Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 28th, 2021, 9:34 am
Sy Borg wrote: February 27th, 2021, 4:53 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 27th, 2021, 9:18 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 27th, 2021, 9:12 am News Media owns the Australian government.
In fact as many of us in the UK know, that since Murcoch's News Group took over most of the papers in the UK, Murdoch has basically mandated each PM since the late 1970s.

Yes, this justifies my position, of total support for the national government involved. Unelected international business enterprises cannot be allowed to extend their dominance, and that can only be prevented by taking positive action now, while we still can. [Or am I too late with that sentiment? Is it already too late?] So, even if FB are right, and the Oz government wrong, I still support the latter, for reasons I consider to be over-riding.
You are far too late. Murdoch has controlled Australian politics since the 1970s and his grip has tightened decade by decade.

So your support for the "Australian government" here is simply a vote to strengthen Murdoch's control over Australia.

As mentioned earlier, we can see the results of his control over the US and the UK, having done more to damage those nations more than China, Russia or the Middle East combined.

Parasites are harder to see than overt predators, but they can harm and kill you just the same. In terms of threat to Australia, Murdoch very much dwarfs Zuckerberg. News Corp is the one with the monopoly.

Fair comments. And in the context you have described, my support remains with Oz, and against both Zuckerberg and Murdoch.
If you support this Australian government then then you support Murdoch, as he is the Liberal Party's mouthpiece and the Liberal Party will always work to favour Murdoch and Channel 9. That is what this issue is ultimately about - the Liberal Party protecting its publicity arm:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/12/21/ne ... -coverage/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... eral-party

A language warning on the next one but it sums up the situation well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqj2z3QaRyU
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 28th, 2021, 9:34 am My support remains with Oz, and against both Zuckerberg and Murdoch.
Sy Borg wrote: February 28th, 2021, 7:19 pm If you support this Australian government then then you support Murdoch, as he is the Liberal Party's mouthpiece
Your words only reinforce what I said. Maybe my support should go to those trying to undo the too-intimate connection between a national government and a billionaire? As I've already admitted, it may already be too late, but until this is certain, I will always support an elected government (or indeed anyone) against the billionaires who are running our world into destruction for their own amusement and convenience. I think I'll go and buy another ocean-going yacht: I'm bored.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 1st, 2021, 10:56 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 28th, 2021, 9:34 am My support remains with Oz, and against both Zuckerberg and Murdoch.
Sy Borg wrote: February 28th, 2021, 7:19 pm If you support this Australian government then then you support Murdoch, as he is the Liberal Party's mouthpiece
Your words only reinforce what I said. Maybe my support should go to those trying to undo the too-intimate connection between a national government and a billionaire? As I've already admitted, it may already be too late, but until this is certain, I will always support an elected government (or indeed anyone) against the billionaires who are running our world into destruction for their own amusement and convenience. I think I'll go and buy another ocean-going yacht: I'm bored.
Trouble is, the billionaires are in that situation due to government patronage, taking taxpayer contributions and redistributing them to billionaires either directly through handouts or by turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance. If the Australian government wanted to fix the situation it would tax billionaires the way they tax normal people. That would soon send multinational parasites scuttling. However, Murdoch would not allow any government to do that because he pays less tax than any of them.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sy Borg wrote: March 1st, 2021, 4:36 pm Trouble is, the billionaires are in that situation due to government patronage, taking taxpayer contributions and redistributing them to billionaires either directly through handouts or by turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance.

And do we think that "government" and "billionaires" are distinct? While Trump was in power, he was quite open about feeding money to the rich. Other right-wing governments are the same, although not all are as brazen about it. "Government patronage" is just millionaires and billionaires who are also government ministers feeding money to themselves and their contemporaries, isn't it? The control that the rich have over all aspects of human society is frightening as it is. Hence my position of opposing unelected billionaires in favour of elected governments. If it was possible, I would ban the super-rich from holding government positions too....
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5102
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:32 am
Sy Borg wrote: March 1st, 2021, 4:36 pm Trouble is, the billionaires are in that situation due to government patronage, taking taxpayer contributions and redistributing them to billionaires either directly through handouts or by turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance.

And do we think that "government" and "billionaires" are distinct? While Trump was in power, he was quite open about feeding money to the rich. Other right-wing governments are the same, although not all are as brazen about it. "Government patronage" is just millionaires and billionaires who are also government ministers feeding money to themselves and their contemporaries, isn't it? The control that the rich have over all aspects of human society is frightening as it is. Hence my position of opposing unelected billionaires in favour of elected governments. If it was possible, I would ban the super-rich from holding government positions too....
Why choose?
When democracy is meaningless you are not obligated t support the elected or the unelected.
I too ban the rich from holding office too.
When Macmillian (1st Labour PM) came to office he could not afford a car to get back and forth to parliament. So lucrative was the business of politics, politicians did not get generous salaries, this was a bar to ordinary folk who'd have to give everything up. Only the rich could afford the luxury of taking office.
So a good salary with NO ties or interests outiside parliament would be my recipe.

How you would make your representatives untouchable is another matter.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I think MacMillan was a Tory (🤮), but we are in general agreement. 👍
Bernie Sanders wrote:Billionaires should not exist.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 »

A test post.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 11:28 am A test post.
There were some tech issues a while ago, but Scott seems to have them sorted now.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 10:14 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:32 am
Sy Borg wrote: March 1st, 2021, 4:36 pm Trouble is, the billionaires are in that situation due to government patronage, taking taxpayer contributions and redistributing them to billionaires either directly through handouts or by turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance.

And do we think that "government" and "billionaires" are distinct? While Trump was in power, he was quite open about feeding money to the rich. Other right-wing governments are the same, although not all are as brazen about it. "Government patronage" is just millionaires and billionaires who are also government ministers feeding money to themselves and their contemporaries, isn't it? The control that the rich have over all aspects of human society is frightening as it is. Hence my position of opposing unelected billionaires in favour of elected governments. If it was possible, I would ban the super-rich from holding government positions too....
Why choose?
When democracy is meaningless you are not obligated t support the elected or the unelected.
I too ban the rich from holding office too.
When Macmillian (1st Labour PM) came to office he could not afford a car to get back and forth to parliament. So lucrative was the business of politics, politicians did not get generous salaries, this was a bar to ordinary folk who'd have to give everything up. Only the rich could afford the luxury of taking office.
So a good salary with NO ties or interests outiside parliament would be my recipe.

How you would make your representatives untouchable is another matter.
I don't hold strong opinions about billionaires per se, other than wanting them to pay tax like the rest of us, and my belief that having a a single foreign national effectively controlling Australia's politics is a problem.

All indications are that the divide between the ultra wealthy and the rest of us will increase, with technology making the divide more sustainable than in earlier times, when greedy aristocrats could be overrun by sheer numbers. If a billionaire today has a fortified zone, drones, automatic weapons and the best possible intel, then an uprising of the masses is a lot less of a threat than it would otherwise be.

Besides, given Trump's popularity, chances are that the people would storm any billionaires trying to do good and give Koch, Trump and Murdoch types a free pass. Like the "Arab spring", where oppressive dictatorships were overthrown, only to see even more repressive theocracies installed in their place.

The wisdom of the crowd isn't wise when "the crowd" is influenced each day with media propaganda. GIGO applies.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5102
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:57 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 10:14 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:32 am
Sy Borg wrote: March 1st, 2021, 4:36 pm Trouble is, the billionaires are in that situation due to government patronage, taking taxpayer contributions and redistributing them to billionaires either directly through handouts or by turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance.

And do we think that "government" and "billionaires" are distinct? While Trump was in power, he was quite open about feeding money to the rich. Other right-wing governments are the same, although not all are as brazen about it. "Government patronage" is just millionaires and billionaires who are also government ministers feeding money to themselves and their contemporaries, isn't it? The control that the rich have over all aspects of human society is frightening as it is. Hence my position of opposing unelected billionaires in favour of elected governments. If it was possible, I would ban the super-rich from holding government positions too....
Why choose?
When democracy is meaningless you are not obligated t support the elected or the unelected.
I too ban the rich from holding office too.
When Macmillian (1st Labour PM) came to office he could not afford a car to get back and forth to parliament. So lucrative was the business of politics, politicians did not get generous salaries, this was a bar to ordinary folk who'd have to give everything up. Only the rich could afford the luxury of taking office.
So a good salary with NO ties or interests outiside parliament would be my recipe.

How you would make your representatives untouchable is another matter.
I don't hold strong opinions about billionaires per se, other than wanting them to pay tax like the rest of us, and my belief that having a a single foreign national effectively controlling Australia's politics is a problem.
Murdoch is Australian. They can have him. The bigger problem is the control he has over the UK since 1979, and the massive control he now has in the USA with his ownership of Fox and its support of Trump and racist nationalism.

All indications are that the divide between the ultra wealthy and the rest of us will increase, with technology making the divide more sustainable than in earlier times, when greedy aristocrats could be overrun by sheer numbers. If a billionaire today has a fortified zone, drones, automatic weapons and the best possible intel, then an uprising of the masses is a lot less of a threat than it would otherwise be.

Besides, given Trump's popularity, chances are that the people would storm any billionaires trying to do good and give Koch, Trump and Murdoch types a free pass. Like the "Arab spring", where oppressive dictatorships were overthrown, only to see even more repressive theocracies installed in their place.

The wisdom of the crowd isn't wise when "the crowd" is influenced each day with media propaganda. GIGO applies.
I saw "Bohemian Rhapsody" the other day. At the end of the film Queen play "Live Aid" to rapturous applause. It was a time of hope and optimism that things coulds change. People were okay with foreign aid, the fight against racism was gaining ground, the anti-apartheid movement was in full swing - and it eventually won. It made me feel that in the intervening time we have lost so much. In just 35 years we have truned away from a peak of goodness and are heading back to 1939.
I'm saying this for the simple fact to acknowledge that things can change. It just takes people to speak up and challenge power.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 457
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Robert66 »

BobS wrote: February 28th, 2021, 3:29 pm
Robert66 wrote: February 27th, 2021, 5:04 pm
The Republican side of politics used to argue for economic rationalism, and lowering taxes, and reducing the size of government, and abolishing "red tape" to allow business to flourish, whence the wealth would "trickle down" to all in society. Are all these politicians and their supporters now dead?
They're just a small minority, now in limbo.

For a list of some of the refugees from the party, see the Wikipedia article "List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign".

Although racism has a good deal to do with support for Trump, that's not all there is to it. (Although consider, Trump won the white vote by 57%, a figure that, if it had been the case across the board, would have been at the threshold of what's generally considered a "landslide" victory." A landslide for a blatant white supremacist.)

Just one example. A significant percentage (whatever that means; I've seen figures, but don't recall the specifics) of small business owners supported Trump. I know two people, not connected to each other, who own/manage rental property. One of them once told me that she wanted to replace all of the old door mats with new ones. It turned out that the applicable California state regulations ran to four pages. Four pages applicable to just a teeny, teeny aspect of her business. The second told me something similar about a different set of regs. In neither case was that person a Trump supporter, but both said that, given what they saw as the oppressive weight of government regulations, they could understand business owners rejecting the Democrats, even if it meant voting for the feral nitwit with whom we were burdened for the last four years.
I somehow missed, until now, this reply from you BobS, sorry. The 57% white vote for Trump is a disturbing statistic.

With regard to the example of an overly burdened small business owner, I'm reserving my judgment in the absence of evidence, however I suspect massive exaggeration on the part of your friend. Business owners tend to complain about "oppressive" regulations. As a young man I worked for a businessman who regularly complained to any who would listen about the crippling cost of worker's compensation insurance. He whinged so often that I decided to investigate, and it turned out that he was required to pay less than 4 cents/hour worked for insurance which if needed would completely cover the cost of paying, looking after, and returning to work an injured employee. What a tight ****!

There is a really dangerous aspect to this whinging and whining by "oppressed" business owners. They have succeeded in the US, and are close behind here in Australia, in convincing the majority of the public that too much regulation by a "too large" government ruins the chance of business to succeed, when the facts usually reveal that a) businesses failure is due to factors other than regulation, such as the business owner being an under-prepared idiot, and b) that the regulations in question are actually warranted, and have been enacted for very good reasons such as protecting employees, the environment, the health and safety of the public etc. As far as political rhetoric goes, I think those, such as Australia's (worst ever) PM Scott Morrison, who publicly denounce necessary environmental regulations as "green tape", may get good political mileage out of doing so, however it absolutely stinks if you ask me.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: March 14th, 2021, 5:13 pm There is a really dangerous aspect to this whinging and whining by "oppressed" business owners. They have succeeded in the US, and are close behind here in Australia, in convincing the majority of the public that too much regulation by a "too large" government ruins the chance of business to succeed, when the facts usually reveal that a) businesses failure is due to factors other than regulation, such as the business owner being an under-prepared idiot, and b) that the regulations in question are actually warranted, and have been enacted for very good reasons such as protecting employees, the environment, the health and safety of the public etc. As far as political rhetoric goes, I think those, such as Australia's (worst ever) PM Scott Morrison, who publicly denounce necessary environmental regulations as "green tape", may get good political mileage out of doing so, however it absolutely stinks if you ask me.

This seems to parallel what we have seen here in the UK, to do with Brexit (our national-self-harm equivalent of electing Trump 😥). We heard many complaints of unreasonable regulation on the part of the EU, but investigation seems to indicate that the regulations they were complaining about were mainly concerning worker safety, and limits on the amount of overtime that could be worked.

If this is so, and I believe it is, the complaints originated from the billionaires, who find it stifles their profits if they can't use workers as their work-robots, working all hours, with no benefits like healthcare, accident insurance, and the like. In fact, the UK Independence Party (or its immediate predecessor) was started by multi-millionaire Sir James Goldsmith, whose objections to the EU were very much as I have described.

Our very own Brexit Idiot, PM Boris Johnson*, seems to have a lot in common with your Mr Morrison.... 😥

* - Millionaire servant of the billionaires whose donations fund the UK Conservative Party.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 457
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Robert66 »

Money-worshippers all, and millions, even billions, are never enough for them.
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 »

I hear this morning that the Murdoch shakedown of Facebook has succeeded. They've agreed to pay him.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg »

Yep, our tax dollars were used to fund an Australian government that acted to represent a tax-avoiding American parasite in his shakedown of the tech companies.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021