Yuyutsu, "So you are not supporting the state? And its making of laws which, when not obeyed, it violently locks people up?" Today we treat even the most incorrigible's with a degree of humanity. The extent of violence should be no more than necessary to enforce the verdict of our judicial system. I do not support violence for violence sake.
Do you want no laws enforced for the protection of society? Should murders and rapists go free? On moral grounds. Do you oppose incarceration as a general principle?

I can understand why this Catholic Arch Bishop would want to keep quite about pedophiles, save airing some more dirty linen.

"Paul believes in the State. Isn't that so, Paul? None of this 'independent of the State' rubbish. All under One State, One Party, One Ruler, for One People, yada yada.

Only if you say so Joe. Similar to your belief that Aboriginal people are only in it for the free ride, isn't that so Joe? None of that 'white man's burden' rubbish. All under One White State, One White Party, One White Ruler, for One White People, yada yada.

Its so easy to imagine what others believe, isn't it Joe.

Dear Paul,

Excellent questions!

«Do you want no laws enforced for the protection of society?»

Not unless membership in that society was voluntary and those who joined knew in advance that its constitution allowed for this possibility.

Otherwise, a society may still protect itself, but not by way of making and enforcing laws.

«Should murders and rapists go free?»

Probably not, unless you are quite certain that they will not repeat what they did, or unless you are a saint who is happy to turn their other cheek. Both cases are rare.

However, this does not mean that one may accuse them, condemn them or take them to court (unless they agreed to it as above, by voluntarily and knowingly joining your society).

The difference is subtle, but so important: you do whatever you need to do in order to protect yourself and your loved ones rather than to punish others. The focus is on your legitimate need for safety, rather than on playing God and trying to impose your moral standards on others.

«On moral grounds. Do you oppose incarceration as a general principle?»

Incarceration is an horrendous thing. It should only be used as a very last resort when there is no other way to protect yourself and your loved ones. It is preferable and less cruel to shoot those who pose a serious danger, but first check every possibility if they can be exiled instead, house-arrested or otherwise removed to where they can no longer harm you and your loved ones. If you do have to incarcerate, at least give them an option to die instead, or perhaps be maimed in a way that will prevent them from re-offending.

«I can understand why this Catholic Arch Bishop would want to keep quite about pedophiles»

You know better about this case, but whatever their reason, mine would be different: to avoid collaboration with an illegitimate state; and to avoid the horrific karma for bringing about the incarceration of another.

Paul,

You know better than that. indigenous people here and in NZ are free to set up their own political parties, with their own leaders, etc. And you know, if you know anything about the elites in other situations, that yes, there is a hell of a lot of free-riding, rent-seeking, money for nothing, humbugging on a grand scale, being sought. $ 30 billion a year, maybe more. Yes, free money. So much so, through mining royalties, national park royalties, etc., funds transfers for bogus economic development that never seems to happen, at least here in Australia, and the limitless demands for compensation for asserted past evils.

Whatever is left of the Indigenous Cause which is free of such corruption, I will gladly support, here and in NZ, and until I die. Just point me in its direction.

Joe

I think we may have gone off topic somewhat, but it's OK, I like and agree with Yuyutsu and Loudmouth and their comments.

In reverse,

That's good to hear ALTRAV, I might send you around a box of cookies and then I too might win your nodding approval, like luck Joe and lucky Yuyutsu have. "I think we may have gone off topic somewhat, but it's OK" thank you for that dispensation laddy I though for a moment we might have been in trouble.

Joe, I was a bit taken by your jab about what I might, or might not believe. I certainly do not favour some one, one, etc system of totalitarian government, although it does have its adherents. I don't know what gave you that idea, maybe you have been telepathically in contact with Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler a couple of devotees. Just a off topic question, and I hope my little friend approves. Who do you think was the better looking Joe or Adolf? Joe had that manly look of the rugged Siberian, although he was Georgian, and Adolf had his cute little moustache, both cut a rather handsome swathe in their flashy military style uniforms, and both were a hit with the girls. Who would you vote for?

cont.

cont

Yuyutsu, I am confused, which is not unusual for me, my partner tells me that all the time. The notion that the rights of the individual mostly surpass the rights of the collective is a little difficult to comprehend. Where is the divide, and how, and by whom is it established. Should we establish a idyllic Shangri La, say on Heard Island, where the newly declared "individuals" could bask in the winter sunshine, under the palm trees, but only for those who totally opt out of course, the rest can commute back and forth to Australia when it suits them.
Many individuals have denounced the judicial system in open court, declaring they do not recognise the validity of these proceedings, and the right of the court to try them. This generally takes place shorty before the court finds them guilty, and orders their execution.
Should we conduct a plebiscite, sorry survey, among those incarcerated to see who wishes to be released? It would be interesting to find out what Ivan Milat would like to do for the rest of his life.