• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Rudd Government to censor internet (1 Viewer)

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I don't think libertarianism provides that a democratically elected non-libertarian government is morally justifiable right? So your choices are either a) Accept democracy as a higher principle than liberty (i.e. Allow people to choose not liberty) b) Enforce 'liberty' and in doing so take away the liberty to choose not to live under your libertarian system or c) Come up with something else.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Enteebee said:
I don't think libertarianism provides that a democratically elected non-libertarian government is morally justifiable right? So your choices are either a) Accept democracy as a higher principle than liberty (i.e. Allow people to choose not liberty) b) Enforce 'liberty' and in doing so take away the liberty to choose not to live under your libertarian system or c) Come up with something else.
History has shown that no system, free or otherwise, can stand without the people taking ownership of it. The key is to win the battle of ideas and bring about liberty that way...

EDIT: I.e. via democracy
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
withoutaface said:
History has shown that no system, free or otherwise, can stand without the people taking ownership of it. The key is to win the battle of ideas and bring about liberty that way...

EDIT: I.e. via democracy
If you achieve your libertarian society would you allow for elections which could then remove liberty?
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Enteebee said:
If you achieve your libertarian society would you allow for elections which could then remove liberty?
Yes. As I said you can't enforce a system on people or they'll reject it.

This is especially true in an ideology that's not particularly predisposed to crushing dissent.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
Socialism is about introducing government regulation towards a greater ideal.
I disagree about regulation - at least in this context.

withoutaface said:
I'll also direct you to the part where socialism and authoritarian social policy invariably go hand in hand, because both ideologies are about the government having a greater degree of control over peoples lives.
This is not universally true, necessary, nor how I would invision a "perfect" socialist country.


tl;dr I associate the political and economic ideologies of communism and socialism with freedom (for the consumers, I don't care about greedy corporations and companies), which would not support this, because it is evil.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Starcraftmazter said:
I disagree about regulation - at least in this context.



This is not universally true, necessary, nor how I would invision a "perfect" socialist country.


tl;dr I associate the political and economic ideologies of communism and socialism with freedom (for the consumers, I don't care about greedy corporations and companies), which would not support this, because it is evil.
You're then talking about a mixed market, not pure socialism.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
You're then talking about a mixed market, not pure socialism.
What I'm saying is that just because the government would own and run all telecon infrastructure, as well as set pricing, etc - there is still no logical reason or connection between socialistic ideology and filtering, which would cause the government to introduce such a filter.

I mean sure, it's possible, it just depends on whoever is in charge, or I would imagine if they seriously considered it, they would do a census of sorts to find out what people want. Notice how the Rudd government didn't do this, and just went ahead thinking their opinions represent the entire country, when this wasn't even a serious election issue.

Regardless, my point was, this is totally against my idea of ideal socialism, therefore, I dislike it, since it takes away freedoms from people, and this is always bad regardless.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Starcraftmazter said:
What I'm saying is that just because the government would own and run all telecon infrastructure, as well as set pricing, etc - there is still no logical reason or connection between socialistic ideology and filtering, which would cause the government to introduce such a filter.

I mean sure, it's possible, it just depends on whoever is in charge, or I would imagine if they seriously considered it, they would do a census of sorts to find out what people want. Notice how the Rudd government didn't do this, and just went ahead thinking their opinions represent the entire country, when this wasn't even a serious election issue.

Regardless, my point was, this is totally against my idea of ideal socialism, therefore, I dislike it, since it takes away freedoms from people, and this is always bad regardless.
That would be a socialist move, in that it's the polar opposite of what a capitalist system would endorse.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
withoutaface said:
Yes. As I said you can't enforce a system on people or they'll reject it.

This is especially true in an ideology that's not particularly predisposed to crushing dissent.
So you would not stop the rise of greater tyranny through lesser? Doesn't that lead to a net loss of liberty overall?
As for reject it, who cares? The majority of people reject our current government, or at least would have a preference for government different to that we have.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
That would be a socialist move, in that it's the polar opposite of what a capitalist system would endorse.
I'm not 100% sure what you are implying here. If it is, that a socialist country would impose such a filter because it's not what a capitalist country would do, well...just look at us :p
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Starcraftmazter said:
I'm not 100% sure what you are implying here. If it is, that a socialist country would impose such a filter because it's not what a capitalist country would do, well...just look at us :p
Australia is a mixed market.

We have a minimum wage, we have a competition regulator, we have taxes on some goods but not on others, many products are banned, etc.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
Australia is a mixed market.

We have a minimum wage, we have a competition regulator, we have taxes on some goods but not on others, many products are banned, etc.
Are you suggesting pure capitalism does not allow for these things? Just like pure democracy cannot involve decision making by anyone other than the entire population of a country, etc - same type of thing, or different?
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Starcraftmazter said:
Are you suggesting pure capitalism does not allow for these things? Just like pure democracy cannot involve decision making by anyone other than the entire population of a country, etc - same type of thing, or different?
Pure capitalism would not have any of these things, because otherwise it would not be a free market.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
Pure capitalism would not have any of these things, because otherwise it would not be a free market.
What exactly? Internet? Content filtering? Voting? I'd appreciate it if you went into higher detail about what you mean exactly.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
In a free market you would have just that. A market where people are free to make voluntary exchanges without the government interfering.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Right, I understand precisely what you mean now, but I disagree on the basis that exceptions can very easily be made based on popularism or simply what's best for the people. Simply because a socialist market system implies heavy government intervention, this does not create a universal truth. In China, I'm sure we can agree that in certain areas of the market, the government does not interveine, where by a typical socialist market system it would.

This is the type of thing I would like, where as much intervention and interdiction is made, while still leaving enough freedom for the people to be relatively happy. Sounds a bit crazy, but I believe it's possible.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I don't mind collective ownership necessarily tbh... it's more just... whether it's really what I'd accept as 'collective ownership'.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
can a friend still download anal pissing gangbang w/ creampies porn?? this is important.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top