🚀 go-pugleaf

Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:41:09 GMT, nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham)
> wrote:
>
> > Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > As to those lower on crime's social ladder, gaol is a more effective teacher
> > > > of criminal knowledge and attitude than the internet will ever be.
> > >
> > > exactly.  you cant censor the internet (yet) and you cant stop crims
> > > learning more about how to perform crime when they come into contact
> > > with other criminals.
> >
> > So, as I said, gaol is a bad idea.
> 
> hmmm.  Perhaps not in all cases?
> minor offences electronic home detention - and use visual monitoring
> to ensure visitors do not bring in sex/drugs/grog.

Why not? Are you reverting to the punishment mentality?

> Jail (why do you spell it the American way?)

I don't: you do.

>                                              for more serious crimes,
> maybe for murder and crimes of violence?  Or will death or flogging be
> voted in, do you think?

I don't know what's to be done about crimes of violence.

We have plenty of evidence that punishment is not an effective deterrent:
it behoves us, therefore, to seek alternatives.

At present the only things that I see as having any effect are allowing
people the unfettered right of self defence and encouraging self-reliance,
and reforming the Law so that there is less profit in crime.

The Law promises to protect us from crime: not only does it fail abysmally
to do that, it actually ecourages crime.

> Ever listen to a scanner?  Its an eyeopener of what the PF has to deal
> with, and of the sometimes scant resources.

Words spoken by police.

Have you ever observed their *actions*? Now there is a *real* eye-opener.

Very occasionally (very rarely), some of their behaviours reach the public
eye: perhaps you recall the video of Sergeant Smith brutalizing a youth
at Fremantle a few years ago, or yoy've seen the ``Current Affair'' report
on Sergeant Butler in Brisbane?

This type of thing is seen as individual lapses by the media and by people
who don't have direct experience of police brutality, but my experience
(this is no mere perception) is that it is institutional (like the
brutality of the drill sargeant).

If you look, you can see behaviours that tend to confirms this: their
tendency to close ranks, for example.

----snip----

> > > > > the answer?
> > > >
> > > > 1. The Law must be just, so that it is *worthy* of respect.
> > >
> > > hah!  whens the next flying pig take off?   ;->
> > > if we can decide on what to reform, and how - who will implement the
> > > reform and when?
> >
> > We now have the technology to enable democracy.
> >
> > If Australia became a democracy (big if, I know), we could amend the
> > Constitution to require that all laws have (or have imputed to them)
> > a sunset clause.
> >
> > Eventually, everything would get considered by the people.
>
> mmmm, yessss.......  <ponders>

And the outcome of your pondering?

> > > > 2. It must be administered justly, humanely, and evenly.
> > > > 3. The system should be aimed at motivating those who commit crimes
> > > > to reform.
> > >
> > > yeah, it should....  but.....  will it ever?
> >
> > Dunno. I do know this: if we don't try for it, it won't happen; if we do,
> > it might. I think the possibility makes the effort worthwhile.
>
> yeah, thats true of most everything worth having :-)

Do I take that you agree that these three things are worth having?

Ie, just laws (1), just, humane, even administration of the Law (2) and
motivation away from crime (3).

And how about democracy (the real thing: not the bullshit we have now)?

----snip----

> > Presently, it's institutionalized - heavily encouraged: the movies even
> > glorify it. That encouragement can be removed.
> 
> Well I guess it can, but stuff like that is hard to move when its even
> encouraged in educational institutions with a history going waaaayy
> back.  I dont believe in that sort of things for schools or bullies at
> school, so lets get rid of that too :-)

While there are rewards for it, it will continue. But if people are
encouraged to defend themselves effectively, and especially if they
are encouraged to defend each other, the rewards will decline sharply.

> >I repeat, this NS is not about making soldiers.
> 
> If you want to take 12 months from someones life just to make them a
> good citizen,

Not just a good citizen.

>               why not make them soldiers too? (well, as much as you
> can in that amount of time, given that 'citizenship' forms part of it)

I'm thinking of weapons training, martial arts, bushcraft, survival skills
and military knowledge.

Though I think that the schools should do the martial arts.

----snip----

> > If people have problems such that they are unsuitable for *any* job, then
> > they can't support themselves: they need care; they should be wards, not
> > citizens.
> 
> ho ho, I dont think that will go down too well with a lot of people.

Anyone reasonable?

> Those who are really bad off might benefit (or might not, depending on
> the level of care - they *are* still people after all, and I have seen
> what lack of care does to a persons dignity (sp) and progress)

That's a different problem: one that such people face now, anyway.

> > > if you cant work in civy street, you cant work in the forces.
> > > so such a person would have medical grounds/documentation to prove
> > > such a medical condition or disability.
> > > What would you do with pregnant women??
> > > Give them a discharge or make them attend later, or not at all?
> >
> > It sounds like you're being wilfully obtuse here, Lug. Earlier, I said
> > that it should apply to immigrants as well as natives. I also spoke of
> > disfranchised convicts regaining citizenship.
> 
> me? wilfull  ;-)

I hope so.

> Well, seeing as you have stated that this 12 months can be 'given' at
> any time after the age of 16, and that you cant be a citizen until its
> done..... who supports all those kids who are still at school but not
> citizens?

Hey, come on! They're not citizens now.

>            Do they still get the same benefits the same as citizens?
> What about those who have kids at an early age?
> What about those who get pregnant while serving their 12 months?

They make their choices, they live with them. It works that way now,
you know.

If they choose, they finish the course later.

> > Is there any way you can avoid the conclusion that this form of NS
> > should be available flexibly?
> 
> Inflexible is it?

Huh? How did you get that?

----snip----

> > We have too little. As Lang Hancock said: ``Singapore could take us by
> > telephone''.
> 
> we *do* have too little - so can you tell me why you think we have any
> forces at all?

Not that it's relevant, but they volunteered: they like the life?

> >----snip----
> >
> > > > We'd be able to field volunteer forces comparable to those we
> > > > fielded in WW 1. And more quickly.
> > > 
> > > ahhh, but the kids of today have some idea that war is a nasty thing
> > > and many that did NS wont volunteer again.
> >
> > It *is* nasty.
> 
> I just said that.

No, you said (see above) ``the kids of today have the idea ...''.

----snip----

> > Australia was a progressive country back then, and the majority of
> > people believed in its future. The politicians and the establishment
> > have destroyed that, but there's no reason it can't be restored.
>
> I feel its gone downhill, but there are many who dont think that way.

Especially those who profit from it.

> How could ordinary people be given something other than
> work/family/pension to aspire to?

How about equal opprtunity for education, information, legal access ...

> > > So you are preparing a 'community army' or a 'citizenship army'?
> > > Not a real fighting army?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> hmmm.  make it both.

No. As you pointed out, there are many who are not suited to it.

There are also those who have religious objections.

> > > Will they be called up full time if needed later on?
> > > If not, why not?
> >
> > No: because there will be plenty of volunteers.
>
> ....  from the 12 month citizenship lesson?

Yes.

----snip----

> > > no, it does not.  I dont see it that way.
> > > it does not apply to anyone who has done NS and gets the job I was
> > > forced to leave. that disadvantages *me* as when my NS is done, the
> > > person who took my job has 12 months experience that I dont have when
> > > we compete for contracts or jobs. they may also have the pay level I
> > > would have had, if I had been left alone to persue my career.
> >
> > There you go again with assumptions that are not justified by what I said.
> 
> nyagh!!   LIFE is an exception!  People have 'exceptions' every day!

This is relevant to something?

> > You don't get forced to leave a job. You choose when you enrol: say, any
> > time after your 16th birthday.
> 
> oh, this is new.  Makes a bit of difference :-)

No it's not. If I haven't said it before, it's implied by what I *have* said.

> So, you leave school, join the forces for 12 months as a nasho, become
> a citizen and be entitled to all its benefits, and then live your
> life?

Or not. It's your choice.

> So, what if you dont want to become a citizen? What if you are already
> *in* Australia - do you get chucked out?

Sheeit! How about: you're not a citizen.

We have non-citizen residents now. Why assume that we won't continue with
that?

Ned

-- 
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.