Politics So I guess when the s**t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

[HaroLad]

Demonstrate this, please. Show me the legislation/rules as written, that say, 'We're doing this just 'cause.'

Arbitrary (in the context of the Vic Charter of Rights according to the Supreme Court) is taken to mean that which is 'capricious, or has resulted from conduct which is unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable in the sense of not being proportionate to the legitimate aim sought': Thompson v Minogue [2021] VSCA 358 [55].

As I detailed, these Orders are completely unpredictable, unjust, unreasonable and disproportionate.

For instance, the Minister makes constant reference as a justification for the Orders the 'advice of the Chief Health Officer' (Minister for Health, Statement of Reasons, Pandemic Orders 12 January 2022); yet within that advice, the Acting CHO says two doses are 'insufficient to provide adequate levels of protection'
(Acting Chief Health Officer Advice to Minister for Health, Advice relating to the making of Pandemic Orders as required by section 165AL of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, 10 January 2022 [39]). Yet, double-dose mandates still remain, and are justified because of 'CHO advice', which states two-doses are insufficient. The Acting CHO also implies that vaccines barely reduce transmission [39] (unreasonable, disproportionate etc.).

Also, the Minister only 6-8 weeks ago dismissed RAT's as completely unreliable and not a viable mechanism to replace PCR tests (don't have a source on this, but he said this). About a month later they replaced PCR tests and they completely changed their tune on them (unpredictable).

 

[Gethelred]

Arbitrary (in the context of the Vic Charter of Rights according to the Supreme Court) is taken to mean that which is 'capricious, or has resulted from conduct which is unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable in the sense of not being proportionate to the legitimate aim sought': Thompson v Minogue [2021] VSCA 358 [55].

As I detailed, these Orders are completely unpredictable, unjust, unreasonable and disproportionate.

For instance, the Minister makes constant reference as a justification for the Orders the 'advice of the Chief Health Officer' (Minister for Health, Statement of Reasons, Pandemic Orders 12 January 2022); yet within that advice, the Acting CHO says two doses are 'insufficient to provide adequate levels of protection'
(Acting Chief Health Officer Advice to Minister for Health, Advice relating to the making of Pandemic Orders as required by section 165AL of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, 10 January 2022 [39]). Yet, double-dose mandates still remain, and are justified because of 'CHO advice', which states two-doses are insufficient. The Acting CHO also implies that vaccines barely reduce transmission [39] (unreasonable, disproportionate etc.).

Also, the Minister only 6-8 weeks ago dismissed RAT's as completely unreliable and not a viable mechanism to replace PCR tests (don't have a source on this, but he said this). About a month later they replaced PCR tests and they completely changed their tune on them (unpredictable).

... because most people use legal definitions in common language.

Nonetheless, I concede the point. By this definition, you could certainly argue that aspects of the covid response have been done arbitrarily.

Edit: interestingly, the case itself had a bit of a purpose for defining 'arbitrary' more broadly than its common use, and it has been defined differently in other cases: WBM v Chief Commissioner of Police [2010] defines it merely as capricious.

There's also the fact that your precise wording is different: the line says this:

Although Warren CJ (with whom Hansen JA agreed) held that the Charter did not apply to the plaintiff’s circumstances, she expressed the view that the term ‘arbitrary’ in s 13(a) has a wider ‘human rights’ meaning rather than its ordinary meaning. She stated that ‘arbitrary’ is ‘concerned with capriciousness, unpredictability, injustice and unreasonableness — in the sense of not being proportionate to the legitimate aim sought’.

Thus, the justice didn't define it in this case. Your use of this as a definition is flawed, as - to quote the case elsewhere - "... the precise scope of the term ‘arbitrary’ for the purposes of s 13(a) of the Charter has not been settled." [50]

 

[Seeds]

This is how regulations work:

Governments bring in regulations to curb workplace deaths/discriminations/monopolies. People complain and complain so the next government cuts back on all that red tape and silly rules. Workplace deaths start to rise, discrimination becomes noticeable and monopolies form when companies start absorbing each other. People demand enough is enough, someone has to do something! Government steps in to apply regulations.

Its a cycle, been going for centuries and wont stop any time soon.

While this is true its not the whole story. A lot of red tape has also been implemented to extract rents to lobby groups creating inefficiencies in the process (whether those lobby groups be corporates or unions). This red tape has in many cases created monopolies or duopolies rather then been used to remove them. the micro economic reforms of the early nineties implemented by hawke and keating was targetted at removing a lot of this unjust red tape and it created a productivitiy growth surge.

 

[HaroLad]

Thus, the justice didn't define it in this case. Your use of this as a definition is flawed,

Hahaha, no it isn't. There were three judges, and they effectively settled its meaning within the confides of s 13(a) of the Charter (they observed it had not been settled at [50] and subsequently did so at [55]).

it has been defined it differently in other cases: WBM v Chief Commissioner of Police [2010] defines it merely as capricious.

It wasn't defined 'differently', and they in fact expressly rely on that authority to come to a relatively final conclusion at [55].

All that is immaterial, though. I decided to draw on legal reasoning because that examines in much greater detail the meaning of a term (albeit usually in a specific context) - and I found your definition (perhaps plucked from a dictionary) to be unsatisfactory (having no reason behind conduct), because the vast majority of conduct does have some sort of reasoning behind it, but could still be arbitrary.

 

[Gethelred]

Hahaha, no it isn't. There were three judges, and they effectively settled its meaning within the confides of s 13(a) of the Charter (they observed it had not been settled at [50] and subsequently did so at [55]).

I mean, I quoted the full line from the transcript. It's right there, and it serves as an interim definition until it is properly defined at law, or another justice comes along and reaffirms it enough to form precedent.

It wasn't defined 'differently', and they in fact expressly rely on that authority to come to a relatively final conclusion at [55].

You mean, they found a commonplace definition unsatisfactory for the working of s.13a, and contrived a definition to suit the case in question that more adequately allowed them to sufficently to govern the case before them.

All that is immaterial, though. I decided to draw on legal reasoning because that examines in much greater detail the meaning of a term (albeit usually in a specific context) - and I found your definition (perhaps plucked from a dictionary) to be unsatisfactory (having no reason behind conduct), because the vast majority of conduct does have some sort of reasoning behind it, but could still be arbitrary.

You mean, you found the commonplace definition didn't suit what you were trying to say, and thus you sought out a definition which did.

 

[HaroLad]

I mean, I quoted the full line from the transcript. It's right there, and it serves as an interim definition until it is properly defined at law, or another justice comes along and reaffirms it enough to form precedent.

You mean, they found a commonplace definition unsatisfactory for the working of the s.13a, and contrived a definition to suit the case in question that more adequately allowed them to define the concept in terms sufficently to govern the case before them.

You mean, you found the commonplace definition didn't suit what you were trying to say, and thus you sought out a definition which did.

I know what I’m talking about mate re your first two paragraphs

I’m happy for you to elicit a more satisfactory definition

 

[Gethelred]

I know what I’m talking about mate re your first two paragraphs

Oh, I got that. Lawyer, huh.

My legal education didn't pass much beyond that, an education.

I’m happy for you to elicit a more satisfactory definition

Why? We both know what the word means to each other, and I've already conceded that under your legal one aspects of the government's covid-19 response could be considered arbitrary.

 

[HaroLad]

Oh, I got that. Lawyer, huh.

My legal education didn't pass much beyond that, an education.

Why? We both know what the word means to each other, and I've already conceded that under your legal one aspects of the government's covid-19 response could be considered arbitrary.

Well, I suppose that's that then.

 

[Carringbush2010]

For what its worth, I also oppose full blown socialism, and support the free market. I'm a liberal.

Hey Mal, in your opinion, would you think most of the centred would agree with this statement? I know I do.

How about a poll Mofra

• Are you in favour of socialism by it's very definition?
• Are you in favour of certain elements of socialism in our liberal free market society? (Which you could argue some already exist)
• Ae you vehemently opposed to socialism?

Something like that, just to gauge where most sit on this issue and also maybe just some may have the epiphany that socialism is not just 'rank & file society under authoritarian' rule.

 

[Seeds]

Hey Mal, in your opinion, would you think most of the centred would agree with this statement? I know I do.

How about a poll Mofra

• Are you in favour of socialism by it's very definition?
• Are you in favour of certain elements of socialism in our liberal free market society? (Which you could argue some already exist)
• Ae you vehemently opposed to socialism?

Something like that, just to gauge where most sit on this issue and also maybe just some may have the epiphany that socialism is not just 'rank & file society under authoritarian' rule.

You trying to have a semantic debate on the meaning of the word socialism? Why?

 

[Carringbush2010]

You trying to have a semantic debate on the meaning of the word socialism? Why?

Nothing wrong with discussing the nuances (or semantics as you put it) of the 'definition' is there?

Mods am I allowed to propose this?

 

[nut]

Market socialism v Market Capitalism

The current system is a complete failure …. The poor continually paying for the failures of capitalism through austerity, inflation, increased taxes, reduced services and unemployment …

 

[Mofra]

Market socialism v Market Capitalism

The current system is a complete failure …. The poor continually paying for the failures of capitalism through austerity, inflation, increased taxes, reduced services and unemployment …

It's a fair point - since 2008 we arguably have a Moral Hazard financial system where some perverse version of reverse socialism exists - bailouts for large companies while individuals and small companies are on their own.

 

[Pessimistic]

It's a fair point - since 2008 we arguably have a Moral Hazard financial system where some perverse version of reverse socialism exists - bailouts for large companies while individuals and small companies are on their own.

And any opposition howled down as unpatriotic, soft on borders etc

So now thy are gun shy when real reform is needed. Hate to go all history but it could lead to wars and stuff like that

 

[madmug]

Market socialism v Market Capitalism

The current system is a complete failure …. The poor continually paying for the failures of capitalism through austerity, inflation, increased taxes, reduced services and unemployment …

Yet nothing but positive effects for wealth accumulation.

Work for a wage & your the worlds worst enemy for trying to get a wage rise or a superannuation increase.

So sit on your arse & play the investment game & reap the subsidised benefits.

 

[Malifice]

Incorrect on a number of counts.

No, it's not. That's the actual literal definition:

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production.[5][6][7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Its a steaming pile of dogshit, because it leads to tyranny. In literally every single case of a socialist economy forming, you wind up with tyranny. Literally every single one.

Heck; every single socialist nation (Cuba, NK, USSR, Vietnam etc) also literally required a violent dictator and mass bloodshed to even get off the ground in the first place.

 

[Malifice]

I had said 'socialism and state intervention' meaning, generally, an expansion of intervention from what we have now and of a sort typically associated with socialism.

Expansion of government control (i.e passing legislation) is not =to socialism though, so when you're critiquing (for example) government policy, dont be like the Americans and label literally every policy or law as 'socialism', especially when you know its not true (as you do).

 

[Seeds]

It's a fair point - since 2008 we arguably have a Moral Hazard financial system where some perverse version of reverse socialism exists - bailouts for large companies while individuals and small companies are on their own.

Highly socialist economies kind of bail out and endlessly prop up large unprofitable companies while preventing new small companies from emerging. So its not exactly the opposite Of socialism. Its just under socialism those large companies tend to be owned by the government instead of shareholders.

all governments tend to provide protections for large companies regardless of the system. Too much poltical power in maintaining the status quo unfortunately.

 

[Marcel Proust]

No, it's not. That's the actual literal definition:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Its a steaming pile of dogshit, because it leads to tyranny. In literally every single case of a socialist economy forming, you wind up with tyranny. Literally every single one.

Heck; every single socialist nation (Cuba, NK, USSR, Vietnam etc) also literally required a violent dictator and mass bloodshed to even get off the ground in the first place.

As opposed to genocide, drug wars and imperialism of the western free market.

The invisible hand is having a busy pandemic

 

[Pessimistic]

No, it's not. That's the actual literal definition:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Its a steaming pile of dogshit, because it leads to tyranny. In literally every single case of a socialist economy forming, you wind up with tyranny. Literally every single one.

Heck; every single socialist nation (Cuba, NK, USSR, Vietnam etc) also literally required a violent dictator and mass bloodshed to even get off the ground in the first place.

Those places were fecked up already enough that a socialist communist coup took place. There were even coups of the coups

 

[HaroLad]

Expansion of government control (i.e passing legislation) is not =to socialism though, so when you're critiquing (for example) government policy, dont be like the Americans and label literally every policy or law as 'socialism', especially when you know its not true (as you do).

I didn't mean an expansion of government from what we have now is socialism, hence the use of the word and; i.e. those who advocate for socialism and greater government intervention (which are not the same, as they had to be distinguished).

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

No, it's not. That's the actual literal definition:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Its a steaming pile of dogshit, because it leads to tyranny. In literally every single case of a socialist economy forming, you wind up with tyranny. Literally every single one.

Heck; every single socialist nation (Cuba, NK, USSR, Vietnam etc) also literally required a violent dictator and mass bloodshed to even get off the ground in the first place.

You sound completely hysterical.

"Social ownership" is not the same as government ownership. Marxism is defined by the abolition of commodity production which is in part necessitated by the collective ownership of the means by the people/workers.

By their own words, even Mao acknowledged, that China was state capitalist.

Maoists and Marxist Leninists have argued that centralism was required to manage a transitory phase in a globe dominated by capitalist societies.

Where they differ from Marx and Engels, is that the latter believed you could not achieve socialism in one country, that it would need to be a global project since the antagonism of capital would stifle the abolition of commodity production.

Secondly, there have been two paths to industrialisation and development, the slower path of capitalism, which required imperial expansion, slavery, murder and theft on a titanic scale and which has still resulted in poverty and despotism except for a small handful of nations. Those that successfully stole the most.

The alternative was collectivisation. Russia transitioned from a desperately poor despotic monarchy, with regular pogroms and famines, to a world power. As did China.

Collectivisation in the USSR was brutal, but it represented one of the fastest increases in development and standard of living in human history.

And when the USSR collapsed, it accounted for the sharpest decline in HDI for a non-wartime nation in the 20th century. Free market capitalism, shock therapy and now oligarchy has been brutal to Russia.

Cuba is a success story. Isolated by the most powerful economy in the world, it has a lower infant mortality rate, higher life expectancy and better literacy rate than the US.

The country is also far more equitable and less tyrannical than under the preceding military dictatorship, a capitalist and imperialist project.

China, for all its awfulness, is about to become the worlds most powerful economy, all without US style forever wars. The monsters in charge are mainly still there because US antagonism allows them to consolidate power. Seeing the looting of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Libya, has not helped.

Vietnam managed the pandemic better than just about any Western nation and is also one of the fastest growing economies in Asia.

Essentially, you are a blind maniacal ideologue, who absolutely isn't abreast of the facts.

BTW, liberalism is about to realise a human extinction level event over the next century, so good luck arguing the virtues of free market economic liberalism once climate change has led to systems collapse.

 

[Gethelred]

Systems of all kinds are subject to system entropy; the systems either become more rigid over time and cannot deal with catastrophe, or the system is too flexible and dissolves innately. The point of discussion is time frame.

So, the point that liberalism is about to suffer an extinction level event is a) flawed, because equating something that has yet to occur is equivalent to issues with historical precedent that have happened before multiple times is a false equivalence, and b) rather obvious, as liberalism is a system like any other.

When one points out that a system is about to suffer a crisis or has suffered a crisis in the past, one is not really pointing out something worthwhile. What is valuable is observing how that system survived or did not survive their crisis, and what the cost was for doing so in human lives.

 

[Pessimistic]

Society still values principles borrowed from now failed systems.

Greeks Roman’s communists centralists socialists monarchists theologises whatever

 

[Mofra]

Systems of all kinds are subject to system entropy; the systems either become more rigid over time and cannot deal with catastrophe, or the system is too flexible and dissolves innately. The point of discussion is time frame.

That's fair, althugh one could argue that in a functioning democracy the swings of each successive party (in a two party state) go a fair way towards preventing that entropy.

In reality, there is rarely a 'pure' form of liberalism or one of the socialist models. Compared to the US, the Scandanavian democracies are positively (market) socialist yet rely entirely on the global free market to maintain their model.