http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3982400.html

I would like everyone to click on the link and see the stats.

The article makes interesting reading as well


Personally - this is not a discussion about the absolute right-wing belief of no control and the absolute left-wing dictatorship of total control

I know the extremist left on this forum have continued to portray anyone who supports the LIBs are all right-wingers. But this is an absolute lie.

This is about the social apologists and the so-called social libertarians trying to push their agendas. By the way - the apologists and libertarians seems to be lefties.

I am in support of the so-called "nanny state"

The libertarians argues that these laws impinge on your human rights ie it's a moral argument.

But if we don't impose these laws - what are the consequences?

Do we allow people to run free and damage themselves all for the sake of a moral argument?

I argue that the nanny state is a failed concept that encourages corruption, rewards mediocrity and brown nosing and leads to the general debauching and degrading of the quality of life of the community.  The nanny state allows incompetent suckholes who are full of self entitlement and a sense of born to rule and play god to rise to the top, well above their real level of competency. 8-) 8-) 8-)

for me to get involved they would have to ask.. every age section ... each generation has a deferring perspective.. I dont call it a nanny state if it saves lives..

to me we seem to be taking commonsense and responsibility away from each one of us more and more..the govt is invading every moment of our lives.. NO I dont like that..

make us more responsible for our actions...

if you choose to smoke.. then you have to pay for your treatment if you need it..or get in a queue..like those who need hip replacements have to do.

we fall over ourselves to help those who choose to live recklessly if you dont wish to wear a helmet then pay an insurance that covers you for that...

I think we need to make it clear there are consequences if you fail to do the right thing..


not just a bloody fine.

cods wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36am:

for me to get involved they would have to ask.. every age section ... each generation has a deferring perspective.. I dont call it a nanny state if it saves lives.. to me we seem to be taking commonsense and responsibility away from each one of us more and more..the govt is invading every moment of our lives.. NO I dont like that.. make us more responsible for our actions... if you choose to smoke.. then you have to pay for your treatment if you need it..or get in a queue..like those who need hip replacements have to do. we fall over ourselves to help those who choose to live recklessly if you dont wish to wear a helmet then pay an insurance that covers you for that... I think we need to make it clear there are consequences if you fail to do the right thing.. not just a bloody fine.

This is the kind of mindless rubbish that gets churned out in a nation of brown nosers that subsidizes mediocrity at the top. ::)

I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will.

Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting
people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves.

There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS
who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions
and loss of rights and freedoms.

The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW.

And they have WAY too much power.

corporate_whitey wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:35am:

I argue that the nanny state is a failed concept that encourages corruption, rewards mediocrity and brown nosing and leads to the general debauching and degrading of the quality of life of the community.  The nanny state allows incompetent suckholes who are full of self entitlement and a sense of born to rule and play god to rise to the top, well above their real level of competency. 8-) 8-) 8-)

You are then referring to the implementation of the ideals of the nanny state rather than the actual ideals

Take communism - the ideals are actually quiet good in the time that it was conceived. But the implementation of it was terrible. It forgot one thing - human nature. You put someone in a position of power and trust without checks and balances and you have a formula for disaster

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:42am:

I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will. Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves. There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions and loss of rights and freedoms. The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW. And they have WAY too much power.

I agree - so long as the results and consequences does no harm to anyone other themselves. But you'll find that most actions will impact others.

Smoking
Seat belts
Alcoholism
Obesity

Lets see your examples of this petty laws that impacts no one else

So people like having their hands held, because if they don't, they will surely do something completely braindead and end up killing themselves.

Why the majority should suffer because of the failings of common sense and logic is beyond me. Don't throw me in with your intellectual cowardice, Maqqa.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:42am:

I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will. Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves. There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions and loss of rights and freedoms. The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW. And they have WAY too much power.

Ha I have to agree.

Like anything you have to have a balance but "nanny" laws are those that are patronising to individuals ability to make their own decisions. :(

Laws should be designed to prevent individuals from infringing upon other individuals' freedom & rights.

For example.  I like a beer.  I (used to) like to go to the cricket and enjoy a beer until a small minority of yobs that can't handle their piss started running on the field ande causing trouble etc etc.  Happens everywhere.  But because of these idiots, one cannot even get a decent beer at the cricket any more.  The atmosphere is crap.  The 'nannies' tarred all beer drinkers with the one brush and cancelled Xmas. >:( >:( >:(

GoddyofOz wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:04am:

So people like having their hands held, because if they don't, they will surely do something completely braindead and end up killing themselves. Why the majority should suffer because of the failings of common sense and logic is beyond me. Don't throw me in with your intellectual cowardice, Maqqa.

If you look at the current laws - most if not all are there to hold the hands the minority

Most of the laws and subsequent punishments do not impact me because I don't commit them and would not dream of committing.

Kat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:42am:

I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will. Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves. There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions and loss of rights and freedoms. The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW. And they have WAY too much power.

The welfare state is part of the nanny state, it's the government looking after you cradle to grave, because you can't look after yourself. The average Australian would be hard struck to look after themselves if the government didn't tell them how to live their lives.

Australia has embraced the nanny state concept to an extreme, not only with welfare but it encroaches nearly every aspect of our lives.

And the Australian sheeple love it.

BigOl64 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:17am:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:42am: I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will. Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves. There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions and loss of rights and freedoms. The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW. And they have WAY too much power. The welfare state is part of the nanny state, it's the government looking after you cradle to grave, because you can't look after yourself. The average Australian would be hard struck to look after themselves if the government didn't tell them how to live their lives. Australia has embraced the nanny state concept to an extreme, not only with welfare but it encroaches nearly every aspect of our lives. And the Australian sheeple love it.

This is partly what Hockey was referring to the other day

Maqqa wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:29am:

This is partly what Hockey was referring to the other day

Australia is one of the few, if not the only first world democracy's that does not have codified human rights, the government has decided that we would be better served with privileges and obligations all controlled by the government. Stupidly most Australians think that privileges and obligations are the same as human rights and live their lives in total ignorance.

So if you ever wondered why your life seems to be totally managed for you, don't, you are not allowed to think for yourself.

BigOl64 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:38am:

Maqqa wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:29am: This is partly what Hockey was referring to the other day Australia is one of the few, if not the only first world democracy's that does not have codified human rights, the government has decided that we would be better served with privileges and obligations all controlled by the government. Stupidly most Australians think that privileges and obligations are the same as human rights and live their lives in total ignorance. So if you ever wondered why your life seems to be totally managed for you, don't, you are not allowed to think for yourself.

Codified human rights?

Maqqa wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:44am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:38am: Maqqa wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:29am: This is partly what Hockey was referring to the other day Australia is one of the few, if not the only first world democracy's that does not have codified human rights, the government has decided that we would be better served with privileges and obligations all controlled by the government. Stupidly most Australians think that privileges and obligations are the same as human rights and live their lives in total ignorance. So if you ever wondered why your life seems to be totally managed for you, don't, you are not allowed to think for yourself. Codified human rights?

Inalienable...

BigOl64 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:17am:

Kat wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:42am: I don't support the 'Nanny-State, never have and never will. Nor do I support petty 'laws' aimed at revenue-raising, or restricting people from doing things that harm no-one but themselves. There are FAR too many stupid, petty laws and FAR too many IDIOTS who blindly support them and continue to call for even MORE restrictions and loss of rights and freedoms. The 'Fun-Police' certainly DO exist, at least they do here in NSW. And they have WAY too much power. The welfare state is part of the nanny state, it's the government looking after you cradle to grave, because you can't look after yourself. The average Australian would be hard struck to look after themselves if the government didn't tell them how to live their lives. Australia has embraced the nanny state concept to an extreme, not only with welfare but it encroaches nearly every aspect of our lives. And the Australian sheeple love it.

That is such a crock, corporate maggots and suckholes interfere in our lives from the cradle to the grave because they cannot look after themselves, they are desperate to maintain control and stifle dissent and self sufficiency they fear more than anything else they have no survival skills or capacity to learn them. ::) ::) ::) ::)

According to that link 94% approve of compulsory bike helmets, and only 6% disapprove.

I smell bullshit.

BigOl64 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:38am:

Maqqa wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:29am: This is partly what Hockey was referring to the other day Australia is one of the few, if not the only first world democracy's that does not have codified human rights, the government has decided that we would be better served with privileges and obligations all controlled by the government. Stupidly most Australians think that privileges and obligations are the same as human rights and live their lives in total ignorance. So if you ever wondered why your life seems to be totally managed for you, don't, you are not allowed to think for yourself.

Apart from being fundamentally inaccurate, the real problem is that despite no Bill of Rights we stil have all these rights - not just on paper but in reality. The American bill of rights has been broken repeatedly in recent years while the USSR BoR equivalent was a mockery. The Chinese also have guaranteed freedom of religion. See how that's working out for them?

Ultimately no Bill of Rights has any legitimate power unless the authorities grant it and support it. if we want to have freedom and righs then we need to defend against it at the outset by removing governments or leaders that take even a small step towards it. A good example of how NOT to do it was GWB warrantless wiretaps in the USA. they were illegal and clearly so but rather than impeach the President over it, they retrospectively changed the law. It was a small breach but the manner in whcih it was overlooked was breathtaking. The fundamental right to privacy of US citizens has been breached and no one did a thing about it.

What good is their peice of paper then?

I guess the government is obliged to take measures to protect all of it's citizens.  The problem is that in nowadays we exist mostly outside the traditional constraints of "survival of the fittest." Almost all of natures safeguards against dysgenia have been removed.  The lower classes (correlated strongly with lower ability) massively outnumber the more capable.  From a numbers (read: votes) perspective, they need to cater to the lowest common denominator, and that means treating us all like idiots. 

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:31am:

Apart from being fundamentally inaccurate, the real problem is that despite no Bill of Rights we stil have all these rights - not just on paper but in reality. The American bill of rights has been broken repeatedly in recent years while the USSR BoR equivalent was a mockery. The Chinese also have guaranteed freedom of religion. See how that's working out for them? Ultimately no Bill of Rights has any legitimate power unless the authorities grant it and support it. if we want to have freedom and righs then we need to defend against it at the outset by removing governments or leaders that take even a small step towards it. A good example of how NOT to do it was GWB warrantless wiretaps in the USA. they were illegal and clearly so but rather than impeach the President over it, they retrospectively changed the law. It was a small breach but the manner in whcih it was overlooked was breathtaking. The fundamental right to privacy of US citizens has been breached and no one did a thing about it. What good is their peice of paper then?

Good thing you didn't mention any of the European nations or any other first world nations hey.

The good thing about a piece of paper is that at least you know what you supposed to have, if the US citizens wish to forgo their rights then that is their business, but at least the know what rights they are losing. And since they are codified they can get them back through court action.

As for china, yeah good example, well done.



Our 'reality' well here goes:

Right to vote, nup that's forced on us as an obligation
Free speech, not so much if you hurt someone feelings in the process
Freedom of association, not for  the bikies, but who cares about them hey
Right to privacy, not if you  use the internet, thanks to labor
Right to not have the cops bust into your home without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, think again if you legally own a gun

Pick any 'right' you think you have I'll show you it is an at best a privilege, bordering on non-existent.


Mind you we do have one un-impinged right and that is freedom of religion, too bad if you don't give a sh1t about religion you're back to zero.

BigOl64 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 12:30pm:

borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 10:31am: Apart from being fundamentally inaccurate, the real problem is that despite no Bill of Rights we stil have all these rights - not just on paper but in reality. The American bill of rights has been broken repeatedly in recent years while the USSR BoR equivalent was a mockery. The Chinese also have guaranteed freedom of religion. See how that's working out for them? Ultimately no Bill of Rights has any legitimate power unless the authorities grant it and support it. if we want to have freedom and righs then we need to defend against it at the outset by removing governments or leaders that take even a small step towards it. A good example of how NOT to do it was GWB warrantless wiretaps in the USA. they were illegal and clearly so but rather than impeach the President over it, they retrospectively changed the law. It was a small breach but the manner in whcih it was overlooked was breathtaking. The fundamental right to privacy of US citizens has been breached and no one did a thing about it. What good is their peice of paper then? Good thing you didn't mention any of the European nations or any other first world nations hey. The good thing about a piece of paper is that at least you know what you supposed to have, if the US citizens wish to forgo their rights then that is their business, but at least the know what rights they are losing. And since they are codified they can get them back through court action. As for china, yeah good example, well done. Our 'reality' well here goes: Right to vote, nup that's forced on us as an obligation Free speech, not so much if you hurt someone feelings in the process Freedom of association, not for  the bikies, but who cares about them hey Right to privacy, not if you  use the internet, thanks to labor Right to not have the cops bust into your home without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, think again if you legally own a gun Pick any 'right' you think you have I'll show you it is an at best a privilege, bordering on non-existent. Mind you we do have one un-impinged right and that is freedom of religion, too bad if you don't give a sh1t about religion you're back to zero.

Freedom of speech has never been without the obligation to be non-defamatory etc. It has never ever anywhere been a 'freedom' without restriction and nor should it be.

And in case you missed the news, the laws against association by bikies have been repeatedly repudiated by the courts. So, without a BoR our courts are agressively defding this right anyhow even for a group of people who more than anyone dont deserve it.

It sounds a lot like our rights are being protected by more than a peice of paper.

... wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:19am:

According to that link 94% approve of compulsory bike helmets, and only 6% disapprove. I smell bullshit.

I agree.

And, I smell even more bullshit:

Approve: 94%
Disapprove: 6%
Don't Know: 1%

Um, that's 101%      :-/

And, 'Cigarette packaging' results total = 99%

Then, down the page:

'Wearing seatbelts in cars' total = 101%
'Shopping hours' total = 101%
'The internet' total = 101%

::)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3982400.html

... wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:43am:

I guess the government is obliged to take measures to protect all of it's citizens.  The problem is that in nowadays we exist mostly outside the traditional constraints of "survival of the fittest." Almost all of natures safeguards against dysgenia have been removed.  The lower classes (correlated strongly with lower ability) massively outnumber the more capable.  From a numbers (read: votes) perspective, they need to cater to the lowest common denominator, and that means treating us all like idiots.

If the Government or a corporation has to ensure the survival of the fittest - they aren't the fittest, they are just useless self opinionated, mediocre idiots who need the Government to provide them with the life to which they feel entitled.

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:38pm:

Freedom of speech has never been without the obligation to be non-defamatory etc. It has never ever anywhere been a 'freedom' without restriction and nor should it be. And in case you missed the news, the laws against association by bikies have been repeatedly repudiated by the courts. So, without a BoR our courts are agressively defding this right anyhow even for a group of people who more than anyone dont deserve it. It sounds a lot like our rights are being protected by more than a peice of paper.

You do realise that making a defamatory statement is very different from hurting someones feelings?

Under the defamation law you can say something that is hurtful, so long as it is true, not so much under our oxymoronic 'free speech' laws.

As for your assertion that the anti-association laws being repudiated, try again. There is nothing to stop any government making any law they see fit, the courts are a minor bump in the road.

While NSW has had them temporarily held up, QLD is thinking of bring them in and WA is still forging ahead with their law. If we had our human rights codified, governments would not even contemplate implementing such fascist laws.



But he said the ruling disallowing the laws in NSW had prompted a reshaping of the WA laws which he believed would be ''constitutionally permissible''

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/bikies-unions-join-forces-against-antiassociation-laws-20120430-1xuvm.html#ixzz1tgKcuJps


Tweaked laws that prevent members of criminal groups from associating with one another have been passed by NSW parliament.

The High Court last year struck out the legislation introduced by Labor after the fatal bashing of club associate Anthony Zervas at Sydney Airport. The court accepted (former) Sydney Hells Angel Derek Wainohu's claims they infringed personal liberties and undermined normal rules of evidence.Judges also were not necessarily required to give reasons why they were outlawing clubs and there was no right to appeal decisions.
The Liberal government has since reworked the legislation as part of its response to recent shootings across Sydney

http://umcnsw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=504:anti-association-laws-pass-nsw-parliament&catid=42:umcnewscat&Itemid=94&Itemid=6


The Council has noted the Bligh Government's stated intention to introduce what it calls “anti-bikie” laws in this state, and is keen to participate in public debate on this issue.

http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/community-issues/open-transparent-gov/submissions/submissions-141-160/united-motorcycle.aspx



Mr Newman said he would consider using his predecessor's anti-association laws, which his party opposes, to crack down on bikies.

Debate has raged in other states - where similar legislation has been deemed unconstitutional - about whether anti-association laws impede civil liberties and invite political interference.

Mr Atkinson said he hoped none of those issues would arise in Queensland

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/campbell-newman-eyes-anti-bikie-laws-after-gold-coast-shooting/story-fn7x8me2-1226342013058

The nanny state punishes people for hard work and rewards brown nosers, scabs,  bludgers and company spies... 8-)

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:31am:

Apart from being fundamentally inaccurate, the real problem is that despite no Bill of Rights we still have all these rights - not just on paper but in reality.

Is this another one of the many 'rights' we have, the right to peaceful protest?

Yes we are the great bastion of democracy  aren't we.

It's so easy to stomp on the rights of others when you don't agree with their point of view, not having our own codified human rights, makes us nothing more than a police state.



A Sunshine Coast father has been sentenced to eight months' jail after refusing to pay fines for protesting outside abortion clinics.

Father-of-seven Graham Preston has spent the past 10 years peacefully protesting at clinics around Brisbane.

He has been arrested, fined and after a string of court cases and appeals, sentenced to serve 232 days in a Brisbane maximum security jail. It is the longest sentence ever imposed on an Australian pro-life activist.


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/fatherofseven-jailed-over-abortion-clinic-protests-20120503-1y01y.html#ixzz1tlQ3vN9h