Can you give me a couple of examples CJ.

Hi Ludwig - in looking back for some examples I see we've touched on this before. However, some examples as requested:

"Essential only?

Would it not be reasonable for the government to force, coerce, or provide strong incentives to get people to do things that are BENEFICIAL for the county, and for themselves?

Afterall, practically all laws are implemented for these reasons, are they not?

Laws force us to undertake certain actions and to not undertake others, for the greater good, but not necessarily for essential needs of the country."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=208#20442

"Can any government significantly move in the direction that it thinks it should without undertaking strong moves that are against the wishes of the majority?"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90868

"We need to start planning for a much-improved policing regime now! And not just in Queensland."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=787#13597

"A strong enforcement regime is needed. But this is the same for most things in mainstream society. Many ordinary people are generally pretty damn poor at owning responsibility, and will break the law if they think they won’t get caught, whether or not they believe in the merit of the particular law they are breaking."

"So perhaps a stronger government is just what we need. Unfortunately I think it is impossible for most people to view a stronger government as not being more patronising or draconian."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=744#13280

At least you're consistent!

I’m impressed CJ. Thanks for taking the time to go through a whole lot of my old posts.

“At least you're consistent!”

Yep. I’m sure you would have highlighted apparent contradictions had you come across any.

I reckon all of these statements and questions of mine that you quote are posed in the interests of “…good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement…” and are not examples of a “…big stick approach by government as the first remedy to most problems…”

Obviously you think differently. So can I ask you to elucidate just what it is that you disagree with here given that you wrote;


“Ludwig, of course I agree with effective governance - good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement are part of that.”

Can you outline how any of these quotes constitute and example of a big-stick-as-a-first-remedy approach?

As it pertains to the subject of this thread, Howard’s actions over the Tampa and subsequent policy on asylum seekers were viewed by many as being the most draconian Australian politics of the post-war era. But they were far from the first attempted remedy, having evolved through a fairly long history of onshore asylum seeker issues, and they were quite necessary at that time, when there was a massive escalation of people mobilising towards Australia.

Rather than criticise that approach, I would criticise the lack of appropriate action under Keating and early Howard that allowed the situation to become quite critical, to the point where strong and immediate action was needed.

I guess this whole issue of effective governance comes down to the final statement of mine that you quote;

“Unfortunately I think it is impossible for most people to view a stronger government as not being more patronising or draconian”

Ludwig, you've said it yourself. What is simply "strong government" to you is draconian to me.

I think that Howard's approach to the Tampa, SIEV-X and "children overboard" affairs was both draconian and cynically opportunist in political terms. You seem to think it was good governance.

I think that the 'Pacific Solution' is inhumane and unjust. You think that it's appropriate enforcement.

While we appear to agree in general terms about the nature of the problems we face with respect to overpopulation, we seem to differ irreconcilably as to how to deal with them most appropriately. But at least we can discuss it civilly, which is no small thing :)

CJ I’m not willing to simply accept that we have an irreconcilable difference. I value your opinion and I would like to nut out just exactly what the differences are if we can.

So if I may, I’d like to continue this dialogue for a bit.

It seems to me that there is a conflict between your statements;

“Ludwig, of course I agree with effective governance - good, achievable policy, and fair and reasonable enforcement are part of that.”

and

“What is simply ‘strong government’ to you is draconian to me.”

You quoted some of my comments on law and the policing thereof as examples of draconianism.

But it is obvious that the law and the policing regime are far below an ideal level to protect us all and provide a genuine sense of security, in all sorts of areas across society. A better balance is badly needed. So rather than being draconian, wouldn’t a better rule of law be seen as good effective governance?

continued

Regarding the tragedy of the SIEV-X, surely a large part of a strong border-protection and the deterrence of asylum-seekers and people-smugglers is to stop this sort of horrible thing from happening. (For those who don’t know the story, the boat sank due to chronic overcrowding in which some 376 people perished. It didn’t have anything to do with Australian intervention)

With the children overboard controversy, the SIEV 4 was intercepted with 223 asylum seekers on board. All the hoo haa about children being thrown overboard really is a huge distraction from what really mattered; desperate people seeking asylum that were rightly intercepted and then dealt with in a pretty fair and reasonable manner.

CJ you said you thought Howard’s approach to these issues was cynically opportunistic. I disagree. Yes they were opportunistic, as they just presented themselves and had to be dealt with quickly. But there was nothing cynical about it. Perhaps you could express what you think Howard should have done that would have rendered his actions non-cynical.

I believe that many of those who opposed the detention of asylum seekers used these events in a very cynical manner indeed, picking up on any side issue that they could and blowing it out of all proportion.

As far as I’m concerned, this sort of thing is another powerful reason to clamp right down on asylum seeker movement. That is; the conflict that it creates in Australian society.