He also told a parliamentary-forum in Canberra that the federal-government was seeking extraordinary-powers to deprive people of their liberty while asking to be trusted not to abuse that authority. “The-difficulty-of-that-approach,-as-experience-has-shown-not-only-in-places-like-South-Africa-but-here-in-Australia,-is-that-reality-turns-out-otherwise.-The-revelations-of-the-Palmer-report-demonstrate-how-abuses-of-power-can-occur-where-there-is-no-acceptable-and-realistic-way-that-people-can-question-what-is-happening-to-them.”

If you still think they are not really serious about it, they have also expanded their powers to call-out the military domestically, and they are expanding its size.

You may say that we can vote for someone-else, however the laws were formulated by Howard in conjunction with the State and Territory leaders – all ALP. This was necessary because the laws contravene the Constitutional protection against being punished or locked up without a properly constituted court, and the States are not strictly bound by the constitution! The laws were also passed in federal-parliament by the-ALP.

No doubt you think I’m paranoid, but these are FACTS, and this is a world-wide-phenomenon. Remember that Hitler was elected democratically, and he did much the same things.

You and I have very few “legal” civil-liberties left. The only remaining “protection” of our civil-liberties is the fact that capitalism has not yet plunged into another depression and world-war.

Received-wisdom appears to be wrong, and we end up in a similar position to evil dictatorships.

Now perhaps you can apply your own criteria to yourself:

“You-have-a-few-choices.-1)Continue-to-be-a-hypocrite-for-the-reasons-I-have-outlined-or-2)Acknowledge-you-had-not-realised-that-dictatorships-and-civil-liberties-were-inherantly-incompatible-or-3)Explain-to-us-how-your-dictatorship-will-not-destroy-even-basic-civil-liberties-as-has-occured-with-all-prior-attemts-to-establish-your-goal.-
Stop-telling-us-about-how-your-enemies-have-always-tried-to-thwart-you-just-tell-us-your-solution-to-those-obstructions-and-how-that-solution-is-compatible-with-civil-liberties-existing-50-years-down-the-track.”

You-Logical, “have-a-few-choices”. 1) continue to be a hypocrite by claiming to be a “committed-civil-libertarian” while defending the erosion of civil-liberties by the state. 2) Acknowledge that you had not realised that bourgeois-democracies no more “inherently” guarantee civil-liberties than dictatorships. 3) Explain to us how bourgeois-democracy does not, under certain conditions, destroy even basic civil-liberties as is happening here and all over the world.

Don’t-bother trying to blame your enemies, the-terrorists, “just-tell-us-your-solutions-to-those-obstructions-and-how-that-solution-is-compatible-with-civil-liberties-existing-50-years-down-the-track”.

It’s a bit difficult isn’t it? Particularly without being able to rely on the assumptions of received-wisdom, or explain it within a broader-context.

I doubt you can provide a simple explanation and solution, so why should I be required to?

If you care to hang-around, I will begin my explanation of revolutionary-dictatorships etc. in my next posts.

Tao. Please do not misquote or guess what my position is on a variety of issues.
You say:
"I note that in your renewed attack on my “hypocrisy”, you ignored the fact that you, a self-professed “committed-civil-libertarian”, defend the right of the State to overturn a longstanding protection of the individual against it. I would like to know whether, in the context of eroding civil-liberties across the board, you now see that the overturning of double jeopardy is a dangerous thing, with a greater significance than can be ascribed to it when viewed as an isolated event." (Continued)

To my knowledge Australian courts have not abandoned the concept of double jeopardy. It is your interpretation of what is happening in the Thomas case that convinces you that he is a victim of double-jeopardy. I have previously explained why I do not think the Thomas events represent double-jeopardy. If Thomas is a victim of double-jeopardy then no doubt the courts will uphold any further appeal he makes on those grounds. Such reassurance is useless to you because you have expressed the view that all our courts are the handmaidens of the government.

I have previously acknowledged the fundamental value of the concept of double-jeopardy but can envisage situations where its application only serves to leave a dangerous criminal loose in the community. e.g. I can justify a re-trial where DNA technology clinches a conviction in a murder case decided by a jury, as not-guilty, prior to the availability of that technology. The case for re-trial would be even stronger if the murderer was continuing to kill and was leaving his usual "calling card".
Contemplating a revision of current double-jeopardy laws, to cover the sort of example outlined above, does not constitute abandoning the importance of the principle which undoubtedly protects individuals from a potentially malicious state. Please do not try the line about once you abandon an absolute position you are automatically on a slippery slope.
At this stage I am unaware of any modifications to double-jeopardy provisions. So I cannot comment on what my position on them might be

Tao, you also ask:
"You-Logical, “have-a-few-choices”. 1) continue to be a hypocrite by claiming to be a “committed-civil-libertarian” while defending the erosion of civil-liberties by the state. 2) Acknowledge that you had not realised that bourgeois-democracies no more “inherently” guarantee civil-liberties than dictatorships. 3) Explain to us how bourgeois-democracy does not, under certain conditions, destroy even basic civil-liberties as is happening here and all over the world.

ANSWER to 1)
I have not defended an erosion of civil liberties by the state. It is your misrepresentation of my position on double-jeopardy and your assumtion about what my position is on the recent anti-terrorism laws.

Answer to 2) and 3)
My position has been that democracy has a higher probability of retaining basic civil-liberties. Only a fool would suggest that civil liberties are never under challenge in a democracy. I remain of the opinion that a major erosion of civil liberties is an inevitable consequence of attempts to impose universal socialism by a revolution. I have left open the possibility that I could be wrong if you could provide a satisfactory response to Col's lead-into-gold analogy.

You have also stated:
"I doubt you can provide a simple explanation and solution, so why should I be required to? If you care to hang-around, I will begin my explanation of revolutionary-dictatorships etc. in my next posts.

Answer. You are not obliged to do anything. You instigated the discussion about revolutions and have received repeated requests to explain why our fear of the past repeating itself is unfounded.

It does not strike me as an unreasonable question to have answered if you want people on board your revolution. Perhaps having the temerity to ask questions singles Col and me out for early eradication rather than incorporation.
(continued)

Tao, whether I hang around will depend on the quality of your responses.

So far you have only provided a rationale for a more equitable sharing of wealth. I have previously stated that was an undisputed objective. It was all about whether the goal was reached by revolution or evolution via the ballot box.

You can spend forever telling us about the shortcomings of capitalism but I am not getting on your ship until you answer my question. You are the one trying to sell your product. I already have mine albeit with its unhappy imperfections. Call them monstrous imperfections if you like but in my opinion small fry compared with life under Stalin or Mao.

Logical,

“Answer-to-2)-and-3)
My-position-has-been-that-democracy-has-a-higher-probability-of-retaining-basic-civil-liberties.-Only-a-fool-would-suggest-that-civil-liberties-are-never-under-challenge-in-a-democracy.-I-remain-of-the-opinion-that-a-major-erosion-of-civil-liberties-is-an-inevitable-consequence-of-attempts-to-impose-universal-socialism-by-a-revolution.-I-have-left-open-the-possibility-that-I-could-be-wrong-if-you-could-provide-a-satisfactory-response-to-Col's-lead-into-gold-analogy.”

Sorry-Logical, not-good-enough. Playing by your-rules, if I am not allowed to blame my enemies for thwarting me, you are not allowed to blame yours. Fair’s-fair you-know. You are also relying on assumptions of “received-wisdom” which we already know can-be-wrong. Nor have you provided ANY solution let alone a satisfactory-one.

No matter, the point of my asking you to follow your own criteria was to illustrate to you that it is impossible to debate what led to Stalinism without understanding external and internal, objective and subjective, factors. Nor is it possible to guarantee anything in the future – because YOU can’t either.

As for applying Col’s lead-into-gold-analogy, maybe it should be applied to capitalist-democratic-theory, the results of which are in major decay all-over-the-world. Maybe what you thought was gold, was only fools-gold. Or maybe, in the “practical-experience”, there were things that were not previously understood or accounted-for which now need to be studied in the light-of-experience. I’ll think about this and get back to you.

Now that you acknowledge that bourgeois-democracy no more inherently guarantees “universal civil-liberties” than a dictatorship, I will begin to illustrate how my interest in, and defence of the rights-of-the-individual-against-the-State are not inconsistent with my support of Trotsky’s comments and defence of socialist-revolutionary-dictatorships.

You will no doubt object to aspects of the following, and it will probably require extensive elaboration, however, to begin:

It should be remembered that Trotsky’s words were written before Stalin’s usurpation and consolidation of power (which I will discuss in later posts), and were not a defence of Stalin’s later crimes, but about the actions of the Bolsheviks in defending the revolution against counter-revolution.

Trotsky-says: “we-have-never-and-nowhere-denied-that-our-regime-is-one-class-of-revolutionary-dictatorship-and-not-a-democracy,-standing-above-class,-relying-upon-itself-for-its-stability”

Capitalist “democracy” is actually a dictatorship of the capitalist-class. It protects the rights of capital (or the small percentage of people who own it i.e. the “capitalist-class”) to appropriate to itself the surplus wealth produced by the whole of society. There might be more than one capitalist, and there is limited social-mobility between-classes (only by the use of various-tools of capitalist-exploitation), but it is essentially a dictatorship-of-capital, or accumulated-wealth – the capitalist-class.

It uses “democracy” to cloak its dictatorship in concepts like the guarantee of “universal civil-liberties”, “democratic rights” “freedom”, and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

As we have now seen however, bourgeois “democracy”, in and of itself, does not guarantee those things. What it does “guarantee” is the right of capitalists to accumulate wealth created by the labour of workers and peasants, and at their expense. The politicians that we have the opportunity to “elect” have already proven themselves willing to do the bidding of the bourgeoisie in one form or another, any surface differences are of a tactical nature, they all acknowledge and defend the right of the MINORITY CAPITALIST-CLASS to DICTATE every aspect of our lives (the majority), ACCORDING TO ITS NEEDS. I believe it was Marx who called parliamentary democracy the “boardroom of the bourgeoisie”. And, as in the case of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc, if “democracy” does not work, state violence and oppression will be used, and war will be used to expand its markets.

But the illusion that we have, and which is constantly promoted to us, is that bourgeois-“democracy” governs for all of us, or as Trotsky says “standing-above-class,-relying-upon-itself-for-stability” when in reality it governs for the capitalist-class.

In a nutshell, Russia had a belated capitalist-development compared to other European-countries and its capitalist-class was very weak and relied on the autocratic-feudal-regime of the Tsar (feudal class) to protect its interests, and had previously not been able, or found it necessary, to carry out a bourgeois (capitalist) revolution. At the outset of the Revolution the initial-demands of the women-workers were bread, an end to autocracy (i.e. democracy), and an end to war. At this point the Mensheviks (social-democracy) had majority-support amongst workers, and the Bolsheviks had been driven underground, e.g. Lenin, Trotsky and others had been exiled or jailed.