freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 6:51pm:

I did and have many times...

Rights do not exist outside of a social contract...

We can talk about flying pigs all day... what they eat, where they like to fly, how high, their favourite food, whether they can sing in tune... but... what's the point?

Name a right that exists outside a social contract... And one that is not granted by an acknowledged higher social authority within a social contract... one with the power to defend that granted right in your name.

I know you can't, I know you know you can't... so will it be flying pigs for a few pages?

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 7:06pm:

No, I've told you rights do not exist outside a social contract. They do exist within one. I can point to them. I can read them.

Name a right that exists outside a social contract whose genesis is not from within a social contract... And one that is not granted by an acknowledged higher social authority within a social contract... one with the power to defend that granted right in your name.

Conflicts of social contracts between cultural groups within a nation play out in Australia between mainstream Australian culture and Aboriginal culture.

The dominant mainstream Australian culture has ceded ground to Aboriginal culture by granting rights to its adherents in the form of Acts like Native Title, Racial Discrimination etc...

What was a step too far, in the minds of a majority of Australians, was the concept of a permanent Aboriginal 'voice' enshrined in the nation's Constitution. Not because mainstream Australians are unstympathetic to the Aboriginal cause, but because such accommodations, once enshrined in the Constitution, could not be legislated away, even if they did prove over time to be a step too far, leading to the likes of dual sovereignty.

Clearly, most Australians intuit that there is a vast difference between parliamentary legislated rights and constitutional rights.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2026 at 7:32am:

And there you go again… confusing/conflating categories.

Now, it’s with the act and the morality or sanity of the act.

Back on the desert island. When alone, by what measure is an act moral or insane?

Back on the beach, you’re walking on what you believe is public access, when an old codger tries to chase you off with a stick, claiming he has riparian rights.

When you refuse to leave, asserting your right to walk on a public accessway, he calls the police who forcibly remove you, defending the owner’s riparian rights.

What just happened? His written riparian rights trump written public accessway rights.

What has changed in your world of objects? Nothing. You, the codger, the beach, are the same.

chimera wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2026 at 8:18am:

Why changing the Constitution’s text was unnecessary to effectively remove the Privy Council...

Because s 74 already contemplates Parliament restricting appeals. So Commonwealth legislation could do most of the work without touching the constitutional wording.

Because the remaining State-to-Privy-Council routes were ended by the Australia Acts 1986, which operate as ordinary statutes in Australia (plus matching UK legislation) rather than a constitutional alteration under s 128.

Net effect: the words of s 74 stayed, but the practical ability to use them was removed, so the High Court became the final court of appeal in reality.

chimera wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2026 at 8:46am:

And we all know how well it turned out for any Australian G-G exercising reserve powers...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2026 at 8:02am:


Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality?

Not sure I can dumb the question down any more for you Meister. Would you like to have a go at answering the question that was actually asked, rather than being slippery and evasive yet again?

Quote:


You are confused Meister. It is a question. A very simple one. As dumbed down as I can get it for you. If all you are going to do is slither away again, why bother posting a response at all?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?