🚀 go-pugleaf

Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Gaols are a bad idea because they disseminate criminal knowledge.
> 
> ... but..... isnt that the same reason they gave for wanting to censor
> the internet?  Knowledge is power - it just depends on the ideals of
> the person/govt/whatever who has it.

There's a big difference between the two: criminals in gaol are a closed
society, exchanging their knowledge secretively; on the internet, everyone
can see what's being disseminated. If you know what the crims can do, you
can take measures against it.

> > Two alternatives come to mind. One is already being tried out; namely,
> > community service.
> 
> yeah. that seems like a good idea
> 
> > The other is revocation of citizenship. Of course, for that to have
> > any force, citizenship must have some value.
> 
> I'm not sure of that one. It seems that no matter how good the
> intentions are regarding laws and regulations, there is always
> someone/some way to abuse it.

If citizenship is valued, its revocation will hurt. If the offender has the
option of regaining it (say, by doing NS again), the punitive effect is
limited in time. Under the present system, this is not so: once a convict,
always a convict.

> > Fines too are a bad idea: on the one hand they can very easily be perverted
> > to revenue-raising; on the other, they are a very uneven penalty: trivial
> > for the rich, disastrous for the poor.
>
> ....  you mean .... like the GST?  :-)

Worse. A few years ago, an unemployed man in Melbourne was fined $2000 for
stealing electricity.

Do some sums. It's about six week's income for a pensioner.

He stole electricity because he couldn't afford to pay for it. What sense is
there in fining him? It strikes me as a staggeringly vindictive imposition:
in a sense (perhaps a very real one) taking food out of the mouths of his
family, and clothing off their backs. Community service would have been more
productive, I think.

----snip----

> > I think that there should be no exceptions: either you do your National
> > Service *training*, or you don't qualify for citizenship. It should
> > apply to immigrants as well as natives.
> >
> > No exceptions means that everybody's life is equally ``interrupted''
> > (more or less).
> 
> I dont agree with you.
> There are *always* exceptions.
> Medical grounds is just one.

What sort of medical grounds? Note that I emphasized ``training'' above.

I don't intend nashoes to be sent on active military service, for one thing,
and for another, I don't feel that military service/training is the only way
to go. The trainging should be structured around the capabilities and aptitudes
of the trainee,

> And when does 'interrupted' mean 'ruined'?

It's the amount of time spent in training. While you're doing that, you're not
at school or your job or whatever.

When does that mean ``ruined''?

> I agree it may be good for some - but not all.

Allowing exceptions means introducing/perpetuating privilege.

----snip----

> I hope she can afford to get connected to the internet soon, as she
> would love to talk to people about it.

She can't afford it?

I'm on the dole. $40/month is a big whack for me, but I pay it anyway.
I regard it as an investment in my future.

Tell her this: she can't afford to forgo it.

----snip----

> I will pass on your comments, as she is keen to hear what people have
> to say, and to listen to all points of view.  (doesnt sound
> narrow-minded at all, now does it)  :-))

Well, I guess we'll see.

Ned

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