I know it won't happen in Australia any time soon but I believe there is a strong argument for bringing back the death penalty for those convicted of terrorist offences in Australia. As there is no prospect of rehabilitation for such offenders, the safety of society can only be guaranteed by their permanent removal. Happily, most of these scum are shot dead by police but for the terrorists who survive or failed plotters who are apprehended it would surely be a favourable outcome to see them swinging at the end of a rope.
"I guess it's also about personal perspective for instance i often hear people call Andrew Bolt far right, but when i read his views i personally consider them just right of centre to me they are quite moderate and balanced."
A threshold moment! Think about it, ID. What's this telling you?
Maybe this 'good for nothing' thread will be 'good for something'?!
Speaking of self-awareness, have a wee be-google of 'gish gallop', Seppo.
Scatter-nail-gun yourself out! Yew!
Oh come on stunet, don't be so aloof
educate me if I'm way of, my whole shtick is I'm a layman conduit to the overlords
The Washington consensus means many things, no?
"so where does the "death penalty" fit into left/right?"
Jeeze that question actually got me thinking. I tried to type out an answer but it got too complex. I can think of good arguments both against and in favour of using the death penalty for either spectrum.
@Ween - As far as the death penalty goes, I am dead against it as I don't believe any person or government has the right to take the life of another. I couldn't imagine the hypocrisy being faced by anyone facing a firing squad or noose due the judgement of a government who simultaneously breaks up families, declares wars, detains people illegally, legislates police powers to be executioners, enslaves its people to the economy through debt etc etc and I'm not picking any government just generalizing.
I don't draw any difference between ISIS fighters killing people in Australia to Australians fighters killing ISIS people in Syria. Only the winners gets to decide who the murderer is.
Having said that, once a person decides they have the "right" to take another's life it only seems reasonable that they also forfeit this "right to live" for themselves. If these "terrorists" (and I use that word loosely as the term shits me to tears) are NOT from the middle east and are NOT just over here to blow themselves to smithereens after having their whole family bombed to death by the coalition, then what right does anyone have to take the lives of these young people? Often they are just lost youth recruited into a dark cause because they were isolated. "Intent" is a long way short of actually committing any crime. Yesterday arvo I had "intent" to go surf the metro novelty wave in a 30 knot onshore in rain, hail and 10 degree weather. Instead I couldn't be bothered and stayed home by the heater. People are often just a product of their upbringing one way or another, and without wanting to stray from the topic a few examples are people voting in line with their parents beliefs, people who were abused as kids often going on to do the same etc etc but you get the drift.
On that same note, do you think that re-rehabilitation is therefore pointless and every "Terrorist" was born with malice and just wants to inflict pain and suffering? Or are they just humans dealing hate passed on by their relatives or religion? We may as well shoot all our criminals while we're at it if that's the case. There are some crimes ie rock spiders, rapists etc where I'd happily pay for the bullets but its all a slippery slope.
From a financial aspect I fully agree lets just all go save a few bucks and bill the cost of the bullet to their disappointed families, I'm sure the Chinese are used to it. Hell we can even try and think of even cheaper ways like gas chambers, incineration, pushing them cliffs , turning them into dog food (and then selling for profit!) jeeze we could even make some cash out of killing all these young kids!
We could really use our imaginations and turn into absolute monsters in the process, but fun & games aside and from a human perspective I really hope our society never decides to have this discussion in earnest. By the time we actually start speaking about it it'll be too late for us.
Gaz, same response to you as to sheepshagger - apologists for terrorism like you guys just make them stronger. How can you have so much compassion for 'misguided' young men who just happen to kill dozens/hundreds of innocent people in the noble cause of establishing a cailiphate where brutality and inequality are the order of the day? Shit, it's a sad day when Aussies are supporting ISIS.
ho hum ..... its all out there this morning; the Swellnet intelligentsia have been busier than ever.
Indo confessing admiration for Andrew Bolt after yesterday's total confusion on what foot he should put his left or right boot on. Remember you have also expressed similar thoughts for the red headed imbecile from FNQ, that's some company you keep! Sypkan getting his facts wrong, again and theween, what can I say apart from wondering about those massive leaps in logic developed to convince us we support ISIS.
The only thing more entertaining today is hearing how the Liberal Party are pulling themselves apart over gay marriage, perhaps some of your clear thinkers here could get you up to Canberra to help out the debate.
very true sypkan.
i dont see the usefulness of the terms left/right, i try not to use them. its primary purpose used thesedays is to create divide. we live in shades of grey. politics is issue based, debatable on merit alone. its too easy and lazy IMO to just put abbott or abetz in the box of far right and then dismiss everything they say. even your political enemy has probably more in common with you than say a leader of the chinese regime.
How do you define "terrorist" ween?
Stu, sure, the term 'left' pre dates communism by 100 years but regardless, on any linear representation of political ideologies at the far left sits communism, then socialism, liberalism in the centre, then conservatism and finally fascism on the far right.
It's difficult to accept that the Greens can be labeled far left.
But this brings us to Indo, who says 'What is far left or far right i think is also flexible to a time and current politics and what is far left or far right in one country or period of time isn't often viewed as far right or far left in another country or era in time..'
So do we acknowledge that the whole spectrum has in fact shifted to the right?
Communism as an ideology is dead so now the so-called far left is represented by some ideas which were pretty centrist maybe 40 or 50 years ago?
A touch of socialist ideology gets you labelled with the (often pejorative) term 'left'?
To me, this actually justifies the right wing, neoliberal policies we all claim to hate by making them the new centre.
The right have been consciously cultivating these new definitions for decades, and they're clearly having a huge win.
Indo, Andrew Bolt is the definition of a conservative, he's not within a bull's roar of the centre, he's 100% at least centre right.
If we accept that he's possibly racist, that starts to take him to the right of the centre right.
I don't think thing have moved more towards the right, if anything i think over the last 50 years things have moved more towards the left.
For example i think its fair to say society these days overall are much more politically correct, and generally more tolerant all round, or more open to issues that are important to the left. (social issues environmental issues etc) off course there are many examples of those that are not but I'm talking about society overall.
That said in recent years globally we have deffiently seen a spring back to the right, Brexit, Trump etc mostly due to the huge problems we have seen from the lefts push of globalism.
I don't read that much of what Andrew writes but from what I've read i don't think Andrew Bolt is racist, actually from things I've read i think he is more for equality and the opposite of racist, and i actually think many left wing views are actually racist because they seek to divide and treat people differently based on ethnicity/race.
Geez you guys don't like to be challenged do you. Or I should say your world views to be challenged.
I don't think I am technically wrong re. Washington consensus, as I said it covers many things. In terms of opposing free trade, globalisation, neoliberalism, and the economic military colonisation of the middle east trump does challenge the Washington consensus, but hey even the experts can't agree what it means in the modern context.
My error was lumping the Washington consensus with the challenging of the conventional wisdom on the middle east wars, only cos I can't be fucked typing detail on my phone. but hey it's all about economic colonisation/free trade so split hairs if you wish.
And tear indod's arguments apart if you wish but one thing he's shown convincingly is the subjective nature of this left right debate.
Yes Andrew bolt is right wing and conservative (proudly) no wishy washy ambiguity there. But he is not far right at all. If he was I dare say People like stan grant would not be defending him (which he has) he'd be tearing strIps of him.
Far right would have to be neo nazi's just as Lee Rhihanon could be far left possibly, but not really. A leftist dictator would be far left (some of the dogmatic dictatorial types on here maybe, humour, breathe deeply zealots) but yes the spectrum clearly is all over the shop ATM, and clearly very subjective.
Come on guysmiley, indulge me, define far left, economically and socially, because there's much scope for interpretation.
@ ID "I don't think thing have moved more towards the right, if anything i think over the last 50 years things have moved more towards the left."
You'd be about the only one who thinks so.
Since WW2 Western nations have shifted from largely egalitarian welfare states where the primary purpose of government was to educate, shelter, and protect it's citizens to neoliberal democracies that facilitate corporations while cutting public spending.
If you're not seeing this as a shift to the right then I'm really not sure what the point of the discussion is.
Trump challenges the Washington consensus.
The 'elite' do some serious sabre rattling and declare a full scale trade war against Russia while it seems that Trump wants to be conciliatory - well doesn't this seem to go against the beliefs and expectations of so many.
Is Pilger barking up the right tree?
Try to look through his overly-emotive hyperbole and have a look at his latest piece...
'Unlike every other Trump signing, this was conducted in virtual secrecy and attached with a caveat from Trump himself that it was 'clearly unconstitutional'. A coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia.'
And, what I think you guys need to realise is people like indod are not right wing at all. Many things he leans left or he wouldn't have concerns for the environment, and he wouldn't be helping Indonesian villagers, other things he's very centrist.
He is not the enemy!
He is the kind of people you guys need to win over, if you truly want the world a better place. Win over with good arguments....not belittlings...
This is why I play games on here. You don't have to win me over, I'll vote with you guys every time, so be a cunt to me. I like it!! I just play devil's advocate, because I hear from lots of people that think the left is off with fairys.
They are not bad people, it's just they're not idealogues. Open to be swayed, if you can just be civil.
Get some perspective people!!
Indod is also right in saying the left has won on many causes. Many righties concede the left has won the culture war. Youse just need to appreciate many things have gone too far for MOST people, and we're now in a righting (correcting) of the pendulum
Too much change too quick. Take a breather, celebrate the wins, and find a new base to work with, because that's where we're at ATM
I'm glad you wrote that Stu, I'd given up.
Fair post syppo although I certainly don't see Indo as an enemy in any way.
But we at least need to understand and acknowledge what's going on - the 'alternative facts' thing is a killer.
stu....."Since WW2 Western nations have shifted from largely egalitarian welfare states where the primary purpose of government was to educate, shelter, and protect it's citizens to neoliberal democracies that facilitate corporations while cutting public spending."
fact or not?? i will hazard a guess that this is incorrect. rather that social spending in australia across the 20th century as a % of GDP has generally risen.
in that regard one might say we have shifted left.
health and education topping the list.
That's exactly what it's like Sypkan a pendulum and on a world scale I think things had swung too far left and are now swinging a little back right, but in Australia i think we are in a different cycle and under a Liberal government we do tend to swing right a bit and I'm sure that will be corrected next election Labor will get in and things will swing back left again.
I actually think its a good way of keeping things in check and creates a good balance.
But personally i can't vote either way i use to when i was young and I voted Greens, then i voted Labor, now my views are swinging more right as i get older but i can't bring myself to vote Liberal, i agree on many of their views and policies but I'm a blue collar worker and always feel like I'm going to screw myself over if i vote Liberal, last election i just left it blank.
But, he he, i am tempted to vote One Nation just to piss everyone off, but i don't actually agree or support their controversial type policies and i would want them to get in, i think it would be more an anti vote like a FU to the media and a FU to all the vocal whining lefties, i guess in a way thats why people voted for Trump..
I think we really need to separate the social and the economic
It's the social lefty stuff people are tired of, too much social engineering
There's no doubt the economics have shifted right
Everyone is conflating the two to make their point
"It is now evident that identity politics, the mantra of race and gender, has been cultivated by the neoliberal order to obscure the category of class, while actually waging class war, and to relegate the working poor to the realm of the unmentionable.
Under worsening economic conditions, masses of the alienated have perceived their alienation. This is happening all over the neoliberally ravaged world. To side with the elite against the rage of the people is madness. Worse, it is to alienate the people further to the right in a classic social dynamic that, under severe conditions, delivers full-blown fascism"
From a link in andym's arricle
Plebs might not know exactly what's going on
But they sure can sense it
Yeah that's true Sypkan, when I'm thinking of things I'm generally thinking social not so much economical.
I don't really get involved or even think too much about economical things, as really i don't have any idea whats best in that way, that area does my head in and when i do read opinions or predictions by experts it seems they can't agree or get things wrong.
For instance: Stu made a point about wages stagnating for a decade.
My first thought was on a world scale aren't our wages already high?
I mean isn't this one of the biggest reasons why jobs keep going offshore, even compared to USA our wages are high, if the gap becomes bigger doesn't that mean more and more jobs go offshore?
Wouldn't the smartest thing to do be to have as low wage growth as we can handle, so we at least come in line with USA and let Asian countries close the gap a little instead of widening the gap?
I can see how low wage growth could cause inequality though, as those at the top wages always increase wages while others wages don't, but i could also see how if there was constant wage growth those at the top would just have an excuse to raise wages even more, even as a tradie id be pushing my prices higher a lot more if i knew the minimum wage was constantly rising, and wouldn't it also just give reason for big companies especially utility companies or goods and services to push prices even higher, and also property prices would raise higher (I'm not sure if it would become more affordable though, i think everything would just be pushed up?)
I guess that just fuels inflation?
I would have thought if it was a good thing, our government would push wage growth higher just to get more tax?
@indo, in your last post your first sentence/paragraph includes the words "when I'm thinking" and your last sentence/paragraph includes the words "I would have thought" and everything you say in between those two sentences proves you don't do much "thinking" at all before posting here.
Breathtaking stuff but carry on.
In a manufacturing economy that might be a problem, but we haven't been that for thirty years.
Wages have stagnated yet cost of goods and services keeps increasing - where is the difference going and what does this mean for our standard of living?
Worth noting that although % of GDP spent on social or "leftist" programs has increased, we actually get less for this expenditure due to rampant inflation and government mismanagement. In the 70's & 80's there was a hospital in every country town, manufacturing was still booming, welfare recipients weren't treated like rodents, Education was cheap or free (or freeish) and quality of life was considered higher.
Fast forward to today and we pay top dollar for peanuts, teachers & nurses can't find employment, schools and hospitals are being closed and consolidated (at least in SA). Education costs are crippling and prospects for youth are dreadful in term of both job security and home prospects. Inequality has never been worse, nor the prospects of someone changing their "caste".
I would say we have swung way too far to the right. And the hypocrisy of the situation is those making the decisions enjoyed many of the benefits of a more leftist society and now attempt to deny today's youth the same things they enjoyed to get ahead.
Isn't this thread a bit political for Wax on?
"When the government changes, the country changes" Paul Keating 1996.
Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbott & Turnbull = that's 20+ years of neo-liberalism right there.
agree gaz. i posted that in response to stu only to correct the thinking that we've been under a wave of social spending cuts since ww2 when in fact the period right up until 1980's there was very good investment in such leftist causes.
guy, you'd probably have to include keating in that mix.
Bit pedantic Happyass? "The last 50 years" was a somewhat arbitrary time frame to compare a broadscale economic shift. I said post-WW2 because of the social programs introduced in the wake of the war and continued till the 70s when Friedman's neolib theory kicked into practice in the UK and US, and slightly later in Oz.
To single out one aspect based on a statistic, a relative one at that, in order to discredit everything else is just nuisance making. It makes the exchange of ideas a tiresome chore and serves no-one except those who benefit from confusion and uncertainty.
Gaz - this might answer your question (from today's news):
'Melbourne teenager believed it was okay to behead people
A teenager shot by police after stabbing two officers believed that anyone who insulted the prophet Mohammed should be beheaded, an inquest has heard.'
stu, well i apologise. i didn't mean to discredit.
Ween, fair point but the point I was making is that whilst those kids would be considered terrorists in Oz, there are other countries that would consider them heroes and sympathize with their cause. Are North Korean kids terrorists? Or enemy soldiers? They would laugh and applaud a big nuke dropping on LA.
You should talk to a few older chinese people about their love for their most treasured ally, the DPRK and the time they stood against the US in the Korean war. No different to the unnamed ISIS or Taliban retirees still hiding in their caves. Terrorists or soldiers? Nobody won that war so the terrorists went home as soldiers.
WW2 the allies carpet bombed europe into dust. Soldiers or terrorists? Better funded terrorists perhaps. Or do we decide that we're the good guys so those rules don't apply.
USA nukes Japan. Soldiers or terrorists? State sponsored terrorism perhaps. 100,000 innocents vaporized & the "good guys" saved the day.
Vietnam - Napalm, agent orange etc etc who were the terrorists? The people defending their homes or the ones dropping bio weapons on the population in an attempt to de-stabilise the existing government?
Geneva convention for enemy soldiers but death for terrorists? Sounds a bit rich to me. Sounds like only the winners get to choose who the terrorists are and then decide whether they get to live or die. War is the old word. Terrorism is the new one that lets a country go to war with whomever they like and disregard all the usual rules that make us human.
Bad, bad people.
gaz, while on the topic of the geneva convention...this has something to say about war and terrorism.
...."It is a basic principle of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. "
....."In situations of armed conflict, there is no legal significance in describing deliberate acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects as " terrorist " because such acts would already constitute war crimes. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, war crimes suspects may be criminally prosecuted not only by the state in which the crime occurred, but by all states."
that gets all a bit hazy when we're talking about individuals or small groups conducting isolated terrorism acts where its unclear how much a party to the terrorists the other country is, or how much terrorist groups can be regarded as an organised threat vs disorganised chaos.
Not just manufacturing or call centre jobs.
Any job that doesn't have to be physically done here can go offshore and not just low skilled jobs, some of the most at risk jobs are high skilled white collar type jobs.
For what it's worth ..................
Completely against the death penalty. Not because there aren't any crimes that deserve it, but because it would demean me, and it demeans us, as a people, to have it.
It reminds me of the euthanasia debate. Those against always argue that it 'is the slippery slope', and soon after we will be killing anyone over 60. In the euthanasia debate, it's a complete fiction, the rantings of a loony traditionalist right.
But for the death penalty, yeah, it's a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn? It can't be drawn with any surety, unlike euthanasia.
Some have argued about the cost of keeping the terrorist in gaol, and reduce their reasoning to an economic argument. Sure, it costs more, and you lose your humanity. Is that a good deal? I'll pay my $3 a week to keep them all in gaol for the rest of their lives.
So, I oppose the death penalty, completely and utterly and always, because it saves me, not them.
In the same way I believe we should look after our poor, our elderly, our sick, our unemployed. I think it is socially, psychologically and economically bereft for us to see keeping them in dignity and good health as a 'cost'. It's an investment, and means I can go to work every day without having to walk over beggars and homeless. I want to pay sufficient taxes to allow this to happen. I don't want them to have to steal to get their next meal, I want the government to provide it, and take it out of my pay, and everyone else's, in order to do that.
I am a committed lefty, a socialist of the very left of the spectrum, but not because this is my ideology, but after years of reading it is clear this is the best way to organise society, and it is clear that we have gone far to the right. Inequality really is a problem, but not just the inequality between the rich and the poor, but between the mature aged and the young. The baby boomers have got their jackboots on the throats of everyone under 30 and they are intent on keeping them there.
If you haven't worked this out yet, apologies for bringing you the news.
But again, I'm not this way out of any ideology. There are many studies showing that this is the way that people work best together. We are social animals, and we are happiest working to help each other.
Again, I apologise for that horrible news. That must be terrible for some to hear. Not some lefty flipping imbecile wish-list, committed dedicated studies into what makes us happy.
Sypkan makes many good points though, as do others. Conflating the social and the economic is a fool's errand.
On matters economic, we are and have been for some time to the very far, far right, in Australia and across the western world. In fact, Frances Fukuyama declared victory in the middle or late 90's, in a book replete with hubris. He is an idiot.
The last 30 years has seen democracy silently go from being about representing the people to representing the owners of capital, or more accurately, the managers of capital. As a shareholder, an owner of capital (through superannuation) my voice is unrecognised.
Australia, economically, is scraping the very bottom of the barrel of far right economic neoliberal bullshit. Now you have to pee in a bottle to get your unemployed benefits! Say no more.
Help fund criminal and terrorist organisations through your banking system - then you'll have Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison in your corner. That's where we are.
Socially, we have moved to the left, but again back to the right. Sypkan and others complaints about identity politics are classic straw man arguments. They aren't leftist agendas, they are 'chardonnay socialists', people with small minds who dedicate their minds to inventing victims while attaching themselves to leftist politics. They are the barnacles you pick up in a sea voyage, not freaking socialists, not leftists, just flotsam and jetsam.
There was a time, pre 70's, when the world really was a small place, companies could throw their toxic waste into the local river system, pollute the air unimpeded. Sure, it was the left that put pressure on them to put a stop that, to bring them into line. Sure, we saved your life, but let's not go into too much detail there. Good thing you were able to breathe and drink clean water so you could now waste our time arguing that climate change isn't real.
I'm no communist, but let's face reality, there has never been a socialist government, and the ones that are closest (Scandinavian countries, Norway) are tearing strips off the rest of the capitalist west in terms of government and the mix of a market economy with socialist aims, quality of life and social cohesion.
Now, no one size fits all. In Australia we have to sort it out for ourselves. Health and Education are front and centre, and should have no private providers subsidised by government. That's my position.
Gas and electricity, water, telecommunications, part of the banking industry, all should be government owned and operated.
Not because that's the leftist ideology I adhere to, it's just the best way to run the damn things.
Left and right, the labels matter much less to me than some, but you will call me a lefty, a socialist. It's a badge of honour, whatever you call me.
So did we decide if its the left or right that support the death penalty?
I think generally speaking it seems the left are opposed to the death penalty and right are for it?
And euthanasia it seems is not supported by the right, so assuming is supported by the left?
I support re looking at the death penalty for some serious crimes and i also fully support euthanasia.
So i guess I'm left on one issue and right on the other.
Great post Batfink.
The only thing I'd question is do you think baby boomers are making a conscious effort to keep young people down?
Or is it just a by-product of political policy?
Baby boomers aren't making any conscious effort to keep anyone down.
The only advantage baby boomers have is when it comes to property they bought before prices became crazy and then many bought second or third homes, they did this because government policy tax breaks for negative gearing encouraged this as did and does their accounts.
You can't really blame them for looking after themselves and their future.
You can however blame both liberal and labor governments for allowing tax breaks for negative gearing.
I think Hawk actually scrapped allowing it, then quickly panicked and went back, he should have just ridden out the storm into the clear blue sky.
Excellent post Batfink. Summed it up well.
It frustrates the hell out of me when people complain about "left wing speech" in reference to political correctness and then besmirch a whole sector of political thought because of superficial mutterings only to fall into the arms of those who are covertly fucking them over.
Oh, but they're speaking "the truth".
Gimme a break...
Take it away Sally: “Of course big businesses are trying to influence our political system as much as they possibly can, and the only way to counter that is a kick-ass strong movement.”
Good summary Bat Fink people are too quick to assume that the death penalty is a quick easy way for us to abandon our social responsibilities. The day my kids start saying "they're glad that guy got shot by the government" or cheering that someone's dead would be the day before we moved overseas.
Indo I don't think Baby Boomers are doing it consciously either, but many seem oblivious to the fact that it's happening. There are many that seem to genuinely think the goal posts are in the same place they were 40 years ago.
I don't think the death penalty is related to either left or right wing political spectrums. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the rule of law in whatever country has the death penalty is often weaker than others that do not. We pay big bucks to house our crims and terrorists because life isn't cheap in Australia. And that's the way it should be.
If someone drives a truck through a crowd of innocent people strolling along an beachfront esplanade in order to kill as many people as he can then they should be put to death.
If someone such as a president or prime minister pushes a nation towards war with another nation that is not immediately threatening their nation - or their allies - then they should be put to death.
Oi Stu-bags, here's a piece from your fave media source!
"If you're worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you don't like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."
Now here's a thread:
Death Metal for Terrorists!
"It is not clear whether God would approve of the current US playlist: the number one slot is taken by the death metal band Deicide, whose track Fuck Your God is played at prisoners in Iraq."
Few people on here don't dig political correctness, does that mean they're against same sex marriage?
It's hard to keep up.
Tony had his say, and now his sister steps into the ring.
Gonna be a blast at the Xmas gathering...
It's a special kind of bloke who places religious ideology above family.
'The day my kids start saying "they're glad that guy got shot by the government" or cheering that someone's dead would be the day before we moved overseas.'
Yet we all seem to throw a party re: Osama/Gadaffi etc.
State sanctioned executions are ok as long as they're to 'someone else, over there'...
I think it's morally bankrupt for our so-called leaders to openly gloat and celebrate stuff like this.
Penny Wong calls it .......