Dear Poirot,

You have an interesting use of the word provocation. I think any belief is fair game, and any idea is fair game. I don't think of that as provocation. Apparently you do.

I don't think any person that you are dealing with is not fair game. People should be respected. Their ideas need not be respected.

To me Marx is one of the monsters of history. His followers murdered more people than the followers of Hitler.

As far as I can see the Marxist murders were as much the product of his ideas as the Hitler murders were of his ideas.

I don't see why the Marxist victims can't be mourned and remembered as the victims of Hitler are. I don't see why Hitler should be condemned for his murders and Marx be revered.

Do you see that as provocation?

David f,

My idea of provocation is someone deliberately rattling someone else's cage to incite hostility.

How do you separate a person from their ideas?
Without their ideas, what are they?

Btw - "genuine" respect is usually earned.

Dear davidf,

Forgive me but I'm not buying it, well not totally anyway. Work Choices played a big part in getting rid of the Howard government undoubtedly against the wishes of the monied classes and the corporations.

The final words in my last post should probably read 'abrogating responsibility' rather than power.

What is happening when we give our governments permission to act in a manner we would not condone of ourselves? I can not accept the blame lies with the 'oligarchs' especially in a country like ours. 

The phrase all care and no responsibility comes to mind. Is it because governments allow the parking of individual responsibility?

I am confident enough in my fellow Australians to think that if an Afghan refugee family were to lob up in most communities they would be looked after without resorting to a years detention behind razorwire. I'm equally sure that the majority of them want mandatory detention to remain a government policy.

Is the secret ballotbox a contributing factor. Are our more basic instincts prevailing when we vote unscrutinized? What system might we employ to hold us more accountable individually?

Dear Squeers, 

In a sense I agree but they are our sacred cows we are keeping. The medals and Anzac day parades do not speak to the victims rather they adorn the men we are prepared to send to do our killing. In thanking them for their 'sacrifices' we are including the fact we have asked them to become a little less human by nurturing a willingness to kill. Do we need a return to a citizen army?

Dear Poirot,

What ideas, concepts or viewpoints should not be discussed or examined? What ideas do you think should be free from being questioned or even attacked?

We can't separate people from their ideas. Peoples' feelings may be hurt if their ideas are attacked. Yet if we set certain ideas off limits it would be generally be those in power who would set the limits. It would be a way to preserve the status quo.

It is true. There will be people who will deliberately provoke by voicing ideas that some will find objectionable or attacking ideas that most people accept. You cannot shut those people up without also shutting up people who voice ideas that some will find objectionable or attack ideas that most people accept because they want to expose a wrong, feel certain things must be said or for any other legitimate reason. Who is to decide what kind of speech is provocative? The powers that be can limit speech by saying that certain speech is harmful to social order or provocative. To give government or any subset of society that power is to allow them to limit speech that will point out wrong.

Free speech is risky. People may follow a plausible tyrant or a provocateur. Yet without free speech tyranny is certain. I use the criterion that one should not use speech that abuses the person you are addressing, but that no belief or idea should be off limits. We can also use common sense. I will not use certain vulgar words if I feel that the person I am speaking to will object to those words. I am not going up to a person and hammer at them because they have religious beliefs that I don't agree with. However, if someone comes to my door as a Jehovah's Witness did today trying to push their beliefs on me their beliefs become fair game. What criteria do you use to decide what speech or expressions are acceptable?

Dear csteele,

The oligarchies and the warmongers don't always win. However, the oligarchies do have more power than the general public. The more democratic a country is the more chance there is of limiting the power of the oligarchies. However, there is no way of assuring the best decisions are made. Sometimes the general public may make a worse decision than the oligarchy would have made.

One mechanism to compensate for bad decisions is to allow dissent. In the case of war democratic countries allow conscientious objection. With free speech people can still speak against a decision after it has been made in order to reverse it.

We don’t abrogate power and responsibiity since we don’t have it in the first place. The fact is that almost all governments have a monopoly on violence and power. Unless there is a breakdown we generally don’t have private armies or militias. All we can do is try to limit the power of government. The US Constitution was designed to give the people power through their representatives to decide on war by giving Congress the power to declare war. The result has been that almost all wars by the US have been undeclared.

I am against automatic detention. The US and Canada do without such centres, and both countries have a much higher proportion of people who have entered the country without going through any immigration formalities. I am not sure the majority of the country would be for such centres if there was a referendum on the matter.

I think the secret ballot is a great thing. Without it people can suffer penalties for voting in a way the powers-that-be disapprove.

I took a petition generated by Andrew Bartlett that asked for discussion and debate in parliament before the armed forces would be authorised for combat to a men’s club I belonged to. Nobody would sign it. Some said it was the government’s job to decide on such matters. Others agreed but would not sign. They did not want to put their names to it.

david i value your inputs/wisdoms
freespeach does indeed compensate
for the lack of an actual choice..[re voting]

when i voted..i voted blindly..mostly for people i have never met
on a short blurb they put in the local paper..or the party

but as both parties develop the same loyalties to bid money
and advised by the same corrupted public service..
who we dont get to pick...

who tell govt whats what..usually via lying to them..
or restrixcting their info..[see latest post here]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4443&page=0

where im now convinced obama's witness of osama's look alikes exicution...was photo shopped..in live time..[think michael jorden playing with himself]

as was done to george busche before him
[he was so certain..it seems the way security agencies get them onside]

in short i feel we need to sepperate powers
pm's presidents..gov generals..should oversee
not make decisions..guided by a skeptical privey council..[thats why they arnt in the constitution]

anyhow i need the wisdom of posters
need to hear the contrasting facts

i know there was a murdering scccccum bag in russia by his works
wether it was lenin..or marx...isnt as important as knowing..
whoever done it..was advised*..to do it

[and they
*never get held to account]

its THEM..that is the only real and present danger
only by removing their acces to the true powers

[and armed forces/police/judges]
....can things ever..*hope to change

anyhow im not concerned with the acts of men
im more intrested in knowing..and making known..the only truth
[the love grace mercy...GOOD of god]

that im forced to reveal
the insanity of our leaders advisers
is the only way i can see..to end their GENOCIDING

the human race..
that god for some reason loves
well...im only..trying to serve him

it would be so much easier to hate
but my god is loveing..man
what-else to do?