Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Pistolero]

Isn't Gary Johnson Governer Veto? You guys really are crazy over there if you think you need to cut government services. You have the worst government services in the industrialised world and all the problems that go along with that, yet you think government needs to be smaller. You spend more on prisons and police than education and wonder why your crime rate is obscene, you spend more on the military than everything else put together and wonder why the world distrusts you, where is the logic?

That's the general position of Libertarians, actually. A good half of US "criminals" in prison are in there only for drug-related crimes. Legalize drugs, and we have smaller prisons and no more overcrowding. Same goes for prostitution, gambling, etc. Also, we need to cut the military, seriously.

You pay less tax as a % of GDP than most of the industrialised world, yet spend more on the military, again as a % of GDP, than anywhere else, and you want to fund it by cutting government services that maintain a stable society. I gotta say, from the outside, it looks insane. How did they put it on that talk show in the UK? Something like: "You have the Democrats, who stand to the right of every government in the world, and Republicans, who are just insane." Now you have the Tea Party because Republicans aren't crazy enough?

Once again, we want to cut the military.

Your government is tiny. It already fails to provide all of the people it represents with the basic human rights that the rest of us take for granted, but apparently it still isn't Somalian enough for you guys.

Government doesn't "provide" rights. People have them by default. Government only needs to exist to defend rights and its people.

I don't have basic healthcare or clean water by default, which is exactly my point. We take this stuff for granted, you guys don't acknowledge them as rights, you treat them as commodities. No one has to cut their education short due to financial issues in Australia. Very few people have to sleep on the street. No one needs to sell the house because they got sick. There are moves for the government to provide basic dental care to everyone as well. Yet our taxes are similar to yours (~3% higher).

Did you have a go at my questions for libertarians?

[ECrownofFire]

Isn't Gary Johnson Governer Veto? You guys really are crazy over there if you think you need to cut government services. You have the worst government services in the industrialised world and all the problems that go along with that, yet you think government needs to be smaller. You spend more on prisons and police than education and wonder why your crime rate is obscene, you spend more on the military than everything else put together and wonder why the world distrusts you, where is the logic?

That's the general position of Libertarians, actually. A good half of US "criminals" in prison are in there only for drug-related crimes. Legalize drugs, and we have smaller prisons and no more overcrowding. Same goes for prostitution, gambling, etc. Also, we need to cut the military, seriously.

You pay less tax as a % of GDP than most of the industrialised world, yet spend more on the military, again as a % of GDP, than anywhere else, and you want to fund it by cutting government services that maintain a stable society. I gotta say, from the outside, it looks insane. How did they put it on that talk show in the UK? Something like: "You have the Democrats, who stand to the right of every government in the world, and Republicans, who are just insane." Now you have the Tea Party because Republicans aren't crazy enough?

Once again, we want to cut the military.

Your government is tiny. It already fails to provide all of the people it represents with the basic human rights that the rest of us take for granted, but apparently it still isn't Somalian enough for you guys.

Government doesn't "provide" rights. People have them by default. Government only needs to exist to defend rights and its people.

I don't have basic healthcare, or clean water by default, which is exactly my point. We take this stuff for granted, you guys don't acknowledge them as rights, you treat them as commodities. Did you have a go at my questions for libertarians?

I actually think healthcare should be universal, but only because it's way cheaper. Clean water is kind of a state/local government thing, but my position is that it should probably be provided by the government. I'm not quite as far right as most, actually.

Though as far as rights go, I'm waaay up there. Drugs? Fine. Prostitution? Fine. Gambling? Fine. Gay marriage? Fine. Abortions? Keep the government out of it.

[Pistolero]

Though as far as rights go, I'm waaay up there. Drugs? Fine. Prostitution? Fine. Gambling? Fine. Gay marriage? Fine. Abortions? Keep the government out of it.

Marijuana is decriminalised in a few parts of Australia, safe injecting rooms are being considered, we have legal brothels in every state, gambling is fine (it's actually a big revenue source, although steps are being taken to make problem behaviour more difficult), gay marriage is under debate right now, and abortions are legal. Reduced government services does not equal increased freedoms.

[ECrownofFire]

Though as far as rights go, I'm waaay up there. Drugs? Fine. Prostitution? Fine. Gambling? Fine. Gay marriage? Fine. Abortions? Keep the government out of it.

Marijuana is decriminalised in a few parts of Australia, safe injecting rooms are being considered, we have legal brothels in every state, gambling is fine, gay marriage is under debate right now, and abortions are legal. Reduced government services does not equal increased freedoms.

Never said it did, they're separate issues.

[Pistolero]

Ah my mistake, I misunderstood your 'That's the general position...' statement to be referring to Gary Johnson, not myself. Yeah, I understand that libertarians want freedoms, but smaller government doesn't get you more freedoms, it takes them away. No such thing as a power vaccuum etc. The more power you take away from the people who represent you, the more power you give to forces that do not. As I said earlier, the libertarian stance of restrictions on violent crime and the power of elected representatives amounts to a plutarchy.

[ECrownofFire]

Ah my mistake, I misunderstood your 'That's the general position...' statement to be referring to Gary Johnson, not myself. Yeah, I understand that libertarians want freedoms, but smaller government doesn't get you more freedoms, it takes them away. No such thing as a power vaccuum etc. The more power you take away from the people who represent you, the more power you give to forces that do not. As I said earlier, the libertarian stance of restrictions on violent crime and the power of elected representatives amounts to a plutarchy.

What freedoms could be taken away by having a smaller government? There would still be a justice department (and police) to reduce crime, neither would be privatized (and anybody who thinks they should be is insane). There are two main sources of removal of freedoms, government, and crime.

Also, what restrictions on violent crime are you talking about? I also see no possibility of a plutarchy.

[Pistolero]

Ah my mistake, I misunderstood your 'That's the general position...' statement to be referring to Gary Johnson, not myself. Yeah, I understand that libertarians want freedoms, but smaller government doesn't get you more freedoms, it takes them away. No such thing as a power vaccuum etc. The more power you take away from the people who represent you, the more power you give to forces that do not. As I said earlier, the libertarian stance of restrictions on violent crime and the power of elected representatives amounts to a plutarchy.

What freedoms could be taken away by having a smaller government? There would still be a justice department (and police) to reduce crime, neither would be privatized (and anybody who thinks they should be is insane). There are two main sources of removal of freedoms, government, and crime.

Also, what restrictions on violent crime are you talking about? I also see no possibility of a plutarchy.

After the competition of violence comes the competition of resources. If citizens have less power since their vote counts for less because the people they elect have less power, the power of money is relatively larger. You're talking about giving power to people with money, and taking it away from those without. Some would argue that situation is bad enough already. It's the failure to recognise other forms of power that makes it all sound very naive.

[Duuvian]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Isn't Gary Johnson Governer Veto? You guys really are crazy over there if you think you need to cut government services. You have the worst government services in the industrialised world and all the problems that go along with that, yet you think government needs to be smaller. You spend more on prisons and police than education and wonder why your crime rate is obscene, you spend more on the military than everything else put together and wonder why the world distrusts you, where is the logic?

That's the general position of Libertarians, actually. A good half of US "criminals" in prison are in there only for drug-related crimes. Legalize drugs, and we have smaller prisons and no more overcrowding. Same goes for prostitution, gambling, etc. Also, we need to cut the military, seriously.

You pay less tax as a % of GDP than most of the industrialised world, yet spend more on the military, again as a % of GDP, than anywhere else, and you want to fund it by cutting government services that maintain a stable society. I gotta say, from the outside, it looks insane. How did they put it on that talk show in the UK? Something like: "You have the Democrats, who stand to the right of every government in the world, and Republicans, who are just insane." Now you have the Tea Party because Republicans aren't crazy enough?

Once again, we want to cut the military.

Your government is tiny. It already fails to provide all of the people it represents with the basic human rights that the rest of us take for granted, but apparently it still isn't Somalian enough for you guys.

Government doesn't "provide" rights. People have them by default. Government only needs to exist to defend rights and its people.

I don't have basic healthcare, or clean water by default, which is exactly my point. We take this stuff for granted, you guys don't acknowledge them as rights, you treat them as commodities. Did you have a go at my questions for libertarians?

I actually think healthcare should be universal, but only because it's way cheaper. Clean water is kind of a state/local government thing, but my position is that it should probably be provided by the government. I'm not quite as far right as most, actually.

Though as far as rights go, I'm waaay up there. Drugs? Fine. Prostitution? Fine. Gambling? Fine. Gay marriage? Fine. Abortions? Keep the government out of it.

http://www.lenconnect.com/news/local_government/x593980584/Norvell-Township-gives-up-fight-over-600-000-sewer-system-debt

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/04/about_265_wamplers_lake_sewer.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2008/12/norvell_still_working_to_settl.html

http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x811424498/Sewer-debt-unresolved

The ones that run basic services like some kind of fief should probably not be trusted. My dad had to fight this tooth and nail, after he won by putting the matter on a local ballot which forced the sewer lord to rethink his strategy and go around his pocket of resistance.

There are definitely residences at the lake a half mile away that would benefit from a sewer, and hypothetically the lake that I had been swimming in at the time would too. (which coincidentally was the reason for the sewer, keeping the hypothetical poop out of the lake)

If I remember correctly someone changed zoning laws so your septic tank can't be within a certain distance from the shore, which made some houses require a sewer. (this was the enabler)  Since it wouldn't be fair to make only the people who need it pay for it, they might as well run a sewer system through the whole area and charge the farmers for sewers too. Then, after that you might as well set yourself up as drain commissioner and make your wages a % of whatever is put into the sewer fund. That way, if the system is larger, you make ridiculous amounts of money! Since voting is done township wide, you only need to find loopholes in the system. Such as befriending a trailer park owner via incentives so you can use his right to the land to claim 400 votes. After all it's residences that are voting, not people, in this election.

I suppose I'll request my dad write a book about it someday. Until then I guess I'll keep it to this late night post.

For some reason we were going to be forced to hook up to the sewer. Keep in mind my house didn't need a sewer. If we needed a sewer, then we have 20+ acres to do it on, all of which are comfortably far from the lake in question that was the reason given to go to sewers in the first place. (That being sewage was escaping into the lake),

Anyways though, my dad had to spend a lot of time opposing this, and it's still in the newspapers to this day, about how it continues to cost money, although according to the paper things are looking up. I hope that now it's under more local-er control we'll stop seeing newspaper stories with the word sewer featured prominently.

EDIT: Removed my request for employment at local newspaper.

EDIT2: Also, I should note that I haven't read much in this thread beyond 'politics' and 'sewers' so I made a quote and started yelling.

[Pistolero]

You're upset because there's no poop in your lake anymore and it's going to cost you over a dollar a day for the next 3 years?

Sure it could have done better if there had been any kind of oversight to stop one apparently corrupt official and one obviously incompetent official, but for some reason you think less oversight is a plus? You're unhappy because your father had to fight tooth and nail but you want to be your own watchdog? You're drawing some interesting conclusions from this whole thing.

For example, here, we have an ombudsman, and this would never have been a problem in the first place, because the ombudsmans office has fairly wide ranging powers to prevent corruption. If someone decided to risk engaging in some kind of corruption, your father would simply call the relevant ombudsmans office and they would use their very satisfactory budget to investigate and prosecute. That's a state funded office. My taxes pay for that budget, and I'm happy about it, because I don't have to worry about some smalltown criminal buying 400 trailer park votes. You on the other hand, with your smaller government, seem surprised to discover that it is corrupt. See: Horn of Africa.

[Dsarker]

So, what, the ombudsmans (ombudsmen? Ombudsmanity?) are the 40k inquisitors, only for government?

[Taricus]

Only for workplace relations in this case (Unless there's another one...)

[Pistolero]

So, what, the ombudsmans (ombudsmen? Ombudsmanity?) are the 40k inquisitors, only for government?

If only No, they're just go betweens really, to sort out disputes before they get to litigation and occupy court time. But if someone calls the ombudsman to resolve a dispute and the ombudsman finds something shady is possibly going on, they have open lines of communication with the AFP, which is equivalent to your FBI. In fact I think if you have found something the AFP might want to investigate, you are supposed to contact the ombudsman about it.

There are several different ombudsmans offices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsmen_in_Australia), for example, I called my state energy ombudsman the other day to investigate whether I was liable to foot the bill for a gas leak which occured on the gas companies equipment on my property, since I was having trouble finding the information online. Turns out I'm not, which would have been great except the leaked gas wasn't billed to me anyway

[Dsarker]

Okay. Here's a question. Would you like to have an inquisitor-like position, for (say) the sheer purpose of finding and purging corruption from the government? What are the flaws with the system (besides the obvious that they could be corrupt themselves), and is there any way of fixing this?

[Pistolero]

Okay. Here's a question. Would you like to have an inquisitor-like position, for (say) the sheer purpose of finding and purging corruption from the government? What are the flaws with the system (besides the obvious that they could be corrupt themselves), and is there any way of fixing this?

Pretty sure that's called a free media, and I'm pretty sure it is corrupt as hell

Really though, that is what we have the ombudsman for, although his brief isn't restricted to instances of suspected corruption. If you suspect that office of corruption, you can in turn complain about him to your parliamentary representative, and they can appoint a commission to investigate. It's likely that if you wanted to complain about the federal level ombudsman you would probably see more effect if you contacted the governor generals office though. If the local guy, the ombudsman, parliament, and the GG are all in on it, you're probably screwed, since that's the equivalent of the US president, the FBI, and congress all taking kickbacks to set up a dodgy sewer system in your town.

[Dsarker]

I hope I'm not the only one who wants ombudsmen to, from now on, carry around high caliber pistols as well as chainswords.