The Voice Vote. Go ahead - write your little 'No'

Tomorrow is the Voice vote for the First People. All indications are that the 'Yes' vote will lose with only 41.5% support nationally.

It's just a shame. To me, it's a clear indication of the tyranny of the majority, and even worse, how systemic racism continues it's inertia within a society who would individually react angrily to even the suggestion of racism. Yet here we are. A country of plenty, who celebrate our Federation Day amid the protests of the indigenous, and look at the flagpoles with 2 separate flags without a hint of concern, and turn a blind eye to the facts such as the indigenous representing 2% of the population yet 40% of the incarcerated.

So go ahead. Write your little 'No' in the required spot. Accept that you have been fleeced by the misinformation and propaganda from the conservative/religious communities (as outlined in the linked article). Accept that you have been tainted by the same ugly doctrines that the conservatives/religious are using in the US to remove the guilt of past transgressions with respect to the African-Americans. We must 'move on from race' so they say. Accept that you have no ideas at all about how we better integrate our society. Accept that you don't want things to change.

Just accept that you don't give a damn. And why would you? You like society as it is. This is the lucky country after all; a country which has been systemically reconstructed with you in mind. 

So go ahead... write your little 'No'. Tomorrow will be just as good for you as today.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/13/revealed-the-secretive-rightwing-firm-providing-clout-for-voice-no-campaign

Why doesn't Australia have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR)?

 

Why doesn't Australia have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR)?

In the US, many States have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) which allows citizens to have the power of direct governance in things like repealing/enacting laws, recalling 'bad' politicians, etc. The citizens can garner enough signatures to (metaphorically) force these issues upon the legislatures.

Currently, Australia does not have this capability. The linked document talks of the discussions Queensland had about this issue. As the article discusses, one of the strongest arguments against CIR is that it allows the majority to force their views to the detriment of the minority. The logic is that the politicians must, at times, "make decisions which are contrary to popular prejudice".

Once again, we see that society is run by 'theory' and not by 'practice'. This may be an argument in theory, but in practice it is null and void. You only have to look at the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate for a clear indication that this fear is completely unfounded, and actually shows the complete opposite of their argument. The gay/trans community is estimated to be 5% of society. The politicians cowardly refused to enact SSM due to the power and favours-owed to the religious organisations. It took a national referendum for this 5% minority to gain the simple freedoms given to everyone else. A CIR would have been the perfect avenue for this issue.

Another example of the positivity of CIRs is the war on drugs. The efforts and success of regulating cannabis in the US came from CIRs, initially Colorado, which legalised cannabis in 2016, creating considerable tax revenue, reduced the consumption of alcohol and opiates,  and other benefits such as a place where long-suffering kids with epilepsy could get treatment. 13% of people within Colorado consume cannabis so it is a clear minority.

So I fail to see where the politicians have created legislation to the detriment of the majority. Today's politicians rarely exhibit this type of 'courage' since it would be harmful to their reelection prospects. CIRs would allow for long-term changes in society as opposed to the current short-term 3 year cycle of electing politicians.

And the minority does have the ability to act using CIRs. In most US States, the threshold to start the CIR process in only usually somewhere between 2 and 10%. So 2% of the citizens can start a CIR process, and as exposure to the issue increases, many citizens may 'jump onboard' that issue. I would think that if Australia had CIRs, the issue of doctor-assisted suicide, which would affect a tiny minority of citizens would be an issue that would garner tremendous support as it moved through the CIR process.

But any process that allows for a more aware and energised populace cannot be a negative thing to society. Perhaps we should have a CIR to allow CIRs in Australia?

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/explore/ResearchPublications/researchBulletins/rb0198hg.pdf

As a child, a Mars bar cost me 10c. Why am I better off now?

 

I remember when chocolate bars cost 10c and were bigger than today. I vividly remember pumping petrol into the car when it was 35c a gallon (7.7c per litre). Did the farmers who harvested the chocolate/milk/etc, the company that produced the chocolate bar, the trucks that transported the bar to the store, and the store itself not make money on that bar? Of course they did.

So why is this bar now $2.20? Or a better question: are we better-off now that a chocolate bar has risen in price 2,200% in 50 years?

We would be better off if:

  1) Wages increased more than costs. But this is not the case.

...or...

  2) Quality-of-life increased faster due to costs increasing. And I can't see any logic in this hypothesis. Inventors don't invent something for wealth principally because no one knows how anything will turn out. Quantum physics was discovered when a dinner cost 20c. If I invented something and made $100K/year so that I could quit my job and work on this full-time, I would certainly do it. Doesn't have to make me millions.

Also, innovation which leads to increased quality-of-life is a deflationary effect; it reduces prices. Look at TVs; you can buy a massive TV now for only $1,500. And the vast majority of people don't want to be rich; they just want to be financially comfortable so that they don't have to worry about money.

But the key is that someone has to be benefiting from this cost inflation. It certainly isn't me. If chocolate bars were 10c still, my house would be only worth $100K. Would I care? No, why would I? I would fill my petrol tank for $3.50, and my food trolley for $15.

If anyone can tell me why I am better off from the days where a Mars bar costs 10c, I'm all ears.