Leaving Australia is currently very difficult for Australians in Australia even if they reside abroad. But if one could leave, where should they go to?
Australians in Australia are not allowed to leave the country they way they were prior to covid. Before, like any other reasonable country, all you needed was a valid passport. Heck, the U.S. doesn't even require that much. But now Australia requires more than just a passport, and to my knowledge that has had the net effect of not letting any Australians out.
They've even made it so citizens who reside outside Australia can't easily leave again if they want to temporarily re-enter the country.
Previously living overseas was an automatic exemption to the exit ban, but now this must be applied for with proof of overseas residence.
As Australian bureaucracy is barely up to the task of organising a chook raffle this is pretty scary. The news articles I've seen give me the impression that the application process is a bit of a dice roll as to whether you get it or not with people re-applying dozens of times over months and no transparency on why their exit permits are rejected. Whether it will be this hard for overseas resident Australians to escape home remains to be seen.
As a way of discouraging Aussies abroad from popping back in for a family funeral or holiday and clogging up the quarantine system it seems a rather effective deterrent (stay awhile, stay forever!) but the minister responsible reckons that's not the motivation for the rule, so you have to wonder what they're thinking.
Democracy leads to dumb laws. It's a tyranny of the bottom 51%ile.
I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so.
Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would be because the bottom 51% have something to gain from extraction. The top 51% however are already superior and dont need to rely on extraction to fulfill their wants/needs.
51% might have been too broad a number, but do you get my drift? Those in the lower intelligence brackets have a lot to gain, but those in the upper intelligence brackets do not have a lot to gain
This is true, and that's why there's constitution. Constitution makes sure that government power is limited to issues that don't change power balance from people to government or from minority to majority groups. It makes sure that no matter who runs the country, they can't ruin it.
The implication here is that there's a sort of "pareto distribution" of capability when it comes to voting "well". This was an issue that the founders tried to solve (in a bad way) by attempting to limit voting to property owners.
Of course, at the time this almost exclusively meant wealthy white men - which is obviously a terrible way to run a voting system.
The converse of this is the "bread and circuses" problem with Democracy. This was supposed to be mitigated by the "House of Lords" equivalent in the U.S. - The Senate.
The Senate was supposed to have been a buffer that protected against popular vote because they were assigned by the state legislature. They were beholden to the welfare of the state, not to direct-democracy political campaigning and all its ills.
Personally, I think its time to re-evaluate the 17th amendment to see if it had the desired effect, or resulted in massive unintended consequences.
I think you missed the point. By this logic, the top 51% have more influence than the bottom 49% so why isn't GP saying they're the ones driving democracy?
As an aside, if you look at the elected representatives of Australia, I suspect you'll find most of them are highly educated.
or you might not. some of the highest ministers are country bumpkins catering to the lowest common denominator. the country was however founded by very well educated persons.
Most of the early Federalist papers deal with this problem of democracy in very damning terms. It leads to failures of the state -- usually within a hundred or so years. That is why the US decided to be a Republic instead.
Outside the US, countries after WW1/2 opted for democracies instead of republics with strong foundations. We're witnessing the point of failure due to the exact issues outlined in those papers.
If there is such a convincing answer, why don't you actually state it, instead of just saying that others have talked about it?
It's very non-obvious to me why there's a natural "coalition of the bottom" versus that just being one possible way for things to shake out.
(It's also worth noting that the original American system already suffered a MASSIVE failure of the state - coincidentally also around the hundred year mark - which makes me think maybe they didn't have things perfectly figured out anyway. It hurts the credibility of the appeal to tradition/authority.)
It took them almost a dozen papers to cover all the points and explain them. Asking me to cover all that in a short post is rather unfair (and your various counterpoints no doubt appear in the anti-federalist papers which are also great reading).
What crisis are you talking about specifically? The closest they came to failure was definitely the civil war. Most people would put that as a crisis of absolutely irreconcilable moral differences rather than of normal politics. No political system ever devised could solve that problem without violence or complete separation.
disclaimer: I distance myself from the groups currently associated with these schools of thought. I also think the English version of this article is lacks scientific savoir faire.
The gender inequality part is empirically and historically wrong.
edit: To be honest the whole article is trash, better read it here (Psychological theory):
Why shouldn't a person exercise their most powerful vote,
voting by their feet and exit the system to reintegrate in a different system.
Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living.
Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
Of course one can avoid most domestic laws by moving to another country. My point is that when someone asks for a solution to this problem, I’m assuming they are looking for something to actually help solve the problem in that country, because they’re probably already aware that simply leaving is a viable way out for themselves (if they can afford it).
At that point, who cares? You live somewhere else, not your problem. That's sorta the whole point of leaving a country for political reasons, you feel it's unfixable and not worth hanging around. It's defeatist and doesn't help the people still in Australia, but it's a valid value judgement.
They have people voting over 3% tax increases and gay marriage, not surveillance. Doesn't matter who you vote for, every party is in favor of increasing their power.
We never had a vote on same sex marriage. It was more a completely optional mail in survey whose results the govt. was completely welcome and within its rights to ignore.
On that one, at least, the politicians were too spineless to take a stand.