Mandatory Internet Censorship in Australia (3 Viewers)

[abbeyroad]

That which is in bold is irrelevant. The relevant content relates to how offenders will be punished and by Comparison the Chinese government is extremely harsh, grossly sadistic and overzealous.

extremely harsh, grossly sadistic and overzealous? o rly? While the Chinese communist party is a totalitarian regime it is nowhere near as oppressive as the western media outlets portray it to be. It rules with strict laws and tight control over the populace, not overt violence. The only things that the Chinese government will not tolerate are open political dissent and stern criticisms of the government both online and irl. For all other matters one can avoid jail term or even prosecution given that they bribe/know the right people. Political dissidents are usually sentenced to ~10 years in jail but are generally paroled before their full sentences had been served and either be placed under house arrest for the remainder of the sentence, or exiled to the United States for "humanitarian reasons", read Wang Dan etc. How many years will a pedophile get for child pornography here? If you think that's harsh and sadistic wait till you find out what countries like Burma and Zimbabwe do to their political dissidents, they make China's sentencing seems like a state-funded vacation.

Just because you dismiss the similarities as irrelevant doesn't render the comparison any less valid. The two filters are still similar in more ways than one even if there is indeed a great disparity in the severity of punishment(there isn't).

No government is going to deem homosexuality or euthanasia sufficiently offensive to add to the list. This is precisely what I refer to when I cry 'paranoid hysteria'.

it's what you say vs what the law and guidelines say, and they are loud and clear on what would be refused classification: anything that "offends against the standards accepted by reasonable adults", games that exceed the MA15+ rating, pornography containing fetishes, and instruction or promotion in matters of crime, violence or the use of proscribed drugs. Are you saying that somehow a double standard will be applied to the online RC blacklist? Do you think that the government will "bend the rules" a little to accommodate internet users? Australia is still governed by the rule of law the last time I checked.

Your argument might carry a little more weight if only:
Graffiti game ban may set precedent - Breaking - Technology - smh.com.au

Net censorship already having a chilling effect | EFA

Internet black-list revelations raise further questions about Labor's mandatory filtering - Liberal Party of Australia

Classification board bans Nitschke assisted suicide book - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

did not happen. In fact, the blacklisting of the anti-abortion site, the banning of the game for providing"elements of promotion of the crime of graffiti"(how is this RC while GTA is not?) and the book on the grounds that "it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates" rather than the promotion of euthanasia itself brings some interesting questions on the classification process in Australia and shows how the Code and guidelines are open to interpretations.

Not necessarily but thats just the quibbling of a law student. If and when it finally got to the courts and became possible that someone would actually face some kind of legal reprimand for something so outrageously innocent do you know what would happen? There would be a national debate opened up with Euthanasia being the topic and most probably it will see the laws softened which I am inclined to think is a good thing.

???

According to the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act 2005, A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person:

(i) uses a carriage service to access material; or
​

(ii) uses a carriage service to cause material to be transmitted to the person; or
​

(iii) uses a carriage service to transmit material; or
​

(iv) uses a carriage service to make material available; or
​

(v) uses a carriage service to publish or otherwise distributematerial; and
​

(b) the material directly or indirectly counsels or incites
committing or attempting to commit suicide; and
(c) the person:

(i) intends to use the material to counsel or incite committing or attempting to commit suicide; or
​

(ii) intends that the material be used by another person to counsel or incite committing or attempting to commit suicide.
​

Whether or not someone will actually be prosecuted is outside the scope of this discussion. The fact that The Peaceful Pill Handbook was refused classification projects a very high probability that euthanasia sites with similar message will be added to the blacklist.

?
You have accused me of being some rich kind, spoiled, champagne socialist, you have accused me of homophobia and have suggested I have some amoral hatred of freedom. Just consider that someone who gets up at 4am so he can work a four hour shift each week morning before going to uni afterwards, someone who was mocked and derided as a "fag" and a "homo" at a catholic highschool for my outspoken support of gay marriage and who donated money to the legal campaign of Mohammad Haneef and who volunteers at the office of House of Welcome might be slightly offended by such charges. Particularly if this person had actually stated on numerous occasions an opposition to the filter but a frustration at the hysteria that is generated about it.

Yet for all of that the only thing I really care about is being called homophobic, . call me whatever you like but if it you would be so kind, don't call me racist, homophobic, sexist or sectarian.

ok bro, since you put it that way, I'm willing to overlook the fact that you're a homophobic racist who hates women and all non-Catholics for the time being.

 

[FlipX]

That's an unlikely situation which I think you know but I think your point is "we just don't know" which is fair enough. I don't think the online gambling loss is the end of the world although I certainly am not suggesting its desirable for it to be banned, harm minimization I suspect the government wouldn't cave and if they did I suspect the electorate would hold them responsible, I am a big believer in democracy.

You have a lot more faith in the voting public than I do. Given how little the people care about political issues or even current affairs (outside of "A Current Affair"), I tend to think that they'll fall for the first manipulative propaganda line they see and accordingly. I'd like to be wrong, but I just don't think that's the case.

extremely harsh, grossly sadistic and overzealous? o rly? While the Chinese communist party is a totalitarian regime it is nowhere near as oppressive as the western media outlets portray it to be. It rules with strict laws and tight control over the populace, not overt violence. The only things that the Chinese government will not tolerate are open political dissent and stern criticisms of the government both online and irl. For all other matters one can avoid jail term or even prosecution given that they bribe/know the right people. Political dissidents are usually sentenced to ~10 years in jail but are generally paroled before their full sentences had been served and either be placed under house arrest for the remainder of the sentence, or exiled to the United States for "humanitarian reasons", read Wang Dan etc. How many years will a pedophile get for child pornography here? If you think that's harsh and sadistic wait till you find out what countries like Burma and Zimbabwe do to their political dissidents, they make China's sentencing seems like a state-funded vacation.

I find China's system fascinating. Human rights abuses exist, yes, but China seems to operate on the principle that the welfare of the majority outweighs the welfare of the minority. It's harsh in our own terms, but from a utilitarian perspective, net gains to society are much greater.

Armed with this approach, they've managed to implement things that would take years here simply due to a lack of electoral conviction or political lobbying; a good example would be the renewable energy and climate change policies they're enacting domestically, despite their international reluctance to commit to targets.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily for totalitarianism, but like abbeyroad, I think China is portrayed in a far harsher light in Western media than it deserves.

 

[Chemical Ali]

Maxine McKew just stated on national television that she believes that the restrictions which apply to posting material such as opinions in newspapers, including verification of names and addresses, should also apply to websites.

 

[Lentern]

Abbeyroad I fear you must be reading with your eyes closed if you think anyone suggested Burma of Zimbabwe be held up as good examples for the rest of the world to follow when it comes to the human right stakes. I also find your "okness" with a system so riddled with corruption a little disturbing. As for political dissent, as it were I tend to consider that right a fairly important right and as such don't think the criticisms of China were unfair at all.

On the issue of the filters content you can produce a sworn affidavit from the prime minister stating he will leave no stone unturned in his quest to censor pro homosexual and pro euthanasia content, you would still be delusional to think such a law could ever come into effect, especially from a labor government. The reason our pollies all vote along party lines so much and single issues so rarely turn elections is because they tend not to push that line.

You need to move from this black and white view that there is only freedom and censorship. This is an entirely relative matter and the sooner you see it as such the sooner you'll stop having nightmares about eating soylent green.

 

[SnowFox]

YouTube - Akmal Saleh - It's time to tell mum


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yes ;p

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I find China's system fascinating. Human rights abuses exist, yes, but China seems to operate on the principle that the welfare of the majority outweighs the welfare of the minority. It's harsh in our own terms, but from a utilitarian perspective, net gains to society are much greater.

Please explain exactly how the net gains under the Chinese system are greater.

Then further explain why China has lower life expectancy, poorer education by almost every measure, extreme levels of pollution in many cities and dramatically lower GDP per capita than any western nation.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily for totalitarianism, but like abbeyroad, I think China is portrayed in a far harsher light in Western media than it deserves.

Translation: Ching chong nip nog fong. I love being a slave.

 

[B1gb0yjames]

I find China's system fascinating. Human rights abuses exist, yes, but China seems to operate on the principle that the welfare of the majority outweighs the welfare of the minority. It's harsh in our own terms, but from a utilitarian perspective, net gains to society are much greater.
.

lol bro, you have been sucked in by the ruling elite. its never been majority vs miniorty, its "society" vs the individual.

fuck off cunt.

 

[abbeyroad]

Abbeyroad I fear you must be reading with your eyes closed if you think anyone suggested Burma of Zimbabwe be held up as good examples for the rest of the world to follow when it comes to the human right stakes. I also find your "okness" with a system so riddled with corruption a little disturbing. As for political dissent, as it were I tend to consider that right a fairly important right and as such don't think the criticisms of China were unfair at all.

yeah nice strawman d00d we're not talking about the "system" or human rights in China or Burma. We're talking about the validity of the comparison between the Chinese and the proposed Australian filter and the sentencing disparity, if any, between the two countries for using the internet to disseminate content that is deemed highly illegal by the respective governments. I disputed your claim that China's punishment is harsh and sadistic in comparison; I provided clear examples showing that there is no major contrast between China's sentencing for political dissent, the gravest crime under the Chinese judicial system, and Australia's sentencing for child pornography/pedophilia. I then went on to state that, despite the criticisms and allegations China receives from the western media over its abuse of human rights, China's punishment of political dissidents are in fact quite lenient when compared to countries such as Burma and Zimbabwe. I did not imply nor did I declare them as model examples of good governance. There's is no "okness", I believe in liberty for all and never once did I endorse the oppression and status quo in China. Please do not put words in my mouth and address the topic at hand - your statement that it is absurd to compare the two countries' filters based on "the key difference in the severity of the punishments" and my counterargument to that claim.

On the issue of the filters content you can produce a sworn affidavit from the prime minister stating he will leave no stone unturned in his quest to censor pro homosexual and pro euthanasia content, you would still be delusional to think such a law could ever come into effect, especially from a labor government. The reason our pollies all vote along party lines so much and single issues so rarely turn elections is because they tend not to push that line.

Again, nice straw man, we are not discussing whether the bill will actually be enacted by parliament, but what content will be filtered under the scheme should it come into effect. You've gone from the assertion that the filter is merely about policing illegal content, that only child pornography will be blocked, to the assertion that while some non-illegal topics will be blocked, certain topics such as abortion and euthanasia will not. I have provided clear and tangible evidence to refute you every step of the way. I have supplied proof showing why and how these topics will be/have been blocked by the ACMA. What evidence have you presented in support of your argument? In fact, throughout this whole time, what tangible evidence have you provided other than your unsubstantiated assertions and subsequent diversions from topic in the face of overwhelming evidence?

You need to move from this black and white view that there is only freedom and censorship. This is an entirely relative matter and the sooner you see it as such the sooner you'll stop having nightmares about eating soylent green.

The fact that you even thought of postulating this demonstrates your lack of understanding of both liberty and censorship. Liberty and censorship lie on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Liberty means, in essence, the freedom of the individual to do what he wants without fear of outside coercion, as long as his actions do not harm others. Censorship means the active removal and suppression of information carried out by a government or organization through coercion - through either violence, fines, captivity or other forms of punishment. They are not relative, there is no "soft" censorship, you can't force compliance without coercion. I understand that there is liberty in theory and liberty in practice, that as humanity grouped together to form societies we relinquished certain natural rights in exchange for the state's protection from harm and violence. I understand that various forms of government differ on what these "natural rights" are and the distinction between liberty and authority are oftentimes non-existent in some of these governments. However, there needs to be a clear line between personal freedom and state interference in a liberal democracy. For Australia to criticize China's disregard of human rights and then turn around to propose something that goes against one of the fundamental principles in liberalism is hypocrisy at its best and an affront to liberal thinkers past and present.

I realise I'm pissing in the wind here. I've sustained my argument with clear evidence while you sit there regurgitating your assertions that this won't happen or that won't get filtered because I say so, or your valid argument is irrelevant blah blah. You've shown, time and time again, through your use of ad homiem, straw man arguments and a general tendency to distort and divert attention away from substantiated points which you cannot contend, that you're incapable of conducting a constructive and intelligent discussion. I'm gonna stop now k.

yeah gg d00d.

 

[Lentern]

yeah nice strawman d00d we're not talking about the "system" or human rights in China or Burma. We're talking about the validity of the comparison between the Chinese and the proposed Australian filter and the sentencing disparity, if any, between the two countries for using the internet to disseminate content that is deemed highly illegal by the respective governments. I disputed your claim that China's punishment is harsh and sadistic in comparison; I provided clear examples showing that there is no major contrast between China's sentencing for political dissent, the gravest crime under the Chinese judicial system, and Australia's sentencing for child pornography/pedophilia. I then went on to state that, despite the criticisms and allegations China receives from the western media over its abuse of human rights, China's punishment of political dissidents are in fact quite lenient when compared to countries such as Burma and Zimbabwe. I did not imply nor did I declare them as model examples of good governance. There's is no "okness", I believe in liberty for all and never once did I endorse the oppression and status quo in China. Please do not put words in my mouth and address the topic at hand - your statement that it is absurd to compare the two countries' filters based on "the key difference in the severity of the punishments" and my counterargument to that claim.

The sheer difference in what China deems the ultimate offence and what Australia deems the ultimate offence is spectacularly important. When a government is deliberately and happily extending its reach in order to consolidate its own authority and power it is not the same as one reluctantly extending its reach after the free society has generally proven ineffective at protecting the most vulnerable members of society.

Again, nice straw man, we are not discussing whether the bill will actually be enacted by parliament, but what content will be filtered under the scheme should it come into effect. You've gone from the assertion that the filter is merely about policing illegal content, that only child pornography will be blocked, to the assertion that while some non-illegal topics will be blocked, certain topics such as abortion and euthanasia will not. I have provided clear and tangible evidence to refute you every step of the way. I have supplied proof showing why and how these topics will be/have been blocked by the ACMA. What evidence have you presented in support of your argument? In fact, throughout this whole time, what tangible evidence have you provided other than your unsubstantiated assertions and subsequent diversions from topic in the face of overwhelming evidence?

My argument has always been political and it still remains that. It would be suicidal politics for either party to force through a clean feed model that involved suppression of such content. And I have said from the beginning and still maintain that the content blocked will be primarily be content that is already illegal.

The fact that you even thought of postulating this demonstrates your lack of understanding of both liberty and censorship. Liberty and censorship lie on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Liberty means, in essence, the freedom of the individual to do what he wants without fear of outside coercion, as long as his actions do not harm others. Censorship means the active removal and suppression of information carried out by a government or organization through coercion - through either violence, fines, captivity or other forms of punishment. They are not relative, there is no "soft" censorship, you can't force compliance without coercion. I understand that there is liberty in theory and liberty in practice, that as humanity grouped together to form societies we relinquished certain natural rights in exchange for the state's protection from harm and violence. I understand that various forms of government differ on what these "natural rights" are and the distinction between liberty and authority are oftentimes non-existent in some of these governments. However, there needs to be a clear line between personal freedom and state interference in a liberal democracy. For Australia to criticize China's disregard of human rights and then turn around to propose something that goes against one of the fundamental principles in liberalism is hypocrisy at its best and an affront to liberal thinkers past and present.

No thats wrong and its so horribly absolutist. A cheap, exaggerated hypothetical case in point is that I can't (or shouldn't) publish a newspaper article with the name, age, address, school and ethnicity of a nine year old girl currently involved in some sort of criminal proceeding. By contrast no government is going to stop me telling people in written form or otherwise about when I once got to sit in on a meeting with Laurie Ferguson and he described boat people as "a few pests."

I realise I'm pissing in the wind here. I've sustained my argument with clear evidence while you sit there regurgitating your assertions that this won't happen or that won't get filtered because I say so, or your valid argument is irrelevant blah blah. You've shown, time and time again, through your use of ad homiem, straw man arguments and a general tendency to distort and divert attention away from substantiated points which you cannot contend, that you're incapable of conducting a constructive and intelligent discussion. I'm gonna stop now k.

yeah gg d00d.

Why does everyone on this place sound like a smug twerp who just got a D in law foundation and thinks nobody else knows about the subject.

 

[SnowFox]

Internet provider denies supporting Conroy's filter

 

[abbeyroad]

The sheer difference in what China deems the ultimate offence and what Australia deems the ultimate offence is spectacularly important. When a government is deliberately and happily extending its reach in order to consolidate its own authority and power it is not the same as one reluctantly extending its reach after the free society has generally proven ineffective at protecting the most vulnerable members of society.

Can you even tell when you're grasping at straws? When the two compulsory filters use the same blocking methods and the punishment for bypassing the filters to publish illegal content is equal, the two filters are ???

My argument has always been political and it still remains that. It would be suicidal politics for either party to force through a clean feed model that involved suppression of such content. And I have said from the beginning and still maintain that the content blocked will be primarily be content that is already illegal.

lol

No thats wrong and its so horribly absolutist. A cheap, exaggerated hypothetical case in point is that I can't (or shouldn't) publish a newspaper article with the name, age, address, school and ethnicity of a nine year old girl currently involved in some sort of criminal proceeding. By contrast no government is going to stop me telling people in written form or otherwise about when I once got to sit in on a meeting with Laurie Ferguson and he described boat people as "a few pests."

lollolol what you provided is actually an example of censorship at work. The "can't" denotes that there is some external constraint stopping you. In the true sense of classical liberalism there should not be any outside interference stopping you from publishing that information. Whether you should or should not publish it is a question of ethics and a choice entirely up to you, but there should not exist any outside coercion stopping or compelling you to distribute those details.

Why does everyone on this place sound like a smug twerp who just got a D in law foundation and thinks nobody else knows about the subject.

because you're a dumb fuck that's why. Your insistence on regurgitating the same old bullshit over and over again and your outright refusal to reexamine your views or even consider the alternative when faced with compelling evidence is what led me to correctly deduce the fact that you're a hardcore Catholic/Christian in my first post. We don't have much love for indoctrinated drones here. gg mang.

 

[Lentern]

Can you even tell when you're grasping at straws? When the two compulsory filters use the same blocking methods and the punishment for bypassing the filters to publish illegal content is equal, the two filters are ???



lol


lollolol what you provided is actually an example of censorship at work. The "can't" denotes that there is some external constraint stopping you. In the true sense of classical liberalism there should not be any outside interference stopping you from publishing that information. Whether you should or should not publish it is a question of ethics and a choice entirely up to you, but there should not exist any outside coercion stopping or compelling you to distribute those details.




because you're a dumb fuck that's why. Your insistence on regurgitating the same old bullshit over and over again and your outright refusal to reexamine your views or even consider the alternative when faced with compelling evidence is what led me to correctly deduce the fact that you're a hardcore Catholic/Christian in my first post. We don't have much love for indoctrinated drones here. gg mang.

Given you seem prone to speak as if to the contrary I feel its appropriate to remind you that I don't support the filter. If I were king of the world I would not implement it, if I were King of the world and it already existed I would remove it. As such it would strengthen your claim to the highschool debating high ground if you stopped implying as such, it's about as convincing as it would be if I asserted you just wanted to watch child porn. Then again you've accused me of being homophobic and a spoilt rich kid so perhaps you don't set much stock in playing the issue rather than the man.

On the China comparisons, why are you maintaining this, its ludicrous. It is not the same issue, it is a similar piece of software used to achieve very different ends. The fact that dissent is the most serious crime does not somehow render it comparable to pedophilia. The fact that China doesn't consider pedophilia a more serious crime similarly doesn't render our laws cruel and harsh. It is possible nay it is the case that when it comes to correctly determining the severity of crimes, we are much closer to the mark than China. Therein lies the reason freedom is such a luxury for a Chinese man, not because the government employs internet filters but because the government believes it is justified in suppressing opposition in order to consolidate its position of power. It's not a liberal/labor thing, it's an Australia China thing, see the outrage now because a government is using public money to fund government ads (a far bigger freedom issue).

Regarding the censorship example it isn’t just ethics it is law, there would be less than a dozen judges in the country who would deny an injunction to stop that article being published to anyone who asked for one. And if you suggest that is a bad thing well gee whiz, I don’t know if there is any point in reasoning with someone who asserts that the right to publish such intrusive content is worth sacrificing equitable justice for.

 

[abbeyroad]

Given you seem prone to speak as if to the contrary I feel its appropriate to remind you that I don't support the filter. If I were king of the world I would not implement it, if I were King of the world and it already existed I would remove it. As such it would strengthen your claim to the highschool debating high ground if you stopped implying as such, it's about as convincing as it would be if I asserted you just wanted to watch child porn. Then again you've accused me of being homophobic and a spoilt rich kid so perhaps you don't set much stock in playing the issue rather than the man.

On the China comparisons, why are you maintaining this, its ludicrous. It is not the same issue, it is a similar piece of software used to achieve very different ends. The fact that dissent is the most serious crime does not somehow render it comparable to pedophilia. The fact that China doesn't consider pedophilia a more serious crime similarly doesn't render our laws cruel and harsh. It is possible nay it is the case that when it comes to correctly determining the severity of crimes, we are much closer to the mark than China. Therein lies the reason freedom is such a luxury for a Chinese man, not because the government employs internet filters but because the government believes it is justified in suppressing opposition in order to consolidate its position of power. It's not a liberal/labor thing, it's an Australia China thing, see the outrage now because a government is using public money to fund government ads (a far bigger freedom issue).

Regarding the censorship example it isn’t just ethics it is law, there would be less than a dozen judges in the country who would deny an injunction to stop that article being published to anyone who asked for one. And if you suggest that is a bad thing well gee whiz, I don’t know if there is any point in reasoning with someone who asserts that the right to publish such intrusive content is worth sacrificing equitable justice for.

 

[abbeyroad]

if you're a troll then my hats off to you good sire, you've baited a seasoned interwebs flame warrior into an one sided debate for fuck all nothing. maybe it was time I get a taste of my own medicine.

 

[FlipX]

Please explain exactly how the net gains under the Chinese system are greater.

Then further explain why China has lower life expectancy, poorer education by almost every measure, extreme levels of pollution in many cities and dramatically lower GDP per capita than any western nation.

Translation: Ching chong nip nog fong. I love being a slave.

Wow, a winning sign-off for such an enlightened response. Bravo. <3

Are you suggesting that the Chinese government is somehow inherently evil? That Hu Jintao is the Darth Vader of our time, and that the Empire deliberately sets out to make its people suffer? Pfft.

I'm not disputing that China performs comparatively worse in measures of social welfare, but it would be ridiculous to portray these as symptoms unique to China. Asking why China lags behind Western countries requires going back decades, if not centuries, to examine the historical divergence between Eastern and Western prosperity - not all of which can be so easily attributed to the current communist ruling system.

China is showing positive growth in the measures of welfare that you mentioned, including life expectancy and even GDP per capita. While these are below equivalent Australian measures, they also started from a historical lower base. What now? Are you going to blame the unrelated Chinese imperial system for this? Would you even consider that a part of the problem may have been European colonialism's exploitation and suppression of non-Western populations, which would make your comparison shamefully ignorant?

Putting the majority before the minority is a very Eastern idea, one that is at odds with Western ideas of individual liberty. It may be tough to swallow, but I think it makes a lot more sense for a country like China, which would rather seek development for its society than allow a few obstructionist individuals to dictate progress. Obviously, this is highly context-dependent and cannot be used as a broad brushstroke, but some situations call for it:

For example, the Three Gorges Dam, even with its flaws, now acts as a significant source of clean electricity for the country, providing energy for nine provinces; this required the relocation of over a million locals, which would have never happened in a democracy, but are the gains to society not greater? Or take the economic reforms of the 70's that propelled China on its current growth path - funding was directly only to the southern provinces while the rest of the country began lagging. But had distribution of funding been equally allocated across the country, which is a likely scenario under democratic political lobbying, do you think China would even have today's growth rates to speak of?

I'm not advocating this system for us - I'm merely pointing out that Western perspectives of what goes on in another country may not always be the best approach. Your eager judgement betrays thinly-veiled ethnocentrism and your conclusion smacks of racism. I'd be happy to discuss further, but you seem to be a jerk.

 

[SnowFox]

if you're a troll then my hats off to you good sire, you've baited a seasoned interwebs flame warrior into an one sided debate for fuck all nothing. maybe it was time I get a taste of my own medicine.

Dont mistake trolling for idiocy.

 

[Slidey]

Wow, a winning sign-off for such an enlightened response. Bravo. <3

Are you suggesting that the Chinese government is somehow inherently evil? That Hu Jintao is the Darth Vader of our time, and that the Empire deliberately sets out to make its people suffer? Pfft.

I'm not disputing that China performs comparatively worse in measures of social welfare, but it would be ridiculous to portray these as symptoms unique to China. Asking why China lags behind Western countries requires going back decades, if not centuries, to examine the historical divergence between Eastern and Western prosperity - not all of which can be so easily attributed to the current communist ruling system.

China is showing positive growth in the measures of welfare that you mentioned, including life expectancy and even GDP per capita. While these are below equivalent Australian measures, they also started from a historical lower base. What now? Are you going to blame the unrelated Chinese imperial system for this? Would you even consider that a part of the problem may have been European colonialism's exploitation and suppression of non-Western populations, which would make your comparison shamefully ignorant?

Putting the majority before the minority is a very Eastern idea, one that is at odds with Western ideas of individual liberty. It may be tough to swallow, but I think it makes a lot more sense for a country like China, which would rather seek development for its society than allow a few obstructionist individuals to dictate progress. Obviously, this is highly context-dependent and cannot be used as a broad brushstroke, but some situations call for it:

For example, the Three Gorges Dam, even with its flaws, now acts as a significant source of clean electricity for the country, providing energy for nine provinces; this required the relocation of over a million locals, which would have never happened in a democracy, but are the gains to society not greater? Or take the economic reforms of the 70's that propelled China on its current growth path - funding was directly only to the southern provinces while the rest of the country began lagging. But had distribution of funding been equally allocated across the country, which is a likely scenario under democratic political lobbying, do you think China would even have today's growth rates to speak of?

I'm not advocating this system for us - I'm merely pointing out that Western perspectives of what goes on in another country may not always be the best approach. Your eager judgement betrays thinly-veiled ethnocentrism and your conclusion smacks of racism. I'd be happy to discuss further, but you seem to be a jerk.

And what of the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion in China (or rather, lack thereof)? Where do these fit into your defence of China's human rights?

 

[FlipX]

And what of the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion in China (or rather, lack thereof)? Where do these fit into your defence of China's human rights?

I'm not defending China's human rights record. What I was exploring was the idea that human rights can be contrary to economic development.

Mind you, this isn't a view that I agree wholeheartedly with - but it's an interesting point to consider and debate, especially as our culture is very much for individual rights and China's ruling party seems to be of the more utilitarian view that I'd suggested; hence my point about taking a step back from culturally based assumptions on what is right and just.

 

[Lentern]

Dont mistake trolling for idiocy.

Well so long as we're playing highschool quips then I might indulge in a little "You'd know all about idiocy wouldn't you."

 

[Rothbard]

Well so long as we're playing highschool quips then I might indulge in a little "You'd know all about idiocy wouldn't you."

Ugh. You have no ideology.