Australia actually had that happen once... major crisis
NZ's governer has never done so. (though almost actually did something in their capacity as Comander in chief of the NZ armed forces during ww1 to avoid the PM taking the flack for something that needed doing. almost. the PM decided he didn't need the help.)
has canada's GG ever actually Done anything in thier own right?
on paper, the governers' and monarch's powers are few, but Very powerful in NZ... in practice they're non existent because they always do whatever the heck the PM wants, choose the PM based on the stupid tradition of 'whoever is the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in parliment', and Refuse to withold consent when they should because it might cause a constitutional crisis. like the constitution of this country is worth a damn thing when they DON"T act in accordance with it
or, you know, stop freaking out about communism and obsessing about free trade and just live with the fact that 'moral capitalism', which is basically capitalism where the government exists to hit the corps in the face when they get out of line rather than do their bidding, is actually a heck of a lot more viable...
also helps if you're willing to make use of protectionist measures to shape the resource flow within, into, and out of your country, rather than purely to make sure the individuals currently making money make more.
but the key to th whole thing is:the government's purpose in a functional capitalist system is to provide the outside limits to what is viable within it, Not to be a tool for those playing the game.
if capitalism is a game, government should be the Rules, not a card.
'course, that's more of a cultural thing than anything...
actually, the way the law works, it Can't. not one that actually achieved anything, anyway.
there's this fun law about different entities (government departments, companies, etc) not being allowed to have their systems match up or something...
basically, social security numbers and ID cards just can't happen without a law change to remove that law And another to create them (... and if the law is entrenched, which it might be, either a super majority or an Additional law change is required to allow the first change)
something to do with the privacy act or something.
or continue supporting it. it's not like their set of vote buying lobbyists' interests diverge from the democrats' set of vote buying lobbyists' interests.
two party systems are inherently made of fail
Any party system isn't much better.
the very function of a political party is to subvert or remove democratic elements of the system it is within. (note that function is different from goals)
one can make a case that the first two seriously endanger people in an immediate manner.
though you're probably right on the last one.
which is part of why so few countries have blanket freedom of speech. (and an aweful lot of even the more liberal ones have censors as an official part of the government structure)
technically, his boss would be the Monarch, actually, i believe. it's not so much that he's answering to himself as that he's occupying two equivalent slots on the organizational chart.
or at least, i suspect that of being the case. Not actually an Australian, there may be details i'm missing.
still, being both at once is problematic sounding for other reasons.
Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
infringement =/= removal.
removal is theft, at least in an analogical manner. once the thing, in this case a right, is removed, the origional possesor there of no longer posseses it (in the case of a right, one could make the case that it's not theft, but willful destruction of property, because not only does the origional owner no longer have it, it no longer exists... but that's another logical tangle we don't need for the moment.)
infringement is not. even if you're talking about the right, if you infringe upon it, the right itself is still there. (though due to different logic than that which leaves the copied file in the possession of the original owner)
... it's not. a state can be socialist without being incompetent or totalitarian. the USA has a heck of a lot more problems with the latter two than the first, and these lists have little or nothing to do with the logic behind socialism.
(unless, i suppose, you're in the usa, where socialism= comunism =totalitarianism = nazis or some such equally crazy stupidity...
yeah, your republicans are communists and your democrats are nazis. have fun with that horribly broken logic... American politics don't make a blind bit of sense beyond the 'people with money are incompetent and/or want to screw you over' level, at least from the outside. )
On the post: As Expected Digital Economy Bill To Be Rushed Through With No Debate
Re: Re:
On the post: As Expected Digital Economy Bill To Be Rushed Through With No Debate
Re: Re:
NZ's governer has never done so. (though almost actually did something in their capacity as Comander in chief of the NZ armed forces during ww1 to avoid the PM taking the flack for something that needed doing. almost. the PM decided he didn't need the help.)
has canada's GG ever actually Done anything in thier own right?
on paper, the governers' and monarch's powers are few, but Very powerful in NZ... in practice they're non existent because they always do whatever the heck the PM wants, choose the PM based on the stupid tradition of 'whoever is the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in parliment', and Refuse to withold consent when they should because it might cause a constitutional crisis. like the constitution of this country is worth a damn thing when they DON"T act in accordance with it
On the post: Why Does Financial Reform Punish Startup Companies And Angel Investors?
Re: *sigh* Ultama Ratio Regum...
also helps if you're willing to make use of protectionist measures to shape the resource flow within, into, and out of your country, rather than purely to make sure the individuals currently making money make more.
but the key to th whole thing is:the government's purpose in a functional capitalist system is to provide the outside limits to what is viable within it, Not to be a tool for those playing the game.
if capitalism is a game, government should be the Rules, not a card.
'course, that's more of a cultural thing than anything...
On the post: Report From The Field: ACTA Negotiations Not Going Well
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology
Re:
also, if your military doesn't do this already, whoever is in charge of such things should be shot.
On the post: Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology
Re: What's up with those "OMG, ID card" hysteria?
actually, the way the law works, it Can't. not one that actually achieved anything, anyway.
there's this fun law about different entities (government departments, companies, etc) not being allowed to have their systems match up or something...
basically, social security numbers and ID cards just can't happen without a law change to remove that law And another to create them (... and if the law is entrenched, which it might be, either a super majority or an Additional law change is required to allow the first change)
something to do with the privacy act or something.
On the post: Full ACTA Draft Leaked... EU Wants Injunctions Against The Possibility You Might Infringe
Re: Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
two party systems are inherently made of fail
Any party system isn't much better.
the very function of a political party is to subvert or remove democratic elements of the system it is within. (note that function is different from goals)
On the post: Full ACTA Draft Leaked... EU Wants Injunctions Against The Possibility You Might Infringe
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Full ACTA Draft Leaked... EU Wants Injunctions Against The Possibility You Might Infringe
Re: Re:
but it seems more like 'corporations bypassing the government' than anything...
On the post: Spanish Gov't Moves Forward On New Law To Make File Sharing And Links Sites Illegal
Re: Re: Interesting
though you're probably right on the last one.
which is part of why so few countries have blanket freedom of speech. (and an aweful lot of even the more liberal ones have censors as an official part of the government structure)
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Video Game-Hating, Anonymous Commenter-Hating South Australian Attorney General Steps Down
Re: Huh?
or at least, i suspect that of being the case. Not actually an Australian, there may be details i'm missing.
still, being both at once is problematic sounding for other reasons.
On the post: Just As It Tries To Kick People Offline, The British Gov't Wants To Move All Public Service Online
Re: Re: Right
Not that the corporations want the government to remember that officially...
On the post: Would UK Politicians Support The Digital Economy Bill If It Applied To Offline Activities As Well?
Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
removal is theft, at least in an analogical manner. once the thing, in this case a right, is removed, the origional possesor there of no longer posseses it (in the case of a right, one could make the case that it's not theft, but willful destruction of property, because not only does the origional owner no longer have it, it no longer exists... but that's another logical tangle we don't need for the moment.)
infringement is not. even if you're talking about the right, if you infringe upon it, the right itself is still there. (though due to different logic than that which leaves the copied file in the possession of the original owner)
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
less reality breaking.
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
Re: Well, I guess I should speak up too
seriously, i lost track. did you manage more than one sentence in a row on the same subject? *very confused*
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
Re: Re: Do ya one better
(unless, i suppose, you're in the usa, where socialism= comunism =totalitarianism = nazis or some such equally crazy stupidity...
yeah, your republicans are communists and your democrats are nazis. have fun with that horribly broken logic... American politics don't make a blind bit of sense beyond the 'people with money are incompetent and/or want to screw you over' level, at least from the outside. )
On the post: EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google
Re: Re:
On the post: UK's Times Online Starts Blocking Aggregators Hours After Aggregators Win Copyright Tribunal Ruling Against Newspapers
Re:
On the post: UK's Times Online Starts Blocking Aggregators Hours After Aggregators Win Copyright Tribunal Ruling Against Newspapers
Re:
Next >>