing government ought to have no coercive powers, that would be anarchy.
Think about it. Would you allow someone to take your kid with due process/reason/objective legislation (i.e. court determination).

 

As much as I make fun of Australia, I have to admit, Australian men have the hottest accent of any foreigner.

 

But you argued that the government was fascist because it had coercive powers. You can't then say that the government is allowed some coercive powers without accepting the fact that that too would be a form of fascism, by your earlier argument. And then, you also have the argument of what constitutes a 'legitimate right', since for all people, their opinions differ on the matter.

I would, and for two reasons. The first reason is that I have faith in the judicial system that, if they took my child I would either be 1) a bad parent whose household is not good for the development of a stable child, or 2) made an honest mistake and that I could prove it in court. The second reason is that I believe that out justice system is based upon creating a healthy atmosphere, and that entails stopping the unhealthy elements from corrupting society.

 

Actually I argued above that government arbitrarily initiates use of force. That is the basis of fascism. Actually I can argue that...if I can base it on more fundamental values, i.e. A Theory of Values. I gave you a snippet of that. Fortunately, you are arguing towards fundamentals. You allude to the fact that there needs to be some sense of objective truth. Which I believe. Everyone at some level does, which is why they accept that science has some legitimacy. It is also why they don't walk in front of speeding cars.

I think you misunderstood me. I have no problem you having faith in the justice system. The matter I (and you) use is essentially a Common Law issue. I have no problem with that. I'll review my example.

 

Yeh, sorry, an editing mistake by me....it ought to have read:
Think about it. Would you allow someone to take your kid withOUT due process/reason/objective legislation (i.e. court determination).

 

I disagree that it is an arbitrary use of force. Our government basis its laws and regulations on the desires of the majority of its constituents. It's the basis of the Westminster system. You may argue that it would be a 'tyranny of the majority' but that is merely hyperbole, because if it were a tyranny, who is being terrorised? The only other option is to base actions of the will of the minority but then I would argue that enforcing the status quo on the majority is just as much the basis fascism.

There needs to be a healthy mix of objective views but the majority of beliefs tend to be subjective, for example, one's belief on abortion is subjective, one's belief on economic is subjective and the fact is that there are no objective truths when it comes down to those situations, there is ONLY opinion. Most 'truths' as it were, tend only to be a basis, not definite.

 

And my answer would be:

No, but then we do not live in that sort of society either.

 

I am not suggesting that all govt coercion is arbitrary, just some of it. Voluntarism or negotiation are important elements of accountability, even if they are the last measure through the court. The legislative process was created I believe with the expectation that it would achieve reason as the standard of value, but there was never any assurance or protection that it would. Implicitly the High Court, which is implicitly supposed to hold reason as the standard, gives arbitrary statutory law greater standing based on the argument that its the democratic desire of people. Really people don't know, or reflect on such issues.
Why is democracy based on coercion. Because it does not seek to reconcile differences of opinion. Instead politicians make concessions. e.g. Senator Haraldine takes a kickback for Tasmania in exchange for Telstra privatisation.
The majority is almost almost destined to be wrong because they are passively represented by non-analytical people, who seek 'numbers', not principles based on fact. Of course they cannot avoid the most self-evident concepts, but they are not judicious in their scrutiny or analysis.
You think its not tyranny because you concede. You accepts its outcomes. By on some level everyone is frustrated with govt, its just that few people choose to understand why. The reason is that they have no reason to believe they can make a choice. The tyranny arises because you have no effective choice about that. i.e. If I decide the tax system is immoral, and I choose to renounce my support by not paying. There is no negotiation where reason is the standard of value, I go to court. The judge says 'the law is....'. I argue points of law. He decides the will of the majority decides the fate of any individual, irrespective of the validity of his arguments. There is the prospect of course the prospect of the judge taking an interest in my whole philosophical treatise if he hates the legislature, but there is a dim prospect of him investing the time. Its too much of a stretch. The flaw goes back to 1100AD, so the Westminster system has little standing with me.

This is a false alternative. Your choice is not simply between being a perpetrator and a victim. There is a choice of being a trader, the same basis upon which you participate in voluntary agreements, i.e. By way of contract if specific and careful protection is required, but more importantly, a system where reason is the standard of value. Democracy is only legitimate if its consensus based (not representation) because reason must be the standard of value. Whose reason? Everyone's....with objective reality the final arbiter. Just like for science and the court system.

I agree, most people are subjective, but what do you expect when:
1. Objectivity would cause you moral conflict, manifesting in anxiety/anger or repression/cynicism.
2. Government is the highest level of organisation. If reason is not the standard of value, it conveys a certain 'impracticality' to 'being real' and a practicality to faking it. Of course society as a whole cannot fake reality, as it confronts it in ways like reduced productivity, slower growth, financial crises, etc. We are forced to wake up at some point. It can take generations, e.g. Sweden. It will be the same for Brunei and Norway when they run out of oil. The problem is people accept democracy because we were born into it. People don't trust a conception.
3. Rationality alienates you from people in society. Most people by accepting 'subjectivity' are undermining their cognitive development, and thus their respect for facts, and in the process diminishing their self-esteem. They can impress friends by a relative standard, but it does not 'mean' the same.

If you analysed the issue of abortion, economic theory, you would find objectivity. You don't think there are patterns of behaviour to those issues. I don't want to deal with these specifics because that it going backwards. I'm trying to break you down to your basic philosophical premises. We started with politics, then ethics, then epistemology, now we are discussing the most fundamental values - the nature of reality - objective or subjective. I kind of have you 'cagged' and you want to jump from the 'metaphysical' bath water into the 'political' sea. You can do that...if you want to choose those philosophical set of implications.
You can explore these issues at my blog www.sheldonthinks.com. I am a writer. My blogs are poorly developed argument because they are unedited, but I deal with a plethora of issues in the media.

 

REALLY!!

Who likes the sound of their own key board, no doubt.

 

Non-answer

 

If you have dark skin, I don't recommend going there even as a visit.

It appears to be quite the racist country.

 

Indians are not, and have never been, disproportionately represented in crime statistics. There is no evidence beyond the anecdotal to suggest that they have been targeted.

 

I am an Australian, and I have lived in a number of countries with a number of Asian partners. I see no reason to think that Australians are any more racist than in other countries, however they do have a greater propensity to express their prejudice where it exists.
Living in Sydney with a Japanese girl, we experienced racial taunts once over 5 years; in NZ it was once in 18mths (i.e. In a rural town). There was a story in NZ recently where an Indian received no job interviews until he adopted a Western name. In the Philippines, a more collectivist nation, we experience all types of prejudice, but it is never to my face. i.e. Our relationship is considered illegitimate because most Filipinos think girls go with foreigners for money. So collectivist and less educated Asia is worse. My Filipino GF's brother thought Australians were racist because of press statements.
In the West, poor areas with collectivist values, e.g. farming, mining, industrial communities are likely to be worse than upper class areas. Understand though that cultures are different, so value judgement is inevitable. The issue is fairness, objectivity, goals, interests and motives.

 

Start reading the AU papers.

Would you like the horror stories from Christmas Island?

Christmas Island is the Happiest Place on Earth, hey why not, it's named after CHRISTMAS!

 

Personal attack duly noted and reported, please re-read the rules.

 

Personal attack......aaawww didums.

The whole Indian thing ended with the Indian setting fire to his car for insurance, and burning himself......then blaming racists Australians, which the whole stupid world sucked up.

Aint no man stopping them going back if they want.

 

I do like that, although I said there was no evidence beyond the anecdotal that shows Indians are being targeted, you immediately try to use anecdotal evidence to show that Indians are being targeted.

What has this got to do with racist actions against Indians?

The articles you link seem to speak more for Governmental incompetence than racism, at any rate.

 

*** Mod Edit: Off Topic - comment on the post, not the poster. ***

 

Since when was the media a basis for measuring the degree of racism in any country. Any hostilities does not characterise the majority, but more probably a small disillusioned minority that exist in many countries.
Go to Bali, Malaysia, the Philippines, and if you go to the wrong area you are likely to be the target of a bomb threat by Muslim fundamentalists....how about Palestine?
Perhaps you should read 'more' media, from different parts of the world, and also try living in these places. Racists don't have a monopoly on insecurity or resentment either. In some countries they condemn journalists (russia & philippines), etc.
This discussion is not in perspective.

 

*** Mod Edit: Response to deleted comment ***

 

Sydney's an international & multicultural city with a large Asian presence, fair amount of culture with good facilities, healthy lifestyle, great healthcare and not too "okker". If you're older - go for Queensland for the weather & cheaper cost of living.

 

I think there Islands mate. And there quite beautiful when there not covered in oil. We are the lucky country

 

these incidents do not reflect on the attitudes of the Australian people. They reflect on the delusion and power-lusting of politicians and the moral indifference of public servants.
Besides that, what is wrong with trying to restrict illegal smuggling of people. Most countries are envious of our ability to stop it. The question is - should we? The problem is that - every dog and his mother wants to come here.

 

what about marijuana? Is it legal in Australia?

 

Nope. Stupidity rules as alcohol and tobacco continue to cut a swathe through our popoulation, legally.

I've never understood this obsession with stopping people doing what they enjoy, as long as they don't harm others and who ever heard of a dope smoker going out, speeding in his car and kill someone else? Or start a fight?

No, but down 15 beers and it's fine, just don't get caught driving.