Australia

Australia Is the Canary in the Coal Mine of Eroding Liberty

Without a Bill of Rights, the land down under quickly goes where America may eventually follow.

|

Over the weekend, Australians protested against a new round of lockdowns imposed to curtail the spread of the latest COVID-19 variant. Police arrested dozens of participants, vowed to hunt down more, and threatened mass arrests in the event of future acts of dissent. It was a chilling reminder of how far a nominally free country can fall when the public panics and officials see opportunity to expand power.

"Anger is growing in Australia as 13 million people – about half the population – endure fresh lockdowns to quash Covid outbreaks," the BBC reported last week. "A third state went into lockdown on Tuesday. Stay-at-home orders are now in place in South Australia, Victoria and parts of New South Wales."

"You must stay home," the government of New South Wales, where Sydney is located, starkly commands residents of the city. "Only leave your home if you have a reasonable excuse."

Unsurprisingly, those exhausted by a year-and-a half of restrictions on travel, commerce, and other forms of human activity took to the streets. Thousands of protesters flooded into Sydney to express their dissatisfaction with restrictive government policies. They were met with a heavy police presence and dozens of arrests—and threats to round up anybody who returns.

"There is some information on the internet at the moment about a potential protest this Saturday," huffed Michael Fuller, the Police Commissioner of New South Wales. "You will be arrested and prosecuted. The community has spoken about that behavior. The Premier has spoken about that behavior and it won't be tolerated again."

While the protest featured some violence (as did similar demonstrations elsewhere in the world) officials made clear that the behavior they won't tolerate is public dissent. Civil liberties may have a place, the powers-that-be suggest, but they must give way to more important concerns.

"Covid-19 has given rise to extraordinary emergency powers that would previously have been unacceptable to Australians," Lydia Shelley and John Coyne of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned earlier this month about the need to better balance civil liberties with security priorities. "Australia is already conducting secret trials behind closed doors and allowing law enforcement raids on journalists' homes and on our national broadcaster," they added about developments predating COVID.

"A good 18 months into the pandemic, the nation is still trapped in April 2020," agrees James Morrow, federal political editor for Sydney's Daily Telegraph. "Australians need permission from the federal government to leave the country—applications succeed about half the time—and Australia's states throw up their borders against one another at the slightest hint of trouble."

What's remarkable is how quickly Australia has fallen. Just months ago, as reports from The Economist, Freedom House, and the University of Gothenburg's V-Dem Institute tracked the eroding health of liberal democracies in recent years, accelerated by authoritarian pandemic policies, Australia seemed to be holding on more effectively than countries including France and the United States. Admittedly, it wasn't so much swimming upstream as losing ground more slowly, but that was something.

Recently, though, Australia's decline has accelerated with remarkably little opposition. The Sydney Morning Herald even ran a piece headlined: "'Missing in action': What happened to the civil liberties movement?" about the tepid pushback against pandemic restrictions.

"We don't have much of a human rights culture, unlike, for example, Canada and America and Europe," Sarah Joseph, a professor of human rights law at Griffith University, told the newspaper in explanation.

"Australia also has no tradition of liberty in a sense Americans might understand, and appeals to freedom are looked at suspiciously," confirms Morrow.

One problem is that Australia has no Bill of Rights to which a liberty-concerned minority can turn when politicians push restrictions on freedom that enjoy at least temporary popular support, as they have in the United States as well as Australia. Some Australians even boast about that absence.

"The essence of my objection to a Bill of Rights is that, contrary to its very description, it reduces the rights of citizens to determine matters over which they should continue to exercise control," former Prime Minister John Howard told an audience in 2009. "I also reject a Bill of Rights framework because it elevates rights to the detriment of responsibilities."

True, constitutional protections for rights shield individuals from majority preferences—which is their whole purpose. In the U.S. during the pandemic, that has meant courts invalidate lockdowns, eviction moratoriums, and restrictions on private schools, even when a panicked public latches on to promises of safety. That's important partially because authoritarian dictates make trade-offs that many people wouldn't choose for themselves, and also because such impositions often prove to be ineffective

Nor is this the first time protections for liberty have taken a turn for the worse in the land down under. As mentioned by Shelly and Coyne, Australian Federal Police raided media offices in 2019 after a series of embarrassing stories about military misconduct and domestic surveillance. The government also holds some trials in secret under the cloak of national security.

 In 2018, the country's government gained the power to force access to encrypted communications and even to compel private companies to build in back doors. Anybody planning a new anti-lockdown protest via email or text messages should keep in mind that Big Brother might be watching.

"The truth is that, without constitutional guarantees, the measure of our freedom of expression has become that which remains after all the laws that restrict the right have been taken into account," Gillian Triggs, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, noted during a 2014 Free Speech Symposium.

None of this should be taken as grounds for complacency on the part of Americans who want to pretend that liberty is more secure here. The United States might have stronger constitutional protections for liberty, but that only slows the decline if the culture embraces authoritarianism—it's not an absolute barrier. Pandemic restrictions are popular with much of the public here, too. The surveillance state is alive and well in America. And the health of liberal democracy in our country has eroded in recent years as Americans turn against each other.

Australia is suffering a surge of authoritarianism, in part because of its lack of constitutional protections for liberty. But developments down under may be showing where America is going.

NEXT: Brickbat: You Really Shouldn't Say That

Australia Coronavirus Bill of Rights Civil Liberties Lockdowns Quarantine Eviction Moratorium

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

256 responses to “Australia Is the Canary in the Coal Mine of Eroding Liberty

  1. “Without a Bill of Rights, the land down under quickly goes where America may eventually follow.”

    I’m not too worried about that.

    Koch / Reason libertarian theory prioritizes one right above all: the right of anyone on the planet (even unvaccinated coronavirus carriers) to immigrate to the US at any time and for any reason. The best thing about this right is that it’s self-reinforcing. IOW as our borders open, we import more Democratic voters, which means Democrats win more elections, which means our borders open even wider.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. It’s a virtuous circle of freedom for immigrants!

      1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

  2. I’m grateful for the this blog. Big Thanks from https://www.infinityebook.com/

    1. I don’t see how the US bill of rights impacted the Covid tyranny in the USA. The US tyranny is complete without restriction.

  3. The politicians, judges, police and other assorted public officials believe the bill of rights is just a “suggestion”.

    1. Mandatory mask mandates are also just a “suggestion.”

      1. And permanently temporary.

    2. Stupid place started out as a Penal Colony …
      Watch out for the DropBear Government, Mate …

  4. The United States might have stronger constitutional protections for liberty, but that only slows the decline if the culture embraces authoritarianism—it’s not an absolute barrier.

    So you’re saying we can’t rest easy until Trump gets impeached?

  5. This penal colony will continue to be dicktated too. And the proletariat will continue to get the shaft.

  6. Thousands of protesters flooded into Sydney to express their dissatisfaction with restrictive government policies. They were met with a heavy police presence and dozens of arrests—and threats to round up anybody who returns.

    “Thousands of protesters flooded into Sydney to express their dissatisfaction with racism and support for BLM. They were met with a heavy protective police presence and dozens of speeches by politicians—and promises to welcome anybody who returns to the ‘space’.”

  7. I hear that ASS (Aussies (trying to) Suppress the Suppressors), a furtive slightly-organized group “down under”, is trying to fight for freedom, while also trying to dodge the Aussie Government Almighty super-dooper snoopers and spies.

    But, among the hundreds of thousands of quasi-members of ASS… Even among a few of their so-called “leaders” (of a largely leaderless movement), there are a few… Wait for it now…

    … OMG… MARXISTS!!! So I am waiting for Der JesseBahnFuhrer (and like-minded conservaturds) to show up here and denounce the entire phalanx of Aussie freedom-seekers as being “Marxists”!

    1. We call those RINO’S in the USA. Republicans who act just like Marxist lefties.

    2. Worst. Acronym. Ever.

  8. Well its a good thing that Reason seemingly backed the candidate and party who advocated for lockdoens for a year, whose party led the most destructive measures at the state level, partybwho platformed on raised taxes, regulations, spending, etc.

    I mean its good reason recognizes the harm these policies can do after the fact. But this shit was obvious last year.

    1. Well it’s a good thing that Der JesseBahnFuhrer seemingly pretends that he graduated High School, and can write at least ass wheel ass the Platybelodon Partybwho, which loves in PartyBeWhoville, or is it maybe PartyBeHooverville?

      It’s also a good thing that Der JesseBahnFuhrer’s tinfoil hat can seemingly suss out shit from the writings of Reason.com, that the writers never wrote! If you admit that you voted for Stalin instead of Hitler, it PROVES that you agree with EVERYTHING that Stalin did and said! (In WW II, the USA interfered in the war on Stalin’s side. This PROVES that we are ALL Stalinists now!)

    2. you left out the part about telling social media platforms (under threat of antitrust crackdowns) to prevent the spread of information counter to the official story

  9. They now have gun control in both Australia and New Zealand.
    The governments there can now begin properly oppressing the citizens.

    1. “But … but … they’re *English-speaking* countries!”

      1. Yup. They speak English, not American.

    2. It does help to render the populace compliant. Not just in giving up their weapons, but the fact that they are willing to do that makes them all the more pliable and willing to submit.

    3. I suggest you do some research, before making ignorant comments. * At NO time has Australia provided any ‘right’ for Australians to own firearms. Not ever.
      * The 1996 firearms laws provided for tighter controls on various types of firearms, their storage and usage. Firearms, per se, were not ‘banned’, though certain types were. Same as in the US, where certain types of firearms are banned.
      * There are presently more firearms in circulation in Australia, than prior to 1996.
      * New Zealand (and Australia) has more relaxed firearms laws than many other developed nations.
      * If an Australian government displeases it’s citizens (via oppression, for example), then that government will be removed from power at the very next election. We call it: ‘Democracy’. You guys should try it, rather than attempting a violent overthrow of the duly elected government.

      1. “ We call it: ‘Democracy’. You guys should try it, rather than attempting a violent overthrow of the duly elected government.”

        Sure, right after your “Democracy” lets you all out of your cages from the lockdown. There is this thing called the internet and it has videos from all over the world. There is even videos from Australia showcasing your awesome govt arresting and ticketing people for not complying with mandates. It even shows Brownshirts, like yourself, snitching your fellow citizens out for daring to protest against the govt. You’re not gonna gaslight anybody here with your bullshit mate.

        1. The various state governments are charged with ensuring law and order. It is presently a violation of some states’ law, to fail to wear a mask under certain circumstances. The violent thugs who demonstrated in Sydney last weekend, violated numerous laws, including:

          * Taking part in an illegal gathering.
          * Blocking traffic and free movement of other citizens.
          * Damaging property.
          * Taking violent action against law officers.
          * Mistreating and taking violent action against animals.
          * Not wearing masks in public.
          * Damaging public and private property.
          * Not adhering to distance regulations.

          These disgusting animals were endangering the public and police. I hope they throw the book at the lot of them. The real question is this:

          Why do YOU defend violent thugs? Why do YOU think it is OK for these violent thugs to attack police? Why do YOU think it is OK for these violent thugs to endanger and inconvenience law-abiding citizens?

          Take as much time and space as you require.

          1. Your ‘democracy’ is just two pedophiles and a 10 year old voting on age of consent laws. You have no rights except what the current government chooses.

            1. Wrong, of course. Unlike Americans, we remove politicians from power, PEACEFULLY, if they displease us.

              1. Was it the reading comprehension, or the math? 2/3 is a majority.

                1. Yeah, he’s not very bright.

              2. Just what we need here; a provocative [supposedly] Aussie troll who loves authoritarianism and encourages diatribe.

                Thank you Reason for the mute option.

                1. Of course you do. Rather than listening to the truth, you stick your fingers in your ears and go: “la, la, la, la.”

                  Typical.

                  1. Your projection is telling.

                    1. I read responses to my comments. I do not mute those who disagree with me.

              3. How does that peaceful removal from power work out when the politicians have you arrested for protesting their policies?

          2. Nation of pussies.

            1. Yep. That’s Aussies.

              Oh, please, pop over to Australia sometime. We can meet up and you can repeat that comment in my local pub. We’ll see how that pans out for you. Should be fun.

              1. Yeah, I am sure you guys are a bunch of uncivilized, easily butthurt wussies who will engage in physical violence because of the kind of lowly, defeated losers they are if someone points it out. I prefer my guns and universal politeness to proud barbarians who want to “meet up” because their defeated ego has been hurt.

                Again, fundamentally different.

                1. “Universal politeness”?
                  I call bullshit on that.
                  I betcha if I strolled into pretty much any bar in the US and called Americans “pussies”, I would find myself beaten to a bloody pulp. There is very little difference between Americans and Australians, re. violent tendencies. The big difference lies with the fact that many Americans are armed to the teeth. That’s why America has a murder epidemic on a scale not seen away from the battlefield.

                  1. “I betcha if I strolled into pretty much any bar in the US and called Americans “pussies”, I would find myself beaten to a bloody pulp.”

                    You believe that because you are a worthless barbarian piece of shit. In our country you don’t get beaten up for free speech, unless BLM or Antifa is involved. Your hyperbole is telling.

                    “Murder epidemic” is another trollish, shillish bullshit claim. I think it’s a good thing people respect each other because they do have some means of self defense.

                    Go back to being the defeated serf you are.

      2. After one party forges millions of votes, restoring real democracy may become a perilous task.

  10. I don’t think the thesis of this piece “Bill of Rights = Liberty” holds up under scrutiny.

    I’m an American who’s had the misfortune of living in Canada through the pandemic of lockdowns, and we have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms here that has been completely ignored at all levels (federal, provincial, local, and by the Supreme Court of Canada).

    So the issue isn’t the lack of a Bill of Rights (Canada) has one, and it isn’t federalism (Both Canada and Australia share America’s federalist system).

    It really comes down to culture and political values. America’s lockdowns were shorter because Americans still value personal freedom and limited government at much higher relative levels than in sister countries (Canadians LOVE to follow rules and there is almost zero debate about the positive value of lockdowns here.)

    1. Same here at least in the cities. I predict a divide in the US, country(liberty) vs city (locked down)

      1. Country (cultural conformity) vs city (ideological conformity).

        1. Ironically; The USA was never suppose to ‘merge’ the two.

          The Constitutional Union of Republican States Supreme law limited the National Government to ONLY National Concerns. The Nazi take-over ‘merged’ it all into a “Federal” autocratic monarchy.

          And this is why the two parties are at war with each other.

          1. While pandering to the same donor class.

        2. Country (guns) vs city (disarmed sheeple).

          Mutton, it’s what’s for dinner.

      2. we already have a divide, a very prominent one. we live in country that is totally divided. the only question is will there be a civil war of the divide.

        1. “over the divide”

        2. … And it’ll be an endless war/divide UNTIL the *POWER* is returned to the People themselves instead of *all* concentrated in a National Socialists government (i.e. Nazi’s).

          10th Amendment —
          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          The more the Nazi’s break the Supreme Law the nastier the war/divide will be.

    2. We pretty much ignore the Bill of Rights here too.

      The problem with such bills and charters is that they are restrictions on government but it’s government that enforces them. The best defense is a truly independent judiciary, but that’s largely a fiction in both country. Pandemic comes along and “court packing” suddenly loses it’s profanity. Democrats now talking about term limits for SCOTUS members. And the big core issue for the dominant parties continues to be SCOTUS picks. They might shift from conservatism to populism but the focus on SCOTUS picks remains solid. That’s not a sign of judicial independence.

      Perhaps this whole idea of “government” was a mistake in the first place. Let us have our digital watches but don’t make us come down from the trees.

      1. “We pretty much ignore the Bill of Rights here too. ”
        Right…. Perhaps more citizens should stop being so ignorant and pridefully trying to take-over Gov-Gun-Forces for dictation and accept what actually made this Nation a wonderful nation to begin with.

    3. “…we have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms here that has been completely ignored at all levels (federal, provincial, local, and by the Supreme Court of Canada).”

      What the government giveth, the government taketh away.

    4. “We don’t have much of a human rights culture, unlike, for example, Canada and America and Europe,” Sarah Joseph, a professor of human rights law at Griffith University, told the newspaper in explanation.

      Flaming’ hell!

    5. Something must be done with the democrats. Their very existence is now a violation of the NAP.

  11. “While the protest featured some violence (as did similar demonstrations elsewhere in the world) officials made clear that the behavior they won’t tolerate is public dissent. Civil liberties may have a place, the powers-that-be suggest, but they must give way to more important concerns.”

    —-J.D. Tuccille

    Generally speaking, social unrest should be expected anywhere and everywhere that you see the kind of sudden economic collapse the entire world experienced in 2020. We tend to imagine that the events we experience are uniquely local, but we all experience the same technological and economic changes–and the result of economic collapses and government restrictions like the ones we’ve seen during the pandemic have triggered social unrest all throughout history everywhere.

    It’s so obvious when we look at other countries. We can see Australia clearly. The same kinds of things are happening in Belarus, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, Hong Kong, Iran, South Africa, and Tunisia. The focus is different in each country, and the straw that broke the camel’s back is different in each case, but the driving force of pandemic driven lock downs and economic collapse behind this social unrest are the same everywhere.

    It’s no different in the United States. If it hadn’t been for George Floyd, the social unrest we saw all over the United States in the summer of 2020 would have happened anyway. It just would have been provoked by a different incident or the social unrest would have found a different focus. Likewise, If it hadn’t been for the Capitol riot on January 6, the same kinds of people would have rioted elsewhere for some other reason–some reason other than the recounts or Donald Trump.

    1. In response to the suggestion that our rights might be curtailed in the United States if we didn’t have the Bill of Rights, are you aware that the Capitol police were caught on camera shooting and killing an unarmed protester for trespassing on public property–and no charges were filed? Are you aware that the president has now openly admitted to telling Facebook which posts to censor and which accounts to deplatform?

      If there were a massive protest in Washington DC against the Biden administration or his $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill to finance the Green New Deal and expand entitlement spending, do you have any doubt but that the Biden administration would call up the National Guard to disperse the protesters or that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer wouldn’t openly support using force against the protesters–Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights?

      The FBI would be crawling through our social media posts to see who should be monitored because of their speech and pushing to prosecute people for what they said online in support of holding protests, much like they’re doing with plenty of the people who voiced skepticism of the 2020 election results and sought to organize a protest against them. Now let’s talk about the government effectively banning social media from contradicting government agencies like the CDC about the efficacy of masks the NIH about the possible origins of the pandemic–despite the Bill of Rights.

      We are not immune to the effects of a pandemic driven economic collapse and we are not immune to an authoritarian response to criticism and protest–Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights. Our politicians empower government bureaucrats to inflict unpopular policies on millions of unwilling people and justify their authoritarian response as a defense of democracy, too. It’s just that some of us can see things clearly when we’re looking at what’s happening in other counties and why, but in our own country, we’re more susceptible for buying into the government’s rationalizations.

      Yes, I’d hate to think how bad it might be for us without the Bill of Rights, but the rationalizations of the authoritarians who control our government in a one party state are finding ways around our Bill of Rights. And anyone who buys into their rationalizations is doing the cause of liberty great harm. I’ve seen people on this very website defend rank government intimidation of social media in terms of freedom of association and property rights. We are not so different from the rest of the world. It’s just hard to see ourselves objectively.

      1. By your logic, the Depression of 1920-1921 was like pressurized oxygen to the Tulsa Race Riots.

        1. I think this is another satire piece. Ken is brilliant at satire.

        2. You might have pointed to the Spanish Flu, as well, but, yeah, is there some good reason to think that economic catastrophes and social unrest aren’t related?

          Looting and natural disasters are also related.

          1. The unemployment rate went from about 3% to over 15% in a period of three months. In an economy of 230 million people, that means tens of millions of people were suddenly unemployed, and they’re disproportionately people who can’t work online.

            Waiters, truck drivers, retail sales people, with students, the young, and minority populations overrepresented among them. Under those conditions, the chances of social unrest exploding are practically 100%. If you went back in time and made it so the George Floyd incident never happened, we’d probably see the same result anyway.

            In Southern California we have something called a Santa Ana wind. The wind shift direction and starts coming from the desert rather than the ocean. The chances of wildfires breaking out are about 100%–especially if there was a lot of rain and, thus, a lot of dried out weeds covering everything over the spring before.

            Maybe the wildfire will be started by a campfire. Maybe it will be started by a lightening strike. Maybe it will be started by someone flicking a cigarette. Maybe it will be stared by powerlines. Whatever the incident, the ultimate force driving those fires isn’t any of those things. It’s the Santa Ana winds and heavy rains in the spring. Under those conditions, you can’t stop a fire from breaking out somewhere.

            1. I heard they were all caused by climate change.

              1. I heard we were already dead.

              2. Climate change does not cause fires. Climate change makes conditions more suitable for wild fires to occur, should an ignition source be available.

        3. P.S. The revolutions of 1848, the protest movements of 1968, and the populist movements all over the world circa 2016 also happened all over the world for more or less the same reasons–not that the people who made them happen saw them that way. Regardless, the technological, political, and economic forces that drove them weren’t limited by international borders or language barriers.

          In the revolutions of 1848, the local Poles were revolting against their Prussian overlords, with local issues as a focus. The people of modern Colombia weren’t revolting against the Prussians. They had their own local concerns, but they were all driven by the same kinds of social changes.

          The protest movements of 1968 weren’t focused on the same things everywhere. The Prague Spring wasn’t about Vietnam or the Democratic Convention in Chicago, and neither were the 1968 student protests in Mexico City against the Mexican government.

          The populist movements of 2016 were more or less the same thing. The election of Donald Trump wasn’t about getting out of the EU. Brexit was about getting out of the EU. The emergence of populist parties in France and Italy were largely driven by concerns about the EU’s handline of refugees from the Syrian revolution as well as African immigrants streaming through Libya. A lot of Germans were still upset with Merkel over the bailout of Greece. Those populist movements focused on different issues, but they were driven by the same social and economic forces everywhere.

          Do we need to mention that the Arab Spring in Syria wasn’t focused on liberating Tunisia, or that the Arab Spring in Libya wasn’t about freeing the Syrian people from Assad? All those movements were driven by technological change (the ability to organize protests on social media) and inflation, particularly in the cost in food rising dramatically over a short period of time. Again, the movements take on a local focus, but the driving forces behind them are much larger than the individual nations themselves.

          Technological, social, and economic changes impact the whole world at more or less the same time, and a world wide, pandemic driven, economic collapse is no exception. When historians look back at the events of 2020 and 2021, they will talk about it in the same terms we use to describe the Revolutions of 1848 or the Protest Movements of 1968. To expect there not to have been massive social unrest–all over the world–in the wake of the biggest and most sudden economic collapse in modern history would be unreasonable.

          1. That would seem to be a pretty decent analysis.

      2. “…but the rationalizations of the authoritarians who control our government in a one party state are finding ways around our Bill of Rights.”

        Last time I checked, we do NOT yet have a 1-party state in the USA! We have both “R” and “D” Senators, Congress-slimes, and Governors! Which USA are YOU living in, Ken?

        As far as is goes, WHO is lusting most strongly, lately, for a 1-party state here in the USA? Read the FACTS below! Mostly FACTS here; not much-so an editorial!

        https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
        Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

        1. Wow SQRLSY; UR a dumb*ss…

          Ken, “justify their authoritarian response as a defense of democracy” <<<— THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF LEFTY dumb*sses like you….

          There cannot be a respected 'Bill of Rights' when too many think the currently majority of elected [WE] mobs are the 1-party ruler above and beyond the U.S. Constitution… WHICH *IS* THE VERY IDEOLOGY OF THE LEFTY and their "democracy" championing.

          Republicans recognize a place for democracy UNDER the U.S. Constitution not OVER it. That is absolutely undeniable after reading both the [D] and [R] parties platforms.

          So yes; Republicans don't look at democrats as 'just another party' BECAUSE they are treasonous to the USA with their Nazi take-over ideology. They want to redefine the USA; they're not 'just another party'.

          The Democrats weren't always as Anti-USA as they are today; but in general they've always been the Party of Slavery which isn't 'just another party' ideology.

          1. Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot! We are STILL waiting for you to tell us WHICH Party you want to be Your Chosen Party in your 1-party state! Which parties do you want to outlaw, and what should be the penalty for belonging to an illegal political party? Is that asking too much, for you to answer these VERY simple questions?

            https://reason.com/2021/01/18/carjacker-beaverton-mom-kid-waiting/#comment-8710844
            Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dicktatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dicktatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!
            Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)
            PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20000 Dictatorbot!!!

            1. Typical lefty —

              You can’t reasonably defeat the stated;

              That the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law – The people’s law over their government.

              So you just spam the world with witch-hunting ‘de-stain’ slogan propaganda like it was a new faith-based religion.

              Unable to see that such mentality is nothing new but a repeated idiots stain on human history.

              Then again; what should be expected of the party who thinks their Gov-Gods can legislate the weather like they have Godly powers.

              1. ‘A) You said the USA has always been a 1-party state, and NEVER took back your stupid OR your evil!

                ‘B) You won’t tell us which should be (or is) the legal ONE party, which parties should be (or are) outlawed, and what the punishments should be (or are, in Your Imaginary-Land), for belonging to the “WRONG” party!

                This is classical behavior for would-be power-pig dicktatorshits… NOT answering, honestly, SIMPLE questions from the peons!

                Go look in a mirror, power-pig, Evil One Junior!

                If you ever come around to wanting to work on your affliction, EvilBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
                https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
                People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

                1. Your ignorance knows no boundaries….

                  The U.S. Constitution **IS** (as I’ve told you many times before) the 1-Party and any proclaimed “party” that willfully breaks that ‘party law’ is the WRONG party.

                  Your biggest problem (as I’ve told you many times before) is like most lefties you CANNOT SEE ANYTHING beyond [WE] mob mentality. All you see is [WE] foundations “democratically” at war for unlimited Gov-Gun-Power… Gangs of the Hood…

                  The USA was never ‘founded’ on principles of giving a “gang” (the prom queen popularity contest) unlimited Gov-Gun-Force POWER. Yet you continue to be entirely ignorant of that concept and actually have the audacity to call a LIMIT (Constitution) a “power-pig” dictatorship.

                  1. “The U.S. Constitution **IS** (as I’ve told you many times before) the 1-Party … blah-blah-blah…”

                    For the billionth time, would-be Power Pig of All Power Pigs, SIMPLE questions from mere little ol’ peon me, for our Future Napolean Uber Alles…

                    WHICH is the “1-Party”, WHO is outlawed, and HOW is Big Power Pig YOU gonna PUNISH all the wrong ones when you go FUCKING LOONY-BIN POSTAL on the wrong ones? Also, new question, since the USA Constitution is so sacred to you… WHERE (in there or anywhere else) is it written, WHICH party is legal, anyway? Or do we have to “just trust in Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot”?

                    1. lmao… I see it’s not a matter of answering your question; its a matter of answering your question the way you want it to be answered.

                      Well sorry; I will not be coerced and manipulated that way.

                    2. Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot says we are a 1-party state, and will answer NO questions from the peons, on the matter!!!

                      Only an utter fool would trust Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot to do ANYTHING useful for them, let alone get anywhere near political power or influence! Sensible readers who value your freedom, beware! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot may soon be going postal in a post office near YOU!

                    3. 5 flags for the spastic!

                  2. SQRLSY should be put down.

          2. Pelosi and Co. are being overtaken by the younger generation, headed by rabid marxists like AOC and her pals. They are now an existential threat to our rights and our movies.

            We better nut up and stop them, soon.

            1. All good. You’ll have your chance in another 3.5 years. That’s how Democracy works.

      3. It’s important to remember that the Bill of Rights (and the constitution in general) is just a piece of paper. It is a set of scribbles written hundreds of years ago by some humans. It’s not divinely inspired. It has no authority or meaning beyond what we give it. There are no fundamental human rights, there are no natural limits on the power of the state. All of these things come from the decision of some people that they should not be governed by another, but should govern themselves, and with the governing of the self comes the responsibility of affording rights to the self. I think that’s the thing that people forget most in modern times. They start to think of rights as something that flows from beneficence of the king, rather than something that flows from the responsibility of the self. As Americans, we don’t have anyone that we can plead to for our rights. There’s no one to blame when our government doesn’t work. Ultimately, if the Bill of Rights stops having meaning it is because we will have stopped giving it meaning.

        1. n00bdragon gets it! No document(s) will save us, from tyranny or anything else! We have to save ourselves! Every generation, over and over and over again!

          1. SQRLSY simplified, “[WE] mob RULES will save us!” …. Not any defined LIMITS over our RULERS..

            They are after all; Elected Gov-Gods…. Right? Right??

            1. Please post a link where I ever said anything like that, where it wasn’t totally clear (to all but self-deceiving Evil Ones who deliberately lust after believing their own lies) that I was being sarcastic.

              1. Is there any that couldn’t be *simplified* to exactly that?

                P.S. I read some of your ‘Salon’ lefty-indoctrination article – hilarious… The ‘Big Lie’ that election integrity is racist and anti-democracy???? How do you eat such sh*t?

                Lets start with the REAL way Hitler actually did take over Germany; blaming a party for “insurrection” (i.e. The Reichstag Fire) when no insurrection occurred ……. Ya know; like the Jan. 6th “Reichstag Fire” extinguisher…. 🙂

                1. Hitler near-immediately instituted 1-Party rule. That’s why you’re such a BIG fan of Hitler, then, right, Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot?

                  1. [WE] mob Rules is a 1-Party RULE… That’s why Democrats champion “democracy” OVER the U.S. Constitution as well as champions “National Socialism” which **IS** Nazism (the party of Hitler).

              2. …And for lesson #2;

                The real problem with Germany was it’s lack of support for an agreed upon ‘defined’ Individual Liberty and Justice. That 1-Party ideology you love to deem a ‘threat’ to your “National Socialist” Party (actual definition being; NAZISM) “democracy”.

                Instead Germany was divided into Communists and Nazis – two peas of the same pod.

                1. NAZIs (and other fascists) and communists (despite lying about it) have always, de facto, practiced 1-party rule, the same as is advocated by Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot. EIN Reich, EIN Volk, EIN Fuhrer! Now add EIN USA Party, and EIN Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot is the THIRD pea in the all-must-be-EIN (One), of the THREE peas in the pod of the Pod People!

                  Will your Reich of the Pod People last 1,000 years, aspirationally?

                  1. Yet you remain completely ignorant about all the 1-party rule’s that VIOLATES Individual Liberty and Justice by the 1-parties *ignorance* of the U.S. Constitution (The people’s law) over them every-time they get “democratically” elected as a majority.

                    Why? Because [WE] mobs RULE!!! /s — cheer the Democrats in this nation. And not just ‘rules’ but MUST rule the entire Nation in contrast to that “Power-Pig” dictation idea of being a Constitutional Union of Republican States.

                    You couldn’t be quoting “Hitler” any better if you tried…

                  2. There is a party in your mouth.

                    1. Chumpy Chump defends the defenders of 1-party rule! What a surprise!

                    2. Yes SQRLSY, USA Patriots defend the ‘rule’ of the U.S. Constitution.
                      Supporting those politicians who honor their SWORN OATH of office.

                      What a surprise! No, not really.

                    3. Yup. One party rule. International socialism. You caught me.

                    4. Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot STILL refuses to answer questions about the 1,000 Reich of the 1-Party Pod People, as lead by Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot!

                      THIS is what you get when the “leadership” feels ZERO responsibility to the pod people supposedly being “led”! What a surprise!

                    5. Compelling speech and pushing a race theory are not activities partaken by Trump. But both Biden and third reich hitched wagons to those.

                    6. Neither Biden nor the Third Reich have forced me to say ANYTHING at all! What have they made YOU say, forced-speech-wise, Chumpy Chump? Or are you just another whiner-crybaby whining about imaginary wounds? WHERE does it hurt, crybaby?

                    7. 7 flags for the spastic!

                    8. Some fierce and brave Truth-Speakers-Wannabes are actually whining little crybabies who want to run to Big Mommy Government Almighty’s courts of law, every time that someone hurts their little baby FEELINGS, right, Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo?

                      https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/#comment-9001051

                    9. Didn’t take your meds today did you.

        2. Your post sounds familiar:

          “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

          ― Ronald Reagan

        3. “There are no natural limits on the power of the state.”

          I understand what you’re saying here, but for others who might misinterpret it, . . .

          I would only argue with this is true to the extent that the government is limited in that it must suffer the negative consequences of violating our rights.

          The Soviet Union can violate its people’s property rights, but they are limited in that they must suffer the negative consequences of doing so–and over time, that can prove to be a significant limitation. Ultimately, it buried them.

          We could say the same kind of thing about inflation, and how they can’t escape the negative consequences of overspending, but IF IF IF we hold the people who run our government accountable, they also can’t escape the negative consequences of violating our free speech rights, our right to contradict their bureaucrats on social media, our right to protest en masse in Washington DC, etc.

          A society without free speech suffers negative consequences for that, but people who are willing to defy them–either through criticism, protest, or voting–is one of the most proactive means of making them suffer the effects of their choice to violate our rights.

          The Declaration of Independence is a great guide to this. You violated our rights by doing this. You violated our rights by doing that. You violated our rights by doing this. You violated our rights by doing that. And now we’ve had enough! Because they weren’t allowed to vote in Parliament, they didn’t have much means to protest apart from Revolution. That was after they exhausted the other possibilities. I think there needs to be a massive, peaceful protest in Washington DC. I think we need to criticize this one party government for violating our rights on social media and to our friends and family.

          But the mere existence of the Bill of Rights isn’t enough to protect us. We need to become the negative consequences of violating our rights.

        4. I think that’s the thing that people forget most in modern times. They start to think of rights as something that flows from beneficence of the king, rather than something that flows from the responsibility of the self.

          Exactly. I have always struggled to understand how anyone can not see how the 2A is the most important in the Bill of Rights. Ceding the responsibility to protect oneself and one’s property is the first step on the road to every police state in history.

    2. George Floyd was used to preempt lockdown protests/riots.
      Not coincidence.

      1. Thank you for not ranting.
        That is all.

      2. I don’t know, there had been riots about similar things before. What evidence do you have?

  12. Many Americans are begging for this kind of behavior from government. All for some perceived “greater good”.

    1. Only those who feel they won’t be economically affected by these actions

      As economic distress spreads the number supporting will decrease.

      Wonder whats happening in Africa where if they lockdown they all starve?

      1. The stupidity of the Federal Reserve Act, FDR’s Re-Election and more than a Decade of Depression leave’s your “they’ll learn better when it gets worse” theory lacking evidence.

        I throw it into the pot with the repeat criminal offenders. Until the day they change their mind about *earning* versus *stealing* it really doesn’t matter how ‘bad’ their situation gets.

      2. I’m sure it’s like everywhere else, people get sick, and 99% of them recover.

    2. That’s the lefts master slogan isn’t it… Nazism (def; National Socialism) is the “greater good” for the USA.. Championing Nazism is what Nazi’s do.

    3. Yep The I’m smarter than you crowd. You just don’t know how to live properly. They’ll make all decision for people too stupid to agree with them.

  13. Sweden is not socialist. Hasn’t been since the 1970s. They’re also not following the crowd by imposing mandatory pandemic lockdowns.

    So will the new Left mantra now be, “We should be more like Australia?”

  14. Police arrested dozens of participants, vowed to hunt down more, and threatened mass arrests in the event of future acts of dissent.

    Sounds like Australia is about 6 months behind us.

  15. “Australia also has no tradition of liberty in a sense Americans might understand, and appeals to freedom are looked at suspiciously,”

    Something something prison colony.

    1. It’s also complete nonsense. Australians enjoy the same freedoms that Americans do, of those of any other Western Democratic nation. Australians do not have the freedom to inflict harm on their fellow citizens. The demonstrators were acting in ways that inflicted harm on their fellow citizens and should be prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows.

      1. “Australians enjoy the same freedoms that Americans do, of those of any other Western Democratic nation.”

        Sure, as long as they have the “correct” political opinions. BLM? In Victoria, you have the right to protest during a pandemic. 28-year-old pregnant anti-lockdown woman? You can’t even _suggest_ a protest on social media without being arrested.

        1. “You can’t even _suggest_ a protest on social media without being arrested.”

          Prove it. ANYONE can apply to protest on public streets. ANYONE. For any reason. They may, or may not, be granted permission to disrupt traffic and other citizens, depending on a range of factors. HOWEVER, we are in the midst of a serious pandemic. NO ONE may protest right now, in Sydney, for any reason.

          That said, you still need to prove your idiotic claim. Over to you.

          1. “ANYONE can apply to protest on public streets”

            Apply to protest… Apply to engage in free speech. Pretty gross, that country you got there.

            1. Not so different to the US, as it happens:

              https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

              1. Among other things, your source says “You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic.” and “Certain types of events may require permits. These include a march or parade that requires blocking traffic or street closure;”

                It’s your point though, so I won’t compare it with your Aussie law. It will likely turn out that they are much more restrictive in practice. The proof is for you to make though.

                In our country, even Shit like BLM gets a pass. Which, I have trouble saying it, is a good thing, fundamentally. Compared to what I hear from your betters, I think there is a difference between us.

          2. Yep. In your country you can do whatever you want….. as long as the state permits it. You would have made a good Soviet.

            1. Sure. No different to the US:

              https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

              Or are you suggesting that the violent criminals, who damaged private property, endangered the lives of police and law-abiding citizens, assaulted police horses and police should be allowed to engage in such activities?

              Why do you support violent thugs?

              1. Just because one argues you should be allowed to deny the holocaust as part of free speech, that doesn’t mean one is a holocaust denier. That’s the price to pay, unfortunately. Unless you are vanquished, of course.

              2. So your straw man that Mark supports violent thugs is burning in the outback right now.

                1. ANYONE who thinks that the protesters from last weekend were acting responsibly, automatically supports violence. They were just a bunch violent, unthinking thugs, who were happy to place police and other citizens at risk.

                  1. Authoritarianism showing too, in that post. Automatic accusations, and you saying Mark thinks they were acting responsibly, all claims to build your burning strawman.

                    Mainly with the authoritarianism, again, so different from anything American, I can’t even.

                    1. The protesters were assaulting police, destroying public and private property, inconveniencing citizens and placing those same citizens in danger.

                      Exactly what part of the above do you find acceptable?

                      Why do you support a bunch of violent thugs attacking police?

                    2. My problem was in your claim that someone “automatically” supports something based on what you accused them of. You fuck strawmen for sex dolls because you cant afford the latter it seems. Strawman: Nobody here supports violent thugs, no matter how “automatic” your little wombat brain thinks that is. Lmao

      2. “Australians enjoy the same freedoms that Americans do, of those of any other Western Democratic nation.”

        On paper, even in a communist nation, you actually do enjoy a plethora of freedoms. But look at the details of implementation and the outcomes. Because then, your little land of Oz seems to be dominated by a a few wizards and witches who grant you exactly what they please and nothing more.

        You Aussie guys are so fundamentally different from anything American, it seems futile to talk to you about it.

        1. “You Aussie guys are so fundamentally different from anything American, it seems futile to talk to you about it.”

          Utter and complete bollocks. I’ve visited the US several times and Guam once. The US is not as different as you imagine it is. The US and Australia have a shared history, descended from English legal and societal conventions. Sure, there are some differences, but they are truly minor in the big scheme of things.

          I suggest you visit Australia sometime. You may be very surprised at how similar the two nations are.

          1. Your analysis is flawed.

            1. OK. How? Take as much space and time as you require to answer. Oh, BTW: When was the last time you visited Australia?

              1. It doesn’t matter who visited Oz and who hasn’t. Check out the govt overreach and the number of guns confiscated. Again, 600K guns confiscated, we have 30 times more AR-styles in our country alone. We are deeply, fundamentally different when it comes to how we feel about the right to be an armed public, that is as much as I can tell you for sure.

                1. “It doesn’t matter who visited Oz and who hasn’t.”

                  If a person wants to comment on Australian society without experiencing it, then they are speaking from a position of ignorance.

                  As for government over-reach, I point out to you a couple of facts:

                  1) The Howard, conservative government, that brought about the 1996 gun control law changes, was re-elected another THREE times, after 1996.
                  2) Various polls put the 1996 gun control law changes at around 90 ~ 95% approval rating. Australians got the gun laws we wanted.

                  Just as Americans have the gun laws they want. Clearly, the majority of Americans are happy with their gun control laws. Aussies are happy with ours. You can bitch and whine about out gun control laws all you wish. You don’t live here and you don’t vote here, so you don’t get to decide. Just as I don’t get to decide US gun control laws.

                  1. “If a person wants to comment on Australian society without experiencing it, then they are speaking from a position of ignorance.”

                    You haven’t experienced American society because you have been on a trip here once, for 2 weeks. Your premise is feeble and it shows you don’t even seem to know how to “experience” a society.

                    “You can bitch and whine about out gun control laws all you wish. You don’t live here and you don’t vote here, so you don’t get to decide. Just as I don’t get to decide US gun control laws.”

                    LMFAO yea, who has been bitching about American gun control laws? 😀 Fair enough, Reason Magazine may not understand that there are societies who love to be serfs. And if the 90%+ support you state is true, well, then that’s great for you and I am happy you love to be in a position where the government listening to you is kind of optional. But again, don’t tell me what’s wrong with my freedom in America, it just makes you look like a shill. 😉

                    1. “You haven’t experienced American society because you have been on a trip here once, for 2 weeks.”

                      That would be your strawman. I’ve visited the US several times. 10 times, if I recall correctly. A couple of months was my longest trip. I have a pretty good handle on the mess that is the US. One of my mates spends 50% of his time in the US (though not in the last 18 months) and 50% over here. He describes the rapidly declining social order.

                      Ownership of a firearm is not an expression of freedom. It reflects a quirk of the US Constitution. Nothing more.

                    2. “Ownership of a firearm is not an expression of freedom. It reflects a quirk of the US Constitution. Nothing more.”

                      Defeated australian serfs will tell you that. But trusting mature people with firearms on the same level as they are being trusted with other sources of deadly force (knives, electricity, cars…) is an American thing defeated dipshits may not understand. And the utility of an armed public was apparent to some minds 3 centuries ago, and it is still apparent to many today. You don’t have to understand or appreciate it, but please know that your opinion is really not in demand anywhere outside your barbarian, pseudo-continental island where people apparently get beaten to bloody pulps for voicing their opinion (according to your other comment), as your people seem to be fucking dilapidated subhuman monkeys lmao. 😀

                      And you visiting 10 times obviously doesn’t even get you close to understanding our mentality.

                      You come in here saying you have a good handle on the “mess” that is the US because you are butthurt about a reason article that points out your pathetic countries authoritarian tendencies. Yea, I totally value your opinion, defeated disgrace. Have fun with government cock sucking ad infinitum you little koala lol 😀

          2. I was in Australia. I fucked my friend from Australia. She has pathetic opinions on gun control because she once had a guy who was the typical abusive piece of shit with guns. But the porking was worth it lol

            Your derivation is bullshit/nonexistent. That’s like saying the difference between us and Africa are minor because we have the same roots. You need to to put some meat to that claim. From my personal experience with Aussies, they usually don’t get that we are only similar on paper.

  16. “I also reject a Bill of Rights framework because it elevates rights to the detriment of responsibilities.”

    Wow. Just wow.

    1. My response exactly. This seems to be how the world is going, and we [the US] are indeed the exception.

      1. Have you been paying attention? The US is not at all an exception to the wave of totalitarianism engulfing the world.

        1. I pay attention every day; yes we are threatened [by an overreaching government every day] but we are not done yet. Many of us still value our inherent and inalienable rights; that is what makes us exceptional and the only thing that gives me any hope.

          1. we are not done yet…

            Yes we are. We will never be able to unlatch the entitlements class from the teat of taxpayers until the hosts are sucked dry or they leave.

            It will take a (painful) dissolution to become free of the failed policies of our 20th century Statists. The Constitution can be successfully re-used by any of the sides as is (minus the amendments after the 15th) at least until the voters once again learn to enrich themselves from the treasury once more.

            Watering the tree of liberty and all that…

            1. “a (painful) dissolution”

              I take that to be a civil war, that will be a lot less civil than the last.
              Things will have to get very bad indeed for any number of Americans to stop watching nonstop media, get their asses off the couch, and start shooting one another. The will have to be watching their children literally starve in front of them before there will be sufficient motivation to take up arms and conduct internecine war.

              I do however believe that at least some degree of dissolution is certainly possible, and likely necessary. Will that be 10th Amendment, whereby States largely retake their sovereign powers and manage their own affairs, and hopefully cooperate on currency, trade, and national defense? An Article V effort [currently well under way] whereby the government is stripped of much of it’s power, it’s ability to wantonly spend trillions as though there is no tomorrow, and be limited in it’s scope? Or will we have to actually [geographically] divide along ideological, political, economic and social lines?

              All are excellent ideas for apocalyptic literature.

              1. There will be blood, but it doesn’t have to be 1861. More like Brexit, but with better assetts.

                Once an Art V effort is underway, the result is just as likely to end in a Canada or even Mexico as it would in a document that promotes the individual over the State. It’s a roll of the dice.

                No matter what, freedom is in the rear view mirror, maybe forever.

        2. But it is totalitarianism that tells people how free they are. It’s great!

          (Note: Max sarcasm was used in this post.)

        3. I’ve been saying for many years now that something must be done about our progs. Nothing has been done to even contain them and we are now seeing the results, if we don’t defend ourselves soon, it will be over. Elections and the courts are failing us. More is required.

          We need our freedom. We do not need democrats.

  17. I believe these takeaways speak for themselves:

    “Police arrested dozens of participants, vowed to hunt down more, and threatened mass arrests in the event of future acts of dissent.”

    “You will be arrested and prosecuted. The community has spoken about that behavior [public dissent]. The Premier has spoken about that behavior and it won’t be tolerated again.”

    “…officials made clear that the behavior they won’t tolerate is public dissent. Civil liberties may have a place, the powers-that-be suggest, but they must give way to more important concerns.”

    “The essence of my objection to a Bill of Rights is that, contrary to its very description, it reduces the rights of citizens to determine matters over which they [the government?] should [collectively] continue to exercise control,” former Prime Minister John Howard told an audience in 2009. “I also reject a Bill of Rights framework because it elevates rights to the detriment of responsibilities.”

    “Australian Federal Police raided media offices in 2019 after a series of embarrassing stories about military misconduct and domestic surveillance. The government also holds some trials in secret under the cloak of national security.”

    Ok, let’s watch and see how all of this plays out; Australia and New Zealand can be interesting experiments in how life is without a BOR; my question to my fellow commentariat here is DOES ANYONE WANT TO LIVE LIKE THIS?

    In answering that, please try to remember it is not just about pandemics or who happens to be POTUS at the moment.

  18. Yep what precipitated all this was years ago Aussies gave up their right to firearms. Now, witness the terror.

    1. The Bill of Rights; it ALL matters.

    2. Nonsense. There are more firearms circulating (legally) in Australia, than there were prior to the 1996 firearms legislation. Learn the facts, before commenting.

        1. Regardless, I note that you failed to correct the insane lie published above:

          “Yep what precipitated all this was years ago Aussies gave up their right to firearms. Now, witness the terror.”

          I will say once more: Australians NEVER had any such “right” to possess firearms as part of a regulated militia. Not once, not ever. We never “gave up” something that we never had. As for the “Now, witness the terror”, well that was clearly written by someone who has never visited our peaceful land. Australians do not live in terror. Unlike many Americans who live in a constant state of paranoia.

          1. You sound like a sock for Queen Asshole [credit to Sevo].

            1. Yet another succinct and eloquent argument from you.

              NOT!

              1. You make no supportable arguments. Just proclamations which are discredited. Then you bitch and moan with vague accusations.

                You don’t debate. You gibber.

                1. Wrong. I deal with facts. Always. That you find facts inconvenient says more about you than it does about me.

                  And here’s one fact for you:

                  The violent thugs who demonstrated last weekend, endangered the lives of citizens and police. They damaged private and public property. They also attacked the horses used by police.

                  Why do you think that any of this is acceptable behaviour? You approve of violent thugs who break the law?

                  Why?

                  1. Is collecting strawmen a hobby on your defeated, spineless and globally irrelevant island?

          2. I don’t care about your peaceful land. Peace can be found in a prison cell of 50 square feet with a bed, four walls and 3 daily meals with water.

            Defeated, disarmed, impotent inhabitants of unimportant pseudo-continents have no horse in the race of personal freedom. I suggest you find a Chinese wee wee to enjoy.

  19. No Bill of Rights?
    Can’t Australia just borrow ours? We’re not using it anymore.

    1. At the very least if a government leader here were to say that any act of dissent or protest would not be tolerated and that you would be tracked down, arrested, and prosecuted for peaceably assembling, there would be outrage. We still do value our individual freedom and in spite of each camp wanting government to stick it to their enemies, when it comes to suppression on a personal level the natural outcome is resentment, indignation, and righteous anger.

      We still have a bill of rights, but far too many just take it for granted. And as many have said, if we do not cherish, defend, and protect our rights, the Constitution is nothing more than a quaint historical document that could be sold at an auction.

      1. It depends on who is deciding if a protest is “mostly peaceful” or not. People who protested the election results were tracked down, arrested and prosecuted, while other even less peaceful protestors nationwide were neither tracked down nor prosecuted (even though some were arrested.)

        1. It is true that what MSM called “mostly peaceful” protestors [while flames literally billowed in the background] got off for causing billions of dollars of wanton destruction, while the January 6th crowed is getting the book thrown at them. As you say, it depends on who is doing the deciding [and that is largely politicians] and whether they will dodge problems or gain points by their actions.

          Arresting persons of color in Minneapolis who are ostensibly “protesting” racism? Not a chance. Rounding up a bunch of pro Trump flyover white rowdies from flyover country for breaching the Capitol? Hell yeah.

        2. Good point. All the peaceful Jan 6 protesters should be given a pass because the government didn’t crack down hard enough on the summer riots. It’s the only fair thing to do. Logically that means that had there been thousands of arrests over the summer, that prosecuting the Jan 6 rioters would be ok. But because there wasn’t, then it’s not.

          1. The govt did crack down on the Floyd most especially in places where Republicans controlled the levers more directly but basically everywhere there were crackdowns because cops are generally rightwing types. Remember, the cops were shooting people in the face blinding dozens. They were beating the shit out of protesters all summer. The rightwing was never happier then when a legitimate protest went sideways. They loved it. They love it when violence breaks out. Don’t believe for one second they genuinely care about it. They salivate when it happens or even try to cause it.

            1. “…Remember, the cops were shooting people in the face blinding dozens…”

              You.
              Are.
              STILL.
              Full
              Of.
              Shit.

            2. Oh look, you made up a bunch of vague assertions not based on facts, or reality. How……. You.

  20. I thought we were the canary in the coal mine when the Biden regime started holding protesters in solitary confinement without charges.

    But Reason doesn’t talk about that, so I guess it doesn’t count.

    1. “Biden regime started holding protesters in solitary confinement without charges.”

      Citation pretty please?

  21. Progressives are just fascists with better branding and marketing. Same components. Same outcomes.

    1. “Progressives are just fascists with better branding and marketing.”

      And with pussies (real or virtual).

    2. Progressives are just fascists with better branding and marketing. Same components. Same outcomes.

      The original Fascists certainly thought of themselves as very progressive.
      A recent book argues that “the Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism.”

    3. Fascism, like communism, is a type of progressivism

  22. Once a penal colony always a penal colony.

    Also, there is no nanny like a British (heritage) nanny.

    1. At least au pairs have decent teeth. Usually.

  23. As an Aussie (and Sydney resident), I believe that this nation needs a BoR. No doubt about it. As an Aussie, I share the same opinion as the majority that safety and security of my fellow Aussies is paramount. IOW: Listen to the science and the medical professionals and not the ignorant, violent thugs that held an illegal, violent and dangerous demonstration over the weekend. The minuscule proportion of Sydney-siders who engaged in that violent, illegal demonstration should be locked up for the good of the majority of Aussies who support the medical advice.

    I am quite comfortable with my fellow Aussies practicing their right not to wear masks and/or engage in a practice that may lead to an increase in COVID-19 cases, PROVIDED they do so within their own property and refrain from doing so in public spaces, which will place others in danger.

    1. Not every person who appeals to safety and security is an authoritarian; however, all authoritarians make appeals to safety and security.

      The direct quotes from your leaders about general principles, as given in the article, are bad enough regardless of what the author or you may be putting on the one demonstration.

    2. “I believe that this nation needs a BoR. No doubt about it. As an Aussie, I share the same opinion as the majority that safety and security of my fellow Aussies is paramount.”

      The majority in Oz (which places safety before freedom) doesn’t NEED a bill of rights. They can basically vote for whatever they want. It’s the minority you despise (that puts freedom before safety) that needs a B of R to protect themselves against you.

      1. I do not despise the minority. I despise those who choose to destroy public property, assault police and place the rest of the population and our medical system at risk.

  24. At least they have an armed populace. Oh that’s right Australians fixed there 1 in a 10 million mass shooting problem, but giving up all there legal weapons.

    1. Nonsense. Study the facts, before making ignorant proclamations. Here are some facts for you:
      * SOME Australians handed in their ILLEGAL firearms for destruction after the 1996 firearms laws were implemented.
      * Firearms may be purchased by Australians who require them.
      * Legal firearms were not given up. Illegal ones were.
      * There are MORE firearms circulating in the Australian community today, than there were prior to the firearms buyback.
      * Prior to the 1996 firearms law changes, there was an average of one mass murder, committed by firearms, each year. (Not “1 in 10 million”)
      * After the 1996 firearms law changes, there has been a total of ONE mass murder, committed via firearms. That makes it an average of one every 24 years. One can only conclude that the 1996 firearms laws have been spectacularly successful.

      1. Your phrasing is telling. Your premises are shit.

        1. Impressively and eloquently argued.

          NOT!

          1. In the words of your own leadership:

            “Police arrested dozens of participants, vowed to hunt down more, and threatened mass arrests in the event of future acts of dissent.”

            “You will be arrested and prosecuted. The community has spoken about that behavior [public dissent]. The Premier has spoken about that behavior and it won’t be tolerated again.”

            “…officials made clear that the behavior they won’t tolerate is public dissent. Civil liberties may have a place, the powers-that-be suggest, but they must give way to more important concerns.”

            “The essence of my objection to a Bill of Rights is that, contrary to its very description, it reduces the rights of citizens to determine matters over which they [the government?] should [collectively] continue to exercise control,” former Prime Minister John Howard told an audience in 2009. “I also reject a Bill of Rights framework because it elevates rights to the detriment of responsibilities.”

            “Australian Federal Police raided media offices in 2019 after a series of embarrassing stories about military misconduct and domestic surveillance. The government also holds some trials in secret under the cloak of national security.”

            1. Are you suggesting that those who engage in violent protest, endangering the lives of police officers and the public should not be hunted down and prosecuted?

              Why do you support violence?

      2. buying a firearm in australia is difficult and not guaranteed. for example you must provide a reason for having a firearm and provide proof of said reason. once you need to provide a reason you don’t have a right to own a firearm like in the us. when you are at the whim of the gov the gov can easily just say no to every request. if i want a new firearm i drive to the local shop and drive home with the firearm. easy, peasy just like it should be.

      3. “* Firearms may be purchased by Australians who require them.”

        An essential lie. You and your betters don’t get to decide who “requires” them, disarmed loser.

        1. I have no “betters”. ALL Australians are equal under the law. I am, however, comfortable with the strictures in place that ensure firearms are not easily available to drunks, drug addicts and violent criminals. I understand that the US lacks any such strictures that effectively prevent undesirables from easy access to firearms.

          Further: The 1996 firearms laws were introduced by the Howard government. The Howard government was returned to power a further three times, so clearly the vast majority of Australians were and are comfortable with our tough firearms restrictions. You may disagree with those restrictions, as is your right.

          1. All Aussies are equally worthless under the law which doesn’t permit them to have their natural right to a weapon unless “required”.

            Easy access for drunks and druggies to cars is part of what makes a free society. Again, you can lick the balls of your precious “undesirables”, who give you an easy way to justify your universal restriction boner.

          2. And again, we ARE fundamentally different. Stay with your wizards and witches.

            1. No. You like to THINK you are fundamentally different. You’re not.

              1. We are fundamentally different though. I mean, there’s also nothing to that claim of yours.

                Look at how happy the people in my country are with their freedom telling government where their place is. Yours, on the other hand, love their little control measures. And I mean, statements like “I also reject a Bill of Rights framework because it elevates rights to the detriment of responsibilities.” is so fundamentally anti-American, again, it is not even worth trying to make you understand.

                Yes, we are fundamentally different.

      4. Before you give me vanquished, mollycoddled, disarmed statistics about plummeting gun deaths:

        If you banned cars, car accidents would plummet. Go ban cars. Defeated, pusillanimous, corner-sitting clingers are what they are because they refuse to pay the price of freedom.

        (Kirkspeech is a fucking blast. I’m a freshman at the moment though. Give me a rating so I can improve.)

        1. How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

          For the record: Approximately 10,000 Americans are murdered via gunshot each and every year.

          After we determine the number of vehicle homicides committed each year, then we can decide on the public utility of “banning cars”.

          1. Get your numbers straight. Like 60% of gun deaths are consensual suicides, people using what they have to end their lives on their own terms instead of jumping of a building or drug overdose, hanging etc. This is perfectly fine use, as it is self-determined. Then a whole lotta accidents by irresponsible gun owners, who should get them taken away. Then tons of thug on thug violence, so kind of getting what you signed up for, fine with me. After that, you end up with very small numbers of actual pieces of garbage who abuse their rights and attack innocents. Then, in such confrontations, part of the number increases because responsible gun owners used their guns for self-defense. This is a valid reason to have a gun here. God bless the United States of America.

            Your fallacies need some polishing. Stay in your defeated Aussie space please.

            1. My numbers are correct (give or take). 10,000 Americans (approximately) are shot to death each and every year by their friend/husband/boyfriend/acquaintance/stranger. If I included suicides, accidents and legitimate shootings (which I do not), the figure rises to around 30,000 PA.

              Which is why I stick to homicides. Americans are TWENTY TIMES more likely to be shot to death than an Aussie.

              1. And in a society without cars, again, I can ride this point until you die, car accidents are about infinitely lower than in a society with cars. There is a price to be paid for freedom and progress. In a society without electricity, people don’t accidentally electrocute themselves with household appliances or actively electrocute someone else. I am sure that, in order to prevent this, you would think we should get rid of the power grid or something Lmao

                Again, the merit of having an armed public far outweighs the negative side effects, which includes people abusing their freedom of having a gun and doing things they should be shot for.

                Again, you are so fundamentally unamerican, you can’t understand that, statistically, freedoms can lead to accidents and people abusing said freedoms. That doesn’t mean we should give up on our freedoms, like defeated, weak, mollycoddled lefty shills suggest.

                Now go back to being a serf please, you have revealed multiple times you can’t catch a glimpse of American mentality.

            2. It seems you’ve neglected to answer my original question. Here it is again for you to answer:

              How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

              1. How many knives are used to commit homicide? Answer: Way more than guns. Ban knives? Yea, I am sure you would love to, idiot.

                You are missing the point because you are a fan of government subservience. The point is: Freedoms spawn problems, people abusing said freedoms violently and accidents will happen. That doesn’t mean we should get rid of said freedoms. That’s only an option for the defeated, whiny and willfully suppressed. Also compare my other point about electricity.

                How many terrorists use cars in Europe to run into crowds? Or axes? Or knives? Yea, quite a few. Again, you are referring to those who abuse their freedoms and availabilities to justify your regulation boner. It’s pathetic. Remain a subservient sucker for regulation and be quiet while at it, that’s what I suggest.

                1. And once more:
                  How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

                2. You wrote:
                  “How many knives are used to commit homicide? Answer: Way more than guns.”

                  Nup:
                  https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
                  In 2019, 10,258 homicides were committed via the use of firearms and 1,476 were committed via the use of knives.

                  So, as usual, you failed to perform rudimentary research.

                  I will remind you once more: I deal in facts, not myth and superstition. Americans are around TWENTY TIMES more likely to be shot to death than Australians are.

                  You wrote:
                  “How many terrorists use cars in Europe to run into crowds? Or axes? Or knives? Yea, quite a few.”

                  Dunno. Don’t care. We are discussing AUSTRALIA. And, by comparison, the US. Which brings us back to my original question that you continue to refuse to answer:
                  How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

                  Over to you.

                  I bet you avoid answering.

                  1. Yea, and with cars in a country, people are nearly infinitely as likely to be run over by a car than they are in countries where there are no cars. That doesn’t mean we have to ban cars. I will copy from my other post, because you are so simple that one statement of mine fits many of your so called arguments:

                    We are discussing utility vs. negative outcomes. If someone decides to kill their husband with a toaster in the bathtub, you wouldn’t ban electricity in general. And as I am saying, and as is obvious from the authoritarian overreach all across the world where the public isn’t armed, the utility of an armed public far outweighs the negative effects, even the homicides and the other ways people abuse their freedoms (including access to guns, vehicles etc.). What’s so hard to get about that?

                    People will use anything to kill each other. Guns are just convenient and available. BUT, again, guns being around is so valuable that we have to accept the casualties, just like we have to accept car accidents and intentional run overs, accidental electrocutions, stabbings (because knives are really useful) and so on. Guns are the one area where fucking authoritarian pussies can’t grasp how their usefulness far outweighs the price we have to pay for them, as a society. And that is because authoritarian shitfuckers HATE the utility of guns in public hands, which is that the voice of the people has some weight to it. Therefore I have to conclude that you are a defeated, pathetic authoritarian shill because you are purposely not getting it.

          2. Also, there is no utility in gun control, compared to the benefit of an armed public. Which is incomprehensible to you. Again, you are vanquished and butthurt about it.

            Besides, Americans are not paranoid like you said. They are vigilant. Freedom has a price. Not everyone is willing to pay it.

            Are you butthurt the article is pointing out that your land of magic is turning into a shithole?

            1. You forget: I’ve been to the US several times. I’ve seen, first hand, the poverty, the crime and the severe problems faced by Americans. Sure, Australia ain’t perfect, but it is a much nicer place to live for the majority.

              As for arming the public, well, that is just plain idiotic. As can be seen by the nonsensically high gun related homicide figures.

              1. You keep circling around. I just said, if you want car accidents to drop to 0, ban cars. The merit of having our guns around much outweighs the numbers of gun deaths (many of them consensual suicides and so on), because our society remains more free, self-determined and knowing that their voice matters. It gives people some spine. You are just butthurt that this article points out that you serfs are about to get a taste of what you sowed, clinger. 🙂

                (Also, your claim that the majority would prefer to live in Oz is narcissistic bullshit. You aren’t that great lol 😀 )

                1. We’re discussing HOMICIDES, not accidents.

                  How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

                  1. We are discussing utility vs. negative outcomes. If someone decides to kill their husband with a toaster in the bathtub, you wouldn’t ban electricity in general. And as I am saying, and as is obvious from the authoritarian overreach all across the world where the public isn’t armed, the utility of an armed public far outweighs the negative effects, even the homicides and the other ways people abuse their freedoms (including access to guns, vehicles etc.). What’s so hard to get about that? Oh, I forgot. You are a defeated little innocent koala face lol 😀

                    1. How many cars are used in the commission of homicide in the US each year?

                    2. OK, I agree about utility vs. negative outcomes. IF the number of people who murder others using firearms was roughly equivalent to the number of people murdered via automobiles, electricity, or even swimming pools, then it would make sense to free up the availability of firearms. However, that is not the case. Firearms are, in the US, overwhelmingly, the preferred method to kill another human.

                    3. “Firearms are, in the US, overwhelmingly, the preferred method to kill another human.”

                      That is questionable. Now even if that were true (do you get a boner out of that shilling?) that would be because guns are available. Duh. Again, I said like 2 days ago that people will use whatever means they have to kill other people. That their choice would be guns in a place where guns are around just causes them to channel their intent to kill in that direction.

                      You are not that bright, so you don’t get that people getting killed with whatever tool doesn’t reflect negatively on the tool but the people. Again, again, how often do I have to repeat that folks will use whatever is available to kill, if they wanna kill, and that little authoritarian shills like you seem to love killers because they can be used to justify their restriction boners? The US is also below the average homicide rate globally. And what homicide it generates really is mostly gangsta-shoots-gangsta bullshit, which I call cases of “know what you’re signing up for”. Another big plus is that the US is also certainly below the global average in defeated government fellatio. 🙂

  25. I am Australian and I want to make some observations. We have a federal structure similar to the US with only 2 states governed by the equivalent of the Republican Party and 1 of these is NSW which has a lot of the equivalent of RINOs in it. We are starting to see realignment of the electorate voting patterns similar to the US. The rich city people are going left while the traditional left base of Suburban and union workers are going right. The Conservatives are picking up many of these voters and in some cases traditional left elected representatives are leaving their party or fighting very hard against the new left agenda of their own party. The political situation in Australia is very much following what has been happening in the US.

    1. in some cases traditional left elected representatives are leaving their party or fighting very hard against the new left agenda of their own party.

      how is that like the US?

    2. Really? Tell us:

      Which “traditional left elected representatives are leaving the party” here in NSW?

      1. Maaaan, it’s not exactly like everyone has to be so well-informed about your unimportant, wannabe-continent of an island.

        1. TFX claims to be an Aussie. As an Aussie, he/she should be able to back his/her claims.

  26. Australia does have a Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights is part of constitutaional law in Australia (as is Magna Carta).
    This Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own and possess arms for the defence of self, family, posessions, and property.

    1. I have a full range of law books on my shelves, including several pertaining to Australian Constitutional Law. Point out the title and chapter to which you refer.

      1. I have no doubt you are proud of your rag collection. As opposed to Kai, I have no doubt this right doesn’t exist in the country of the vanquished.

        1. “Proud”? No. It is what it is.

          1. Man, you must be a Buddhist or something.

            1. Religion is for the terminally stupid. ANY religion.

              1. Shows your judgments and intolerance. Unamerican. Go back to being a defeated, governmentally suppressed barbarian please.

                1. “Intolerance”?

                  Nope.

                  Religion is stupid. Those who practice religious beliefs are stupid. That is not intolerance. It is a statement of fact.

                  1. Yea, and the self-righteousness against religious people now fully exposed. You have no place in the free world. Go back to being an intolerant barbarian shitface.

                    1. It has zero to do with self-righteousness and everything to do with the mental illness that afflicts those who believe in the supernatural. Such people need education or assistance with their mental illness.

                    2. LMAO Self-righteousness as an art form, brought to you by Zaphod1000. (Late iteration, but still rather defective in terms of logic and consistency)

                      You saying these beliefs are an illness exposes you as intolerant, token-rationalistic, closed-minded, wearing-science-as-a-badge kind of character and ultimately arrogant and self-righteous. (Chances are I am still more highly qualified and approved by the oh-so-rational education system.)

                    3. Again: I am not intolerant. I accept that many people in society have a mental illness and should be treated for that illness. A decent education would likely solve most problems.

                    4. Oh and you claim to be more highly qualified than me. Perhaps you are. Perhaps you’re not. Unfortunately for you, your clearly compromised intellect prevents you from presenting a cogent argument. Instead, you resort to cheap insults.

                      Keep it up. We all see you for what you are.

                      BTW: Still waiting for you to answer this question:

                      How many Americans are murdered via the use of automobiles each year?

                    5. LOL I should have checked back, you were getting really butthurt. 😀

                      Anyways, equating religion and spiritual beliefs with mental illness is the epitome of intolerance and bigotry.

                      It also doesn’t matter how many people are run over intentionally by cars, because with guns around, of course guns will be the preferred way to kill someone unlawfully. Unfortunately, authoritarian loser shills like you use this to try and ban guns from the 99.99999% of gun owners who are responsible adults and can be trusted with sources of deadly force. We are talking about significantly more than 100 million people who own guns, and in the face of that you whine about 10K homicides a year. Loser.

                      You are indeed as defeated as they come.

                    6. And again, most of these homicides are gang violence, so that’s business as usual for thugs but, even more so, shouldn’t affect responsible gun owners who are integrated and civil.

      2. “Point out title and chapter”? I said the English Bill of Rights, it’s not very long, only a few pages, read it. Okay, the second major section, on rights and liberties, point 7.

        You are aware that all English law, including consitutional law, at the 1st January 1901 was law in the newly federated Australia? That Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are constitutional law in Australia? That they cannot be overwritten by statute law? (They could most likely be overwritten by a referrendum to change the Constitution, such as an ammendment to restrict the right to own and posses arms, but this has not been done as yet.)

        1. You need to study AUSTRALIAN Constitutional Law. Australia has not been subject to English law for 120 years.

    2. no you don’t have a right to own a firearm. to buy a firearm you must provide a “reason” with proof of that reason. dude, that is not a right. the gov can just say that your reason is invalid and now you can’t own a firearm. you need to lookup the definition of a right.

      1. Correct. Australians do not have the right to own or possess firearms as part of a well-regulated militia.

        1. For all the fucktards who think that well-regulated militia means something like having your guns locked away in safes or gun clubs, read Madison on the issue. Such castrations are not a militia, because they are fundamentally unequipped to oppose a tyrannical government, which is the gist of the idea.

      2. Yes, we do have the right, ‘such as permitted by law’. But that caveat is meant to restrict unnecessarily cruel weapons. In Australia, as in England, the governments, judiciary, and police have taken it upon themselves to override our liberties and enslave us. Once upon a time when kings did this we cut their heads off, but now the sheep are meek.

        1. Utter nonsense. Go study Australian Constitutional Law.

          1. Nobody cares about that, at least if intolerant, self-righteous losers like you represent anything about Australia.

  27. Find The Call Girls 16+ Satta King Online Site.

  28. Aussie parasites have the power Democrats lust for and have wet dreams for.

  29. Our founders had the foresight to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so we could protect the other nine. I had a conversation with an Australian once who wanted an explanation for our “obsession with guns.” I explained that Australia was given its independence from Britain while we had to take ours by force. We have a different perspective. Our rights cannot be stolen so long as some are willing to fight to keep them. This is why AR-type weapons are so popular. Any government overreach will come at a cost – to the government.

    1. THIS. What I wanted to say. Got no guns? Oh, we’re sorry, but your voice doesn’t have enough decibels.

      “What? What did you say? Did you say freedom? Can you speak louder? Really sorry, didn’t catch that…. What? Come again?”

    2. “Any government overreach will come at a cost – to the government.”

      As well it should. Over here, we vote them out at the next election. More efficient than violence.

      1. Universal gun ownership is not equal to violence, you fallacious moronic turd. It is a reality that countries need nuclear weapons as long as other have them too. And this government is armed. So the public should be too. Again, you are so fundamentally different from anything American, it’s not worth explaining to you.

        Voting them out may work if they haven’t too far. With our public having a spine, they have a decreased likelihood to get to the point that they just impose random restrictions like your betters, or California. It’s obvious, unless you are an Aussie. Your people seem to love to get rid of their spines so that government can penetrate them extra deep. If that makes you happy, have fun. But again, stay in your defeated space please and don’t tell me what’s wrong with my freedom, serf.

        1. Havent gone too far, edit

  30. Independently from the above, I would like to say that universal gun ownership in a country is an invaluable amplifier of the voice of the people. Sorry for the Aussies. They have been castrated a while ago. And guns weren’t that popular to begin with. I think the confiscated like what, 600K guns? We have 30 times that in AR-style weapons alone. Or more, depending.

    America is still the best.

  31. lil off topic, but what is the name of that building in the picture, anyone know?

    1. Sydney Town Hall. Been there many times. As a school-kid, I worked in a department store (Woolworths) across the road during school holidays and on weekends.

    2. Oh and I should mention the Sydney Town Hall pipe organ. A most impressive instrument. I’ve heard it many times:

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

      1. hey hey hey, thats really a rather pretty building, looks like a gibbs church with more meat on its bones (or how I understand/misunderstand gibbs churches)

        whatre the chances I run into an aussie who worked across the street and who was willing to wade through the dumpster fire that is this comment section to help me out with my budding appreciation for classical architecture haha!

        Thanks friend 🙂

        1. My pleasure. Check the link on the Town Hall pipe organ. Magnificent.

        2. I have to say, that apart from the Sydney Opera House (which is amazing, BTW), our architectural heritage in not great. Fortunately, we do have some nice buildings in Sydney, but not many. Personally, I don’t much care for the Town Hall, as there are some nicer gems around the city. Although I live around 30 clicks from the city centre and have done for my entire life, I like to take a trip and act like a tourist every year or two, camera in hand. I discovered this gem a couple of years back. The staircase is beautiful:

          https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-national-mutual-building-former-societe-generale-building-348-352-53426054.html

          The architect was an Austrian born American. Edward Raht

Comments are closed.