Jump to content

Why Do You Think We Need A Govt??


Recommended Posts

We need a body to keep us all in check, provide and enforce general rules else the place would be chaos.

 

What we don't need is a group of people that sit in a room, yell and scream at one another about aboslute rubbish, bicker and carry one like school children argueing over play dough.

 

Ive watched question time, and i can't put my trust in any of them with the way they behave. There doesnt appear to be any sort of discussion or debate, it is constant personal attacks, bringing up 10yr old off the cuff comments which as far as i can tell are generally completely irrelelevent and just used as more fuel for the fire.

 

Not to mentino when any of them are asked a question on TV/news, they never answer the question, usually they manage to turn it around and abuse the opposite party in some way.

 

its just pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Members dont see this ad
We need a body to keep us all in check, provide and enforce general rules else the place would be chaos.

 

only one law- "You cannot commit force on someone else." Simple, easy to sort out and you don't need any more laws passed than that. So we don't need a parliament at all, the law is there and everyone lives with it. That frees up a good half a million parasites or more who can go and get productive jobs instead of dragging the rest of us down. They could get absorbed into a lot of new companies who would replace the Govt in building regulations/schools/hospitals etc and work a lot more efficiently in the private sector.

 

we live in a pathetic society where we are squeezed from every corner and each generation gives in more and more as we have to work harder with little time to protest or make time for changes.

 

Yep- only the lower classes ever revolt, they have nothing to lose and the time to do something. The rest of us are too busy working to pay the parasites and we have some money that can get taken off us, or a house that can be siezed. Only when they collapse the middle-class down to the level of the lower class will we be able to burn parliament and hang a lot of parasites, for then a revolution will be better than what we have. Until then we are battery chooks being bled dry for an illusion of security where The State is the biggest criminal gang in town. It is getting worse for every generation- Tax rates over 50% anyone?

 

A fun read-

http://www.bigheadpr...m/tpbtgn?page=1

Edited by altezzaclub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

only one law- "You cannot commit force on someone else." Simple, easy to sort out and you don't need any more laws passed than that. So we don't need a parliament at all, the law is there and everyone lives with it. That frees up a good half a million parasites or more who can go and get productive jobs instead of dragging the rest of us down. They could get absorbed into a lot of new companies who would replace the Govt in building regulations/schools/hospitals etc and work a lot more efficiently in the private sector.

 

Ummmm... what?

 

So what is the penalty for "commiting force on someone else"

 

Is it a one sentence fits all? who then decides what punishment fits the crime?

 

How do you determine who has the right to decide these things? if it is a rotating roster system, wont that need to be recorded somewhere and enforced by some law?

 

What about immigation? armed forces, who is the coordinator in the event of national disaster?

 

 

Face the facts, people need a governing body. You can play the perfect world card a million times over, but any way you look at it, people can't just get along, they can't make decisions as a group (20 million plus now..) and in general, I think 75% (maybe more) are too dimwitted and self serving to ever be trusted with any form of self empowerment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 75% (maybe more) are too dimwitted and self serving to ever be trusted with any form of self empowerment.

Such a lack of faith in your fellow-Australians.. remember, they vote in the Govt that controls you!

 

I'd swap "democracy" for a rotating system any day of the week. Instead of all the lazy Socialists voting parasitic thugs into power to rob me of my money, I would much rather have a hundred randomly-picked people sent to Parliament to consider whatever it is that they do in there. That would be like the jury that decides your life for you when you are wrongly accused of a serious crime. Without making thousands of laws to coerce money from some people and give it to others, there would be very little to do in Parliament.

 

The 'committing force" penalty would be related to the seriousness for the force used, I'd assume burglary would be less than serious injury. You'd keep a judiciary running for that, and the Police to arrest wrong-doers. Remember, the human race has lived for nearly all its life without a Police force, they are a very recent invention, and even standing armies don't go back that far. We didn't get to our current lifestyle under the conditions we live in. Maybe we could even see the wrong-doers paying restitution to the victim again, instead of to the State.

 

Why would you worry about immigration if there was no welfare? Every immigrant has to work to support themself and so adds to the general well-being of society.

 

.and why would you want a Govt co-ordinator in a national disaster?? You would have seen thousands of volunteers getting out and doing what needed to be done in the Queensland floods, you don't need a Govt taking a third of your income for that. People naturally do the right thing and help each other, but Govt and welfare have left too many of the wrong sort of attitudes around. It would take less than a generation for people to realise you have to help others if you want them to help you.

 

You don't want everyone to agree, you just want people free to do what they want to do without screwing others up, so the sideshows we see on the news with the current clowns would never eventuate. That form of society is much more reachable now we have such wide communications via the net and social media. The Govt no longer controls what we see, read or believe, so we can organise ourselves so much better than in the past.

 

After all, how can you have any faith in the people who brought you the global financial collapse... That incident alone would make me think we are better off without Govts setting interest rates, having a monopoly on printing money and levying taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the classic line from Orwells animal farm can apply here.

 

"we are all equal, some are more equal than others"

 

It would never work. How do you ensure that police don't overstep their roles as enforcers of your single law?

 

Do you not need a set of rules that govern how they act? How do you decide who is to be the police? not to mention they are completely open to corruption by a number of means....

 

to me, all this governmentless utopia would breed is localised tribalism.

 

Local communities would become "districts" of their own, enforcing and governing themselves... hello outbreak of civil war?

 

As for people "naturally doing the right thing to help each other out"

 

you have too much faith in the humanity of others. I think the looting and rioting that has gone on in the past 5 years as a result of either natural disasters, community anger or ethnic seperation.

 

At the end of the day, the most primal instinct we all have is survival (closely followed by reproduction)

 

If its your livelihood or that of someone else, guess who would win out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local communities would become "districts" of their own, enforcing and governing themselves

 

Yes, that would be the goal. You would not have the patriotic fevour that binds you to some Govt several thousand miles away, your concerns would be for those physically nearby and those further afield who share your ideals and aspirations. It would be a bigger version of the village concept, much easier now with modern communication.

 

Here in Orange it would take 24hours to label the troublemakers and thieves we have, and if everyone was responsible for their own safety then those people would have a difficult time living here. "Be productive or get out..."

 

I think the rioting and looting and ethnic troubles are usually a product of either Govt or religion, both institutions trying to control the behavour of others. How much rioting would there be if shopkeepers were routinely armed? While we can control criminal behaviour, religion will slways be the face of insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

totally agree with Dave.

 

Shopkeepers being armed?

 

if shopkeepers are allowed to be armed, then everyone will be able to? (remember, there are no laws about owning or making weapons....)

 

Seriously... Ive been to Orange, there is a massive rowdy teenager population. Given the chance, they'd form "gangs" and terrorise. The strong and cunning always rise to the top, regardless of how well you think the community would band together.

 

Moreso, what happens if the towns that control crop growing areas decide they don't want to share, what about if beef farmers want to charge 10x the barter for their goods? people get hungry, go crazy, and you have civil war.

 

Either that or Indonesia will just sail on over with its millions and wipe out our unorganised asses like they want to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see Dave's signature, in fact no signatures show on my screen, so I'm at a bit of a loss there.

 

Sure, everyone should have the means of self-defence, otherwise you don't own anything. However, we had firearms for hundreds of years without problems before the Govt decided they wanted a monpoly on force and restricted them The strong and the cunning don't rise to the top unless they have some unfair advantage, usually an army behind them in an unarmed country.

 

Now while young men are usually the ones keen to do things they later regret, that is only noticeable in a country with welfare where your negative outcomes are plastered over by the State health system. If you suffered the direct consequences of your drunking antics a lot more people wouldn't get drunk- there would be plenty of examples begging in the streets. Gangs are no fun when your victims are armed and you get killed.

 

Sadly the world is heading in the opposite direction, and this latest puppet-show in the USA will see the UN's agenda for disarming civilians pushed through in America. Your generation will be serfs to your 'leaders' in a way that mine or my parents never were. The freedoms are taken away so slowly no-one complains.

 

oh- No-one invades Switzerland or the USA because everyone is armed, and Indonesia would have an easier time knocking Aussie off right now than if we were an armed populace. Here's a graph released by some researcher from Canberra yesterday. The USA may have a lot of guns, but their gun homocides are not high. Most the Western world is in the mess typed in the corner of course, low numbers of guns and low deaths.

post-7544-0-26087300-1355957975_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Dave! I do remember seeing that, but I don't know what has happened since. Nothing in 'settings' I could find.

 

Imports & exports really should have nothing to do with a Govt, but they grabbed that control umpteen hundred years ago when they wanted to raise taxes to go to war. Seeing they couldn't tax income and the nobles were not too keen on putting money into a bad scheme the King started excise duty and controls to raise money. That and land taxes were the main form of State income until the industrial revolution meant company taxes, and finally the 20th century saw income taxes. American Govt spending went from 3% or GDP to 36%, although you can pay 45% tax there now in some States.

 

Your comment about it not being wise to discuss gun ownership in public is a brilliant example of the tyranny I am trying to demonstrate. Ownership of a piece of machinery should not be subject to any constraints in discussion, that is still censorship and shows how people accept that thinking or discussing some things will get you into trouble with the State... so much for "free speech"

 

You may think what we have is better than a free society, but have you really measured the cost of this "civilisation"?.

 

here's a cute one-

The official Chinese government news agency, Xinhua, has demanded the US immediately adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the number of firearms the US populace is permitted to possess. The Chinese state-controlled media's statement, titled "Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for US Gun Control," is primarily focused on the Newtown tragedy in which 26 Americans were killed by a mad gunman. Twenty of the victims were young children. The Chinese government stated, "Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control." – Breitbart.

 

The government went on to express a strong dislike of the National Rifle Association while also attacking the Republican Party as somehow complicit in the violence. Conversely, the article heaps praise on the Democratic Party ...

 

The current Chinese government, the communist People's Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.

 

This last point is a very good one. If you are interested in the results of an unarmed populace, look no further than China's Great Leap Forward under Mao.

 

Gosh, a Communist Govt would like the world's largest democratic population disarmed.... who wudda thought it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Prepare to have your intelligence insulted by all the current power groups who are terrified of losing their grip on you!

 

Queensland is suggesting they join the rest of the world and free you slaves on voting day. This seems a step forward to me.

 

Der Fuher in Canberra said over my dead body, and "it would make our democracy the play-thing of cashed-up interest groups" (she meant trade unions I assume)

 

This "expert" below, who seems like a paid-up member of the nearest Communist party to me, reckons Aussies are too stupd to figure out how to vote.

 

The QLD ALP man thinks that forcing 90% of the population into a voting booth, compared to 66% of Brits who actually wanted to have a say, is something to be proud of.. he'd make a great jailer! What that means is that nearly half of Brits have realised it doesn't matter a damm which party is in power, they are still screwed.

 

What always amazes me is they give you a multi-choice exam question titled "who do you vote for?", but there is no option of "None of the above" !

 

Removing compulsory voting in Queensland would cause voter confusion, one of Australian's leading voting specialists has warned.

Queensland University of Technology Professor Clive Bean, an expert in voter behaviour and elections, said removing compulsory voting in Queensland would be problematic and predicted it would lead to more invalid votes at the federal election level.

"It would probably increases the number of defaulters at the federal level in that state in the way that it has happened with the optional preferential voting," he said.

This "voter confusion" factor is already recognised in the discussion paper, which was released by Queensland Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie this morning.

Advertisement

It notes Queensland's optional preferential voting system, where voters have the choice to "just vote 1", causes problems at the federal level where all boxes have to be numbered.

Australian Electoral Commission research shows almost 35 per cent of invalid Queensland votes at recent federal elections were because voters did not number every square.

In 1915, Queensland became the first state to introduce compulsory voting for state elections, followed by Victoria (1926), New South Wales (1928), Western Australia (1936) and South Australia (1942).

Compulsory voting for federal elections was introduced in 1924.

Professor Bean said it was possible for Queensland to go it alone because state elections were organised under state legislation, but it would be confusing for voters.

"I just feel it would be better not to, unless it was being done as part of a general move by all states and the commonwealth, or at least significant number," he said.

The Queensland government is also looking to tighten political donations by having union members or company shareholders vote before a donation is made to a political party.

"On one hand, it is not a bad idea to have organisations like unions, which are membership-based, to have the consent of their members for undertaking making activities such as making political donations, as opposed to it simply being a decision of the union leadership," Professor Bean said.

On the other hand, he said, it sounded like a traditional reaction by a conservative government.

"It does sound like the conservative side of politics trying to limit the freedoms of union activities even further, in an environment where they are already fairly constrained," Professor Bean said.

ALP state president Dick Williams said any attempt to remove compulsory voting was "immature thinking" by the LNP government.

“Queensland had a 91 per cent turnout in March last year, compared to just 66 per cent who turned out to vote in the 2010 British elections where voting is not compulsory," Mr Williams said.

“That's something we should be proud of, not shying away from.”

Mr Williams also said rules governing union donations and larger political donations should be left alone.

“Unions regularly put affiliation with the ALP to a vote by union members,” he said.

“And no one wants to see a few individuals with deep pockets holding campaign donations over politicians so they can get their way.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment about it not being wise to discuss gun ownership in public is a brilliant example of the tyranny I am trying to demonstrate. Ownership of a piece of machinery should not be subject to any constraints in discussion, that is still censorship and shows how people accept that thinking or discussing some things will get you into trouble with the State... so much for "free speech"

 

You may think what we have is better than a free society, but have you really measured the cost of this "civilisation"?.

 

I don't give a rats arse about the state or anything government related when it comes to guns.... Its more the dishonest scumbags that may decide to rob someones house in an effort to locate a gunsafe.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...