Australian Greens Demand Public Access To Cloak and Dagger Anti-Piracy Meetings

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Greens Demand Public Access To Cloak and Dagger Anti-Piracy Meetings

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @09:24PM from the we-can-handle-the-truth dept.

Fluffeh writes "Continuing the recent stories on the secret, closed door, FOI blocked talks, the Australian Greens have filed a motion in the Senate requesting that the Government release documents regarding its closed door meetings on Internet piracy which the Attorney-General's Department has blocked from being released under Freedom of Information laws. This morning, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam filed an order in the Senate that the Government disclose details of the most recent meeting. 'The Government refuses to reveal almost any information about the attendees, the substance or the outcomes of the meeting,' he said in a separate statement. 'A Freedom of Information request from a journalist looks like it's been met with maximum resistance.'"

64 of 93 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

At last... by FriendlyLurker · 2012-03-21 21:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

An Aussie political party with some cojones.
1. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 21:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Any help they give will be purely coincidental. Greens are interested in serving there own agenda, if they happens to help you so be it, but they would just as soon as watch you rott in the gutter.
2. Re:At last... by Sique · 2012-03-21 22:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But that's the point of having political parties! They are out to serve their own agenda, and if enough people feel served by this agenda too, they will elect them. If you don't feel their agenda fits your goals, then don't elect them.
  Instead of ranting, maybe some democracy 101?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
3. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  What a completely uninformed response! The Greens have strongly supported an open internet and an open govt as a key policy principle. It was the Greens who sunk the internet filter despite the efforts of your mob.
4. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.
  
  They didn't and they don't. The bill wasn't even brought up because the Greens and the Liberals agreed to block it, rendering it dead on arrival.
  Who told you otherwise?
5. Re:At last... by andrew3 · 2012-03-21 22:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.
  Really? Wikipedia and the Greens website both say they oppose censorship.
6. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 22:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  IN Europe it is the Green/Pirate Party alliance that has been fighting ACTA. Here is a quote from a response i got from my SNP MEP: 'My group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance,
  has commissioned two very important studies regarding ACTA which may be
  of interest to you. One is on the compatibility of ACTA with the
  European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental
  Rights (http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/fundamental-rights) and the other is
  in relation to Access to Medicines
  (http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/access-to-medicines).'
  so, as you can read: Greens fighting ACTA.
7. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 22:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is indeed the point of democracy, but it is also a flaw in the idea of political parties. The Romans used to consider that politicians banding together into parties was a very dangerous trend in a democracy, obscuring the merits or flaws of the individual under the combined policies of the party.
  It leads to linking concepts that should have nothing to do with one another, such as "If you care about the environment, then obviously you also support the welfare state, it couldn't be otherwise." or "If you believe tax on business should be lowered in sectors X, Y and Z, then obviously you also want massively increased military spending."
  In order to serve their own agenda and be able to compete, political parties have to be as large as their opposition, which means they have to absorb sufficient numbers of groups that can support them, all with their own issues and interests.
8. Re:At last... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2012-03-21 22:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They have no interest in maintaining the openness of the internet in Australia. They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.
  
  The Australian Green Party do not support internet censorship, and in fact are opposed to internet censorship. Do you have a reason for your opinion - or are you perhaps you're thinking of the Laboural Party of Australia? They seem to love censorship.
  
  Their policy manifesto would make Kim Jong Ill proud.
  Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
9. Re:At last... by garrettg84 · 2012-03-21 22:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Mod AC up. This is a huge problem and it is exactly why I refuse to associate with a political party. Both sides here in the states are totally full of it and have blinders on.
  
  --
  -g
10. Re:At last... by jasenj1 · 2012-03-21 23:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Came here to say this, but not as eloquently. This is why I wish the two party system in the USA could be busted.
  - Jasen.
11. Re:At last... by Sique · 2012-03-21 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's why countries with a proportional voting system often have "single issue" parties, like greens, social democrats, christian conservatives, liberals (they would be called libertarians in the U.S.), which then have to negotiate a coalition to get a majority in parlament. Thus you can vote for whatever issue you consider most important to you, and if you think the schools in your district are bad, in the next district elections you will vote for social democrats, and if you think the taxes are too high, you will vote liberal (libertarian for the U.S.) in the next country wide elections.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
12. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Democrazy 101
  Now students we will learn about tyranny by the majority and why not to get suckered into this form of government...
13. Re:At last... by EJB · 2012-03-21 23:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Liberalism and liberterianism are not the same, and liberals in countries with proportional voting systems are definitely not the same as libertarians in the U.S.
  Most liberals want to government to give people equal chances in life, while most libertarians want to either abolish government or keep it as small as possible.
  Let me Wikipedia that for you...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
  Actually liberal parties in Europe have quite a lot in common with the democratic party in the US, in terms of what they want to achieve. Except they're typically considered right of the center in Europe.
14. Re:At last... by LordLucless · 2012-03-21 23:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In Australia, neither Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Conservatives or Liberals are single-issue parties, and Liberals are most definitely not Libertarians. The single-issue parties are the ones like "Shooters and Fishers Party", or "Help End Marijuana Prohibition".
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
15. Re:At last... by gold928s · 2012-03-22 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  If there is anything that defines the Liberal party in Australia it is their desire to keep government as small as possible; unless the government serves the interest of big business....the very far right of centre (center) Liberal party should have been called the Libertarian party
  
  --
  2 b | ! 2 b
16. Re:At last... by Elaugaufein · 2012-03-22 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  I think you might have the Liberals confused with someone else, there social policy is not precisely Libertarian (its Replublican-ish,), nor are they a single issue party, they are essentially the ruling half (at the Federal Level, at the state level the Nationals sometimes lead) of our Liberal/National coalition who represent the Conservative side of politics here.
  
  The Social Democrats have not to my knowledge ever held the balance of power (in fact I'm not even sure if that group exists?, I know there are both Labour Democrats and Liberal Democrats), you might be thinking of the Democrats who held the role the Greens currently do (ie the largest party not part of the 2 major groups), up until the late 90s. We have a bunch of parties who feature the word Democrat in their titles, some because they were spin offs of the Democrats, others because it seems like a nice word to have in your title in a democracy.
  
  Also there's not really a Christian Conservative single issue group, there's 2 parties playing that card at the moment Katter's Australian Party (which is new) and Family First. The 2nd is actually pretty much a Christian Conservative group, the former is hard to explain, since he span of one of our major Conservatve Parties his policies are pretty wide ranging but largely conservative, in favour of farming and hunting , and Christian.
  
  Sorry if you were trying to describe ideologies rather than parties but since some of party definitions and names are very different (Our Liberal Party would usually be considered Conservative) I felt the need to qualify.
  
  Disclaimer: I don't care much for any of the major political parties at the moment, but my social positions are Left (significantly left of even our Left party really), I apologize if my bias has slipped in anywhere, I tried to be as factual as possible.
17. Re:At last... by Wild+Wizard · 2012-03-22 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  For the tl;dr crowd
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MicKTV0pN9c
18. Re:At last... by Elaugaufein · 2012-03-22 00:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think you're confused about what a request/motion from a Senator is. Its not asking politely, its essentially proposing that the matter be considered by that House (and as such it needs to be voted on, even if it gets voted down) and the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, and our major parties are so polarized at the moment that they'll vote against something just because the other side votes for it, it'd be pretty difficult to dismiss it out of hand anyway in any practical sense.
19. Re:At last... by Elaugaufein · 2012-03-22 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, sorry, so I feel the need to ask: Are you saying that being pro-big business is part of the Libertarian ideal and that they'd be in favor of large government in support of it ?
  
  Because as I understand the concept, their desire for any part of government being huge would disqualify them from actually being Libertarian in the strict sense (also their social policy is not compatible with small government at all, they support several "moral issue" bans that like all "moral issue" bans mandates a massive system to enforce) .
20. Re:At last... by wisty · 2012-03-22 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Both the LPA (Liberal Party of Australia) and ALP (Australian Labor Party) are social democrats. Both the LPA and ALP run welfare states. The LPA is opposed to publicly owned utilities (because it's apparently better to have private companies overcharging everyone while running down infrastructure than public ones paying their union members too much), but supports public welfare, so they are social democrats. The ALP is more or less socialist, supporting publicly owned utilities.
21. Re:At last... by mcgrew · 2012-03-22 01:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Both sides here in the states
  We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".
  You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.
  The Dems and GOP want to put some of your friends and family in jail for an innocent, harmless activity. Someone you love smokes marijuana. Why are you voting for candidates who want to incarcerate your loved ones?
  I'm not sure about the CPs, but neither the Greens nor Libbies want to put your dope smoking son in law in prison. I'll be voting GP this November, as I did last election.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
22. Re:At last... by UnknownSoldier · 2012-03-22 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Very nice summary!
  Here is an interesting quote on liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism:
  
  "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
  Guess who said that and when !?
  From interview published in Reason (1 July 1975)
  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
  --
  The solution to politics is to remove ALL money -- if parties want to be kept then they can pool their lobbying funds so that EVERYONE gets an equal chance to buy off the public with the pros / cons of their position.
23. Re:At last... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2012-03-22 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  You really have no clue what the Greens are like in Australia, do you?
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
24. Re:At last... by lxs · 2012-03-22 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  tl;dw
25. Re:At last... by Anomalyst · 2012-03-22 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?
  The problem with fucking idiots is that they are too stupid to figure out how to use contraception and their numbers swell as they breed and pass on their moronic approach to life.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
26. Re:At last... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty difficult for the two party system in the USA to vanish unless the US changes the way it conducts voting. The US (it's actually up to individual states, but they pretty much all do it the same way) works on a "one man, one vote, for one candidate" simple plurality system. Each person gets one vote which they cast in favor of the one candidate they want to win. Naively, this seems like a good system. In fact, it's the perfect system... when there are exactly two choices (also when there's one or zero choices, but that's not really relevant to anything). Such a system is perfect for voting on bills. Yea or nay (abstaining is also a choice, but also isn't really relevant for this discussion) is fine for choosing something binary such as whether to adopt a bill or not, but it stinks for deciding between 3+ candidates. The primary reason for this is the so-called "spoiler effect", best known in recent times for "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", but it also meant that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton, and so on. Essentially, it forces people to compromise on something that needn't be compromised on. Essentially you have to game the system and choose the least worst candidate with an actual chance to win rather than choosing the candidate you want, because if you choose the candidate you want, you "split the vote" and the candidate you least want is sure to win.
  There are a lot of ways around this problem. For starters, any other single pass voting method that isn't crazy (like throwing a dart at a board) is better. All known single pass methods do contain paradoxes (I'm not sure if anyone has proven that they _must_ contain paradoxes), but none of them have a paradox as bad as the method that's being used. Beyond those, there are all kinds of multi-pass methods that can work. This is the 21st century, and a country that prides itself on being democratic should be doing it right.
27. Re:At last... by Jawnn · 2012-03-22 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Both sides here in the states
  We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".
  You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.
  I reject the "might as well stay home argument". If are not part of the solution, in this case, you are definitely part of the problem. Especially when there is a mechanism that could remove the "wasted vote" problem. It's called an instant run-off election. Get involved, make it a reality in your area, and stop wasting your vote.
28. Re:At last... by BenLeeImp · 2012-03-22 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  Voice your dissent. Vote 3rd party. Only good things can result from that. Either we elect a 3rd party candidate, which I suspect would be less susceptible to corruption, or the first party candidates wake up a bit and realize they have to pay attention to the electorate. Either way, the people win.
  Also, vote in primaries. The first parties tend to have at least one candidate that isn't atrocious, but they don't seem to win primaries very often. I suspect voter apathy is the cause here as well.
  If you want to take laziness out of the equation, sign up for absentee ballots. Much easier than voting in person.
29. Re:At last... by Solandri · 2012-03-22 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".
  It's not a media problem. It's a problem with our plurality voting system. Each voter gets a single vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. That's been mathematically proven to favor a two-party system. If the candidate you vote for isn't one of the top two finishers, you have wasted your vote.
  
  The fix is to change our voting system. While a perfect voting system is impossible to create, certain voting systems are still better than others. Plurality is one of the worst. Instant run-off, while not the best, is one of the simplest to implement, and much better than plurality.
  
  But the two parties will fight this tooth and nail because they like how the current voting system gives them more power.
30. Re:At last... by C0C0C0 · 2012-03-22 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well stated, sir. If I may mix my metaphors, big tents make for strange, even nonsensical, bed-fellows.
  
  --
  You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
31. Re:At last... by Sique · 2012-03-22 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  This collides definitely with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" for instance in Germany.
  Here, conservativism means "no experiments", keeping the structure in society as close as possible to a perceived christian-catholic ideal, even if it means that a "working husband, homebound wife" family is heavily subsided by the government, while alternate attitudes to life and society are strongly disencouraged. A "small government" approach is frowned upon, and "there ought to be a law" (and a police to execute the law) is a common idea.
  "Liberal" splits in several directions, there are the economic liberals, which are a low tax, reduced regulation group, there are the social liberals, for whom equal chances for everyone is most important, and which thus are for instance supporting a strong education sector and for which all ideas how to lead ones life are at first equal, and should prevail on their own merits, and then there are the national-liberals, who think that to support the local economy, protective measures and tariffs again foreign enterprises and workers are the right way to go.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
32. Re:At last... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-22 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's a representative democracy, which is also a republic.
33. Re:At last... by sd4f · 2012-03-22 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's true, the NSW greens don't even hide the fact that they're socialists, the rest of the greens in general are hell bent on just taking over, and pushing a left agenda. If they ever get any real power, all they'll do is consolidate it, and become authoritarian, because they already treat themselves as authorities even though they're minority, and plateaued at ~10% of the vote.
34. Re:At last... by salmonmoose · 2012-03-22 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  One member of a party supporting something does not imply the party supports it. The Greens Party do not support internet censorship, some of the members do - even with strong minor parties like we have in Australia it is impossible to align yourself entirely with the party's standpoint. A more controversial issue would demonstrate this; Say, same-sex marriage, Federal Labor do not support same-sex marriage, but individual members do. I am a member of the Greens (as in, attend meetings, pay membership, vote on policy) - but are not particularly in favour of much of their hard-line environmental policy, (I am, what is referred to as a Water-Mellon Green) that does not mean the party do not support these things, just myself.
35. Re:At last... by mjwx · 2012-03-22 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  An Aussie political party with some cojones.
  As a result, they are the most hated and reviled party in Australia.
  
  I'll admit it, I voted Green last election. I did so for two reasons.
  1) I'm under 40 with no kids, who in the major parties cares about me.
  2) They are the only party in Australia with an interest in rights and freedoms.
  
  The Greens at least have a public friendly agenda and some healthy fear of the electorate.
  
  Now I'm waiting for the inevitable hate barrage from angry Liberal (Big L) supporters. I've got my environmentally friendly flame proof undies on.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
36. Re:At last... by mynamestolen · 2012-03-22 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. But you Americans are so far from democracy that most of you don't even know it. No doubt the usual ranters will come attacking me now from their positions of wounded ignorance. So to get in first, anything less than multi-member electorates with proportional voting isn't democracy - it's that simple.
  
  --
  work in progress
37. Re:At last... by rtb61 · 2012-03-22 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've gone one step further, I have become a member rather passive of course but I do provide funding support. The Greens seem to be the only party who to stand up against corporations, not bow to foreign governments and adhere to their stated principles.
  To me the Greens seem more honest in their being conservative, seeking to conserve the environment, conserve resources and conserve the people.
  I can't get over how the psuedo conservative parties get away with calling themselves conservatives, when they want to, exploit the environment, exploit resources and exploit the people. The Republicans et al (all over the world) the exploiters party, they should be legally barred from using the word conservative.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
38. Re:At last... by mcgrew · 2012-03-23 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  If the candidate you vote for isn't one of the top two finishers, you have wasted your vote.
  That makes no sense, can you explain? It isn't the olympics with a gold and silver medal, there is one winner and four losers. What difference does it make if your candidate finishes second or fifth? You still voted for a loser.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
39. Re:At last... by interkin3tic · 2012-03-23 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because I think it's a red herring. Blaming the two party system for every failure of the political process is simplistic, but gets bandied about with nearly every political discussion here. Typically, countries with more than two parties have the exact same problem, implying the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the two party system. Rather than wasting time explaining that for each issue that the two party system gets blamed for, the onus should be on the person blaming it to show that it might be the cause in that case.
  
  Why it annoys me is that it's a cop out. People see a problem, but rather than voting to solve the problem, they just say "Oh, it's because of the two party system," and excuse themselves from bothering to go out on election day.
Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by master_p · 2012-03-21 21:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, they never were.
if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.
1. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by BlueStrat · 2012-03-21 22:57 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, they never were.
  if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.
  And yet, quite strangely it would seem, many that share your opinion want a larger, more powerful government.
  Not saying you, personally, do. I just find it to be a major reality-disconnect when people who complain about the government expanding it's powers, spying on the domestic populace, commonly employing military-style strike teams on individual civilians not convicted or suspected of a major/violent crime, and taking away their rights and abusing them in general, turn right around and vote for those politicians and laws/policies that give the government even more power and ability to control their lives and screw them over even worse than they currently are in "new and improved" ways.
  By the way, pure democracy is nothing but mob rule, and woe to those in the minority. I wouldn't want to live someplace that practiced pure democracy. It wouldn't take long for it to collapse at any rate, and likely in a very violent way.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by blahplusplus · 2012-03-21 23:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "Actually, they never were."
  Except for roads, electrification, water and sewage, healthcare (outside the US), and the social safety net??? To say government doesn't govern at least somewhat in the interests of the people is a lie. The issue has always been the people do nothing to change things until the proverbial shit hits the fan (great depression).
3. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by TFAFalcon · 2012-03-21 23:20 · Score: 2
  
  What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians? Both will disregard the wishes of anyone outside 'their' group, and at least when you're trying to bribe the mob you have to give something to most of the nation, rather then just a few individuals.
4. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'd dare say that mob rule is often even more dangerous. Especially when the mob is emotional.
5. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by usuallylost · 2012-03-22 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  In a Republic, aka "rule by corrupt politicians", you can create a system of laws and customs in an attempt to limit the action of those politicians. For example you can install an independent judiciary and charge them with enforcing a bill of rights. The voter's role is not so much in deciding policy but in providing a check on those who decide policy. In practice true democracy is unrestricted tyranny of the masses. Where pretty much anything the masses vote for becomes law. Lets just say it is much better to be a minority in a Republic than it is in a Democracy. True Democracy, such as Athens had, tends to be very unstable. Since all public policy is decided by majority vote you have a very difficult time maintaining any sort of coherent policy about anything. Can you imagine trying to manage a vote of the entire populace every time the government needed to decide something? Look how much trouble we have running a nationwide election for president every four years. If we had to do that say four or more times per year I can't imagine how big a mess it would be. As flawed as it is a Republic is the best idea so far in preserving public participation in government without sowing chaos in society.
6. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Tastecicles · 2012-03-22 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Historical note: It was "mob rule" that removed Charles I (by decapitating him) when he attempted to usurp legislative power from Parliament (hence to remove legislative power from the People) in 1649.
  It was "mob rule" that caused the Government to repeal Poll Tax (although they got their own back by calling it something else) in 1990.
  "Mob rule" is merely the intimidation of legitimate authorities (notwithstanding the lawfulness, or lack thereof, of their actions), used as a perjorative form of majoritarianism where actions by the majority are viewed as illegal by the ruling minority (such as mass refusal to pay taxes, or go-slow days on highways, or occupations of public buildings, to name three of the less extreme examples). For more extreme examples, look up "Arab Spring", the 2004 Republican National Convention where bikes were used to gridlock cities across the US, the English Civil War, the October Revolution... all examples of where the subjugated majority said "NO MORE!" and backed up their denials with actions.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
7. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Tastecicles · 2012-03-22 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the Government was acting in the best interests of the People at all in the lead up to the Great Depression. Particularly given that it was Government policy at the time that banks could operate uninsured (so when the 9,000-odd banks failed during the 30's all the accounts disappeared without trace), coupled with the consolidation of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury and their legislated authority to print unbacked debt notes, the legislated high tariffs on imports causing artificially reduced trading with Europe and Asia, America quickly broke itself.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
8. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Tastecicles · 2012-03-22 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather be ruled by nobody but myself - Government is there for the good and interests of the People; the second that it ceases to be that (eg by removing rights to gather, to speak one's mind, or to restrict travel wherever and however, whenever), it needs to be removed. Be that a "democratically" elected Government, a constitutional Monarch, or whatever. Charles I was a tyrant who saw Parliament as a threat to his supreme power over his subjects, the People saw this and Cromwell was the only person in a position to call for his impeachment on charges of treason. OK, it wasn't a popular move (by what metric this popularity is measured I don't know). I don't think Cromwell was in it for himself as much as for the People; he fought at Marston Moor, Naseby and Preston against the Royalists and defeated them every time. Probably didn't help his cause with his opposite view to the Gentry that Church and State should not mix.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
9. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Pecisk · 2012-03-22 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  It is very easy to say something outrageous and stereotypical. I think Estonian or Fin would disagree with you. They certanly don't sing hymns for their goverments, but they that they're trying their best.
  Problem with UK and US citizens that they are weaklings - they are mirroring their "lobby democracy expierence" to rest of the world, and think it's unbeatable. Because ohh, life is too short, and you're already one payement short for your house loan. Run, critter, run.
  Guess what, it all takes to just stop running.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
10. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Anomalyst · 2012-03-22 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather be ruled by nobody but myself
  I agree, I know how to comport my self properly. it's everyone else I'm worried about. I takes an iron fist to keep stupidity in check, even then it frequently fails to do so and we are saddled with the consequences of the attempts as well as the proliferation of maroons.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
11. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by rwise2112 · 2012-03-22 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the Life of Brian
  
  Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, viniculture, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
  PFJ Member: Brought peace?
  Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
12. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by TFAFalcon · 2012-03-22 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps society needs a little chaos. It seems to me that most western republics seem stuck. What you call a coherent policy is little more than ensuring the status quo. The only things that seem to matter are ensuring the politician's re-election. Which principally means keeping the big donors happy by making sure laws favor them.
  And sure, people have the chance to elect someone else every 4 years or so. But who can they choose from? Only a small pool of candidates with enough money to get on TV. And after they are elected, they have absolutely no accountability to the people for the length of their term. So in 99% of the cases all of the promises they made before the elections go right out the window. And what happens to politicians that loose the elections? They get a job as 'expert advisors' or something like that, then step in at the next election, promising to 'fix' everything their replacement has done wrong. And the circle goes on.
  So people get discouraged and stop voting. Which is just what the powers that be want.
  And you're right - there is a system of laws and customs to limit the actions of politicians. But it's written by previous generations of politicians, and there is little about it that is good for the nation as a whole.
  And you're also right about the dangers of mob rule for minorities. But does a republic protect them? Just look at France and the Gipsy deportations, or at he US and their treatment of terrorism SUSPECTS. Or how much they listen to minorities like OWS. Of course there are some minorities that they do listen to - mostly the ones that support their campaigns, like the copyright lobby or Wall street. In the end it all boils down to protecting just one minority - themselves. And the rest of society can crumble for all they care.
13. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by BlueStrat · 2012-03-22 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians?
  Well, that's sort of the point, then, isn't it?
  First, citizens allow government size and power to grow which results in corruption, then the mob rises up and kills the corrupt politicians and cronies, then the mob's attentions run wherever the mob-rage of the moment takes them. That's been the historical pattern.
  And yet, many people are screaming to expand the size and power of the government even more, resulting in corruption becoming correspondingly worse, and bringing on the mobs and widespread violent atrocities even sooner and increasing their levels of hatred.
  Sometimes I think that there may be people in government working towards this as a way to somehow seize power & control, and that they will somehow be able to tame the mobs and use them to their personal ends. They are fools, as have been many through history who have attempted similar machinations.
  Once the mobs and violence starts, they and their plans will be one of the very first casualties, and the mobs won't stop until they satisfy their rage & hatred, which has been stoked for over 50 years now by politicians seeking more power, wealth, and control. It will not die out in a handful of weeks or months...or possibly even years or decades.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
14. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by BlueStrat · 2012-03-22 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Crap!
  
  Sometimes I think that there may be people in government working towards this as a way to somehow seize power & control, and that they imagine that they will somehow be able to tame the mobs and use them to their personal ends.
  Sorry.
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
let me guess: public interest immunity? by Tastecicles · 2012-03-21 21:54 · Score: 2

If it involves stifling creativity, removing our rights, or otherwise telling us that we can't do what we previously *could*, then it most certainly does not warrant PII.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
How to assist this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 23:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who do we petition or write to to make this a reality?
Re:It gets worse... looks likeConroys done the dea by robbak · 2012-03-22 00:39 · Score: 1

That article does not seem to touch on optus' recording and streaming free to air tv. Do you nave any other info that does indicate that they wil also be legal changes to roll back betamax?
By the way, I agree with you about the situation here. This is a simple contact dispute between AFL and telstra. The AFL sold telstra something they did not possess - an exclusive right to stream football video to mobile devices. The government is not involved in that and that is how it should stay.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
It's not that simple by F69631 · 2012-03-22 01:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
When Churchill said the above, he very much meant liberal as in libertarian. The point was that when you're young and idealist, you think that free economy/people/etc. lead to the best results... and after you've seen a bit more of the world (and grown a bit more cynical), you end up thinking that regulations and the like have their place.
So... while the term "liberal" appears to be synonymous to cultural liberalism to those who reside in the USA, it can mean either cultural or economic liberalism or any combination of those here in Europe. It all depends on what kind of rhetoric the party wants to use... For example, here in Finland we have a Libertarianist party (which doesn't have much support) under the name of "Liberals".
1. Re:It's not that simple by the_borderer · 2012-03-22 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't Winston Churchill a Conservative at twenty and a Liberal at forty? He was involved the process of reforming the Liberal party away from being libertarian at the time though.
  Is there any evidence he ever said that?
Re:Boo Hoo by kiwimate · 2012-03-22 01:46 · Score: 1

government is so corrupt

I'm sure to be marked as flamebait on a piracy-friendly site like Slashdot, but doesn't it strike you as a little bit ironic that you're making this comment on a story which is all about political responses to citizens who are doing illegal stuff?
Re:Boo Hoo by Elaugaufein · 2012-03-22 02:19 · Score: 1

Not really. If you presume that politicians are corrupt its pretty logical that people will both be doing illegal stuff (since politicians make the laws) and complaining about corrupt politicians. The position seems pretty internally consistent to me.
That's a bit complicated, too by F69631 · 2012-03-22 06:16 · Score: 1

I'm not expert but from my understanding (which seems to be supported by Wikipedia) he truly was more or less liberal/libertarian in early 1900s and became more conservative by 1920s. Quoting wikipedia on his early political career

Churchill stood again for the seat of Oldham at the 1900 general election. After winning the seat, he went on a speaking tour throughout Britain and the United States, raising £10,000 for himself (about £800,000 today). In Parliament, he became associated with a faction of the Conservative Party led by Lord Hugh Cecil; the Hughligans. During his first parliamentary session, he opposed the government's military expenditure and Joseph Chamberlain's proposal of extensive tariffs, which were intended to protect Britain's economic dominance. His own constituency effectively deselected him, although he continued to sit for Oldham until the next general election. After the Whitsun recess in 1904 he crossed the floor to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. As a Liberal, he continued to campaign for free trade. When the Liberals took office with Henry Campbell-Bannerman as prime minister, in December 1905, Churchill became Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies dealing mainly with South Africa after the Boer War.

So he was briefly associated with the Conservative Party but he opposed military spending, wanted lower tariffs, campaigned for free trade and switched to liberal party. Twenty years later (1924) he rejoined the conservatives.
What you say about him reforming liberal party to become less libertarian... you might be correct (I don't have that through knowledge) but if that's so, I'd guess that would have happened around 1920 or so, when he was himself growing more cynical.
1. Re:That's a bit complicated, too by the_borderer · 2012-03-22 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe reforming is going a bit far as I think there were still quite a few Gladstonian liberals in the party when churchill left, but he and David Lloyd George (coalition Prime Minister 1916-22) were behind the foundations of the welfare state, high taxes for the rich and an experiment involving a nationalised brewery in the town where I grew up. The liberals (later Liberal Democrats) would end up spending most of the next 80 years between the centrist option between Labour and Conservative, then the last 10 moving back towards libertarianism with The Orange Book.
  I not an expert either, I did a history course 8 years ago about British working class and left wing history that looked at what churchill did, but it didn't really look at much before 1916.