Is a Bill of Rights the best way to actually protect human rights? I don't think so!

[Direct Driver]

Bottom line? A Bill of Rights encodes the abstract ideals of one age in words that can be misinterpreted by another - and ALSO is anti democratic in that the population don't get to decide on matters of social policy. A dusty old parchment from a dusty old era encodes these 'laws' once for all, then equally dusty old Supreme Court judges decide on matters of 'law' that are actually social policy! This is my blog page about why I don't ever want to see a Bill of Rights in Australia.
___________

I’m all for human rights, who isn’t? But what is the best mechanism to protect human rights in a country? Is it a Bill of Rights, or some other mechanism? I think there are a number of problems with developing a Bill of Rights and then with implementing it.

1. A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real!
We all want the right to privacy, right? Let’s just have Australia sign the Bill of Rights and be done with it. Pass the champagne. As long as we stay in the abstract like this we are happy.

But let’s see what happens if we take it out on the road for a test drive. While we can all agree on a right to privacy in the abstract, when we get specific in the real world, people will disagree. For instance, I’m quite happy with Random Breath Testing (RBT). Australian police have the power to pull you over and ask you to count to 10 on their breath analyser. I only get tested about once a year, but it means I’m on statistically safer roads. When I explained RBT to an American friend he exploded in outrage – “But what about your right to privacy?” My argument is what about my right to life? I want to live on safer roads where my family is less likely to be wiped out by a drunk driver, and will gladly submit to the law and do RBT as required.

Or now that we have a global pandemic, I’m happy to download a government app that helps track and trace my random street contacts in an anonymous digital bluetooth handshake for the next year or so and warns me if I met anyone that turned out to have the virus. The data is protected by law, and deletes every 21 days. When the crisis passes I will do a factory reset on my phone and delete the app. Also, anyone worried about a collection of anonymous Bluetooth handshakes should REALLY worry about using Siri or Google Maps! But in the meantime, doesn’t my right to life outweigh my right to privacy? Shouldn’t we all be prepared to give up some things in order to beat a global pandemic and then get the economy back on track?

We can all agree on a right to privacy, but once we get specific the battle lines are drawn up. RBT and tracing apps are not the point — the fact that we can so easily disagree about RBT and tracing apps is. I see it helping my right to life but others see it attacking their right to privacy. We can all agree on a vaguely worded, sugar-and-spices bill of rights sitting in a shiny showroom, but take it out on the streets for a drive in the real world and we suddenly discover all sorts of problems.

So what do we do about it? Once we get into the mucky business of getting specific we discover that smart, educated people disagree. The rest of this page is about how best to protect our rights in a society that must adapt to new technologies, changing cultures, and above all, have a process for protecting our rights even when people disagree. I believe Australia already has those mechanisms in place, but we simply don’t appreciate them for what they are because too many of us feel we need a parchment of fine sounding words, without asking what all these fine sounding words actually mean in our daily lives.

As ‘Big Ideas’ said:

The language of human rights is arguably the dominant language of moral discussions in today’s world, but does this language alter a State’s scope for action? According to today’s guest yes it does. He argues that the language of human rights can achieve a sort of bogus consensus because it deals in moral abstractions that are so abstract and so couched in emotively appealing connotations and generalisations that just about everyone can sign up to it. And that the definitions of human rights are contestable and contested, debatable and debated every day and all of the time.
Canadian Professor James Allen​

2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, not our elected Politicians who are often trained in the statistics of social policy and public mood.
Does RBT infringe on my right to privacy or help protect my right to life? Will society judge that my right to privacy is violated if a cop pulls me over and asks me to blow into a tube, or will society decide my right to protection from drunken idiots wielding a ton of steel at a hundred kilometers an hour is more important?

When we break down notions of human rights into specific questions we can see that they become divisive. It’s just like watching the ABC’s Q&A, you can see the audience drawing up their battle lines and feel the tension in the air. Educated, nice people will just disagree because of their own life experiences and baggage. For instance, if I have had a ban run in with the authorities as a youth, and naturally feel suspicious about giving the police extra powers, I would no doubt want to ban RBT. It’s just too open to abuse! But if — on the other hand — I had watched my dear father die in the twisted metal of a car wreck, then I might be more likely to want strong action against drink drivers.

Lawyers and judges have had training to interpret the law, not decide social issues for us. Who are lawyers to interpret multi-disciplinary issues that might involve Australian society, culture, psychology, architecture and infrastructure? Human rights can affect everything, from how we design a train station with access for the disabled to how we run the public transport system as a whole. Rights questions are asked of employment programs and military training, running a school and how you walk to school. Are a bunch of wealthy lawyers going to make better decisions than engineers and teachers and bus drivers on these matters? Are they somehow more qualified to debate the issues and rights and wrongs of the best ways to protect Australian citizens living in the real world with real problems?

I say no. I say — as imperfect as it is — that we keep our human rights where they are. We keep them under Parliamentary Law. For our Parliaments, whether Federal or State, are subject to the ebb and flow of contemporary wisdom and common sense. Politicians should adapt the laws to the concerns of the day. Every year brings new social problems, scientific concerns, technological innovations, infrastructure concerns and public health crisis. Laws travel in one direction for a while and society learns from experience. Then — when the situation changes and public pressure builds — laws can move back again. This is a good thing!

Social policies should be decided by science and statistics and sociology and psychology and, if all else fails, elections! Surely, in a specific question like the RBT laws, we want the public to decide. Surely we want controversial policies like banning the Burqa or pub curfews or teenage driving laws decided by statistics and social sciences and public opinion, not dusty old texts written by our grandfathers. For make no mistake — a Bill of Rights will age. Even more so in this era of technological acceleration.

3. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary
Lawyers and judges are unelected, unaccountable, and unsuited to interpret a bill of rights in the thousands of very real, very practical questions that could be put to them. A bill of rights turns judges into high priests of social policy. This politicizes the judiciary. Just watch American politics the next time a new judge is appointed to the Supreme Court.

4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!
Policies can be right for one generation and wrong for another. RBT might be necessary in this generation of drinking and driving. But if robot cars arrive over the next ten years, driving may become a thing of the past — let alone drink driving. So if RBT’s become irrelevant, the laws and policies can easily be changed. They are not enshrined in some interpretation of the Bill of rights — a hallowed parchment up there with our Constitution!

The problem with these Bills is they cannot predict the thousands of new social policies we will need for each situation. The ivory tower doesn’t always understand life on the street. A bill of rights attempts to condense weighty and complex issues into trite summaries. Do we really want these things encoded for all time?

Bills of rights promote an absolute formula of ‘rights’ as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time. However they should more accurately be described as social policies and Parliamentary laws held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day. Instead of ensuring our rights through some abstract, ivory tower parchment codified for all time, we should protect them through a strong democratic process. It will reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day.

Instead let’s protect our human rights by protecting the free press and good government and integrity of our elections and all the other foundations of a good democracy. Let’s stay vigilant in protecting the processes of effective democracy, for this best protects the integrity of the conversation of the day. Not some piece of paper stuck behind glass in a museum.

5. A Bill of Rights will enshrine selfishness over the good of the community
I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been for a bill of human rights. Of course they are for human rights, but surprisingly they are against a bill of rights as the mechanism of guaranteeing rights. Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret’d) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that “Bills of rights enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community”, which helped me remember my conversation with my American friend about RBT. For is it really that big a deal to pull over and blow through a little tube once a year, if that? Is it really affecting my privacy that much, especially if I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear? In other words, YES, I support RBT! I think it is a valuable tool for getting the idiots off the road. Drink driving is death on wheels. I have trouble imagining a society that would refuse this powerful tool for curbing a very real problem. But my American friend gasped in revulsion at the concept. He saw view it as an attack on his freedom because he was taught about his ‘right to privacy’ from a very young age. But that’s not really the lesson Americans seem to learn. Instead, in this and so many other areas, they learn that the individual matters more than the community, that selfishness is good. I find that appalling.

Please, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

There are no perfect solutions to protecting individual rights until the Lord returns. And perfection is the enemy of excellence. The US constitution is not perfect, but it is the best protection of individual rights on the planet right now. And thanks to the concept of amendments it CAN change as society does.

BTW, point 5 actually misses the point. It's best explained by Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”

This is why capitalism gets you this:

And socialism gets you this:

No, the bill of rights is not perfect, but it is excellence unparalleled anywhere else in the world.

 

[Direct Driver]

See the last few posts. I have civil liberties in Australia. But because we have common law and our liberties come through the process of democratic debate, we are less concerned about "MY RIGHTS!" and more concerned about how to facilitate my rights with community rights...

This is a core difference between the US and Australia. The US constitution is, quite literally, founded on the property rights of the individual - their most important piece of property being the human body they occupy. In the US there is an old saying about when property rights come at odds with each other. It sums up a lot, actually:

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

In the US our right to be "mean and insensitive" is quite literally protected by the constitution. The reason is simple. objectivity trumps subjectivity. It's why I bristle when I hear the words "fair" and "unfair" used. they are quite subjective words. Objectivity makes them moot.

 

[eclipsenow]

There are no perfect solutions to protecting individual rights until the Lord returns. And perfection is the enemy of excellence. The US constitution is not perfect, but it is the best protection of individual rights on the planet right now.

Then you'll need to engage with the arguments put to you above!

1. Why isn't the right to healthcare guaranteed under the right to life?
2. Why are not guns banned under the right to life?
3. Why are you 19 times more likely to be shot by guns than we are in Australia?

Your point about 'socialism' is just plain off-topic. I am just plain confused why anything different to America's government is immediately equated with communism or socialism. IF I were a socialist, and I wanted to reply in as trite a manner as you did above with your different planes, I would point out that the Commies beat you to the first object in orbit and first man in space and I think first space walk, etc. Eventually you had to devote HUGE and controversial GOVERNMENT FUNDING into a massive boondoggle called NASA's space program to finally get a man on the moon. Hoorah - you beat the soviets - but it was a massive government program that did so! (Hoorah for Elon Musk shaking that up, as I am a fan of private enterprise shaking things up in a market - as appropriate.)

BUT THAT'S JUST NOT THE TOPIC!

Who mentioned government spending and whether it's private or government funding in the economy?

The subject is democracy. Do your law makers have the power to grant police the authority to practice an Random Breath Testing program that might reduce drunk-driving-deaths to 1/8th their level now - or is your country hamstrung from using this important policing tool because some old dudes on a Supreme Court interpreted an ancient and irrelevant parchment to say that would be a infringement of your right to privacy? What about your right to life?

 

[Direct Driver]

Then you'll need to engage with the arguments put to you above!

1. Why isn't the right to healthcare guaranteed under the right to life?
2. Why are not guns banned under the right to life?
3. Why are you 19 times more likely to be shot by guns than we are in Australia?

Number one: Healthcare is not a right. The pursuit of health care is a right. In the constitution it is called the "pursuit of happiness". Do you want a Ferrari? Work hard and earn the money to buy one and/or sacrifice other "wants" for the Ferrari. If you can't afford one but need transportation, get a Kia or take public transportaion. Do you want good health? take care of yourself. And if you want health insurance, buy the insurance you can afford. Or, if you would rather just pay for your own health care or DIY (like me), don't buy health insurance at all. But supplying health CARE is simply not in the government's swim lane. Neither is housing or food. Their job is to create a level playing field where people can pursue their dreams with relative confidence that it won't be taken from them. The role of government is primarily military, police, courts and local government can get involved in infrastructure. e.g. roads.

And this is the problem. Health care is expensive because of the way health INSURANCE is handled in this country. Government meddling where it shouldn't is what caused it to be so expensive, just like the government sponsored student loans just kept jacking up the price of higher education. Leave it solely to the market and supply - REAL SUPPLY - and demand take care of it. BTW, my wife and I are 67 and we have no health care insurance. It's not worth the cost. We pay for our own health care and if we get something like terminal cancer, well, we die, as do all men. Life is a mist. The Lord will take you when he is good and ready.
Number two: Since guns can preserve life and property, I consider banning them stupid. And taking them from the hands of the individual strips us of our freedom and power to take control of our own destiny. Without guns, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Remember, police only protect you insomuch as their GENERAL presence disincentivises criminals from attacking. If someone DOES attack, you're on your own. Just having a gun for protection makes you feel safer. Especially if you've been trained to use it. It's very freeing. And the bill of rights is not about security. It's about freedom.

Number 3: This speaks to what I posted above as well with added facets. To reiterate, it's about freedom, not safety/security. And that 19 times figure depends on where, in the US, you live. I believe we have a lack of enforcement problem in the US right now. This drastically increases crime AND increases incarceration. But the problem is not guns. A hundred years ago in the US, boys would take a rifle with them to school and leave it in the coatroom with hopes of bagging dinner on the way home. Oddly, there was not a lot of gun violence.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a law enforcement problem and criminal problem. And even then, this is only in small pockets of the US. It's quite safe where I live and the only time in the ten years I've been here that I've seen a cop in my area was when my neighbor's cows broke through the fence and were grazing in my yard.

Also, there are more car accidents in a country where everybody has cars, than there are in countries where few have cars. With freedom comes risk.

In other words, all three above are about freedom being greater in the US. And reducing it to increase safety speaks to my tag line.

 

[Direct Driver]

The subject is democracy. Do your law makers have the power to grant police the authority to practice an Random Breath Testing program that might reduce drunk-driving-deaths to 1/8th their level now - or is your country hamstrung from using this important policing tool because some old dudes on a Supreme Court interpreted an ancient and irrelevant parchment to say that would be a infringement of your right to privacy? What about your right to life?

Regarding democracy, the US is a constitutional republic with 50 member states. These states choose their national representatives through democratic elections for the most part. The 17th amendment did mess that up quite a bit, though. The only politics that is really pure democracy is choosing governors and local politics. And the solution to DWI is not sobriety checkpoints. Rather, it is ENFORCING the laws on the books. When a first offence is losing your license for a month and your second offense is 90 days in jail, and injuring someone in a DWI accident is five years in prison, you don't need DWI checkpoints. Law abiding citizens can go about their business without fearing the police and police harassment.

The US is a country of laws, not men. Simply enforcing the laws on the books is huge. Look at Jesse Smallett. He should be in prison for that false claim, not applauded. If he knew that if he got caught he would see serious prison time, he would likely have not done it. Same with rapists, murderers, etc. Why do those crimes not come with lifetime sentences or, in the case of violent rape, simple castration and they are on their way? Seriously.

 

[eclipsenow]

Number one: Healthcare is not a right.

What a typical, almost cliché ultra-right-wing response. Lots of words about achieving your dreams, but it may as well be 'when you wish upon a star' because the healthcare system is vastly too expensive in America, and the so called 'free market' is anything but free or fair with the labor laws your population are enslaved to.

But Most OECD countries have socialised healthcare and it saves lives AND money. (Data below.) But before we get lost in the data here's the real point pertinent to this whole debate.

Human rights can be protected in a nation without a Bill of rights.

Australia has guaranteed universal healthcare. We have kinder social polices than in America, and I would much rather be sick and poor here than in your 'land of the free' (- as in free to be bankrupted by every corporation - the only guys who really get off Scott-free.)

The pursuit of health care is a right.

Ah - but who decided that? You're just asserting it like it's gospel truth, but why are you asserting that? What if your Founding Fathers were alive today and evaluated America's healthcare in light of the data from the rest of the world and thought "Boy, we'd better put that in the Bill of Rights!"

See? A Bill encodes the prejudices and blind spots of one generation for all time. They probably just didn't know what kind of huge behemoth medicine could become and the kind of horrid class-bound outcomes that can creep in when healthcare becomes a for-profit business rather than a government service.

In the constitution it is called the "pursuit of happiness". Do you want a Ferrari? Work hard and earn the money to buy one and/or sacrifice other "wants" for the Ferrari.

I can't do that if I'm a working class dad who's son suddenly becomes sick with blood-cancer. I have experienced this horror - and it was bad enough in Australia where I practically lived in the hospital with my son for 6 months. In America I would have had to sell the family home, and probably would have ended up divorced from all the stress. "The land of the free" not so much!

If you can't afford one but need transportation, get a Kia or take public transportaion.

That analogy is patornising nonsense from someone who just hasn't experienced life. "Don't like Pepsi, try coke?" Except both cost $1000 per can in this story, and you NEED multiple cans to survive a week!

Do you want good health? take care of yourself.

Again, that's patronising nonsense to someone in a health crisis. Talk about victim blaming!
Boy, you're really starting to remind me of James 2.

James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.​

But supplying health CARE is simply not in the government's swim lane.

Again, who said? Assertion is not an argument, nor is blind repetition. Saying it 3 times and clicking your ruby slippers together does NOT make this true.

Neither is housing or food.

Again, who said? In some contexts it might be entirely appropriate for the government to fund certain things. Hey - I love the creativity and surprises in a free market. Australia is hardly a communist country as we only have 1% more tax per unit GDP than you. Economically that's just 1% left of you. 1%! But we have different priorities, and pay less per unit GDP on our military than you. We decided universal healthcare was simply the fairest and societally SAFEST way to run it - and it works! (See Healthcare data below).

But the main point? We've achieved this without even having the courts intrude into areas of public policy. Our democratic processes achieved this 'right to basic healthcare' - not some intrusive Bill of Rights. We have tried to guarantee access to life-saving healthcare without even appealing to the legal language of 'rights'.

The role of government is primarily military, police, courts and local government can get involved in infrastructure. e.g. roads.

Again - who said? That's a fairly bog-standard Republican churchgoing attitude. But do you respect democracy? What if most OECD democracies trended - historically under the influence of many Christian voters and historical church campaigns I might add! - towards having old-aged pensions, universal government education for children, and universal healthcare?

It sounds like you're blowing the horn for a "Bill of Rights" but actually undermining democracy in the process! See - while Donald Trump called Biden a "radical socialist" Biden would barely even fit into our right-wing party because he's not real clear on universal life-saving healthcare for all! He would be on the far-right - as in the nutty end - of our conservative Liberal party!

That's democracy in action.

Does your definition of government even include democracy, and the overall wishes of the people for something?

Government meddling where it shouldn't is what caused it to be so expensive,

That is the exact opposite of reality.
Government can offer healthcare services without a for-profit motive.
Business can't - and wants to make profits - and if there's corporate healthcare even has a legal duty to maximise profit for shareholders. Not service to customers, profit for shareholders! It's why your healthcare costs DOUBLE Australia's healthcare - and you don't even supply it to all your citizens as a 'right'. Our life expectancy is around 82 and yours is around 78 but your healthcare costs per person are DOUBLE ours! So much for the 'free market' delivering better solutions!
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia

So much for your 'right to life'. You guys really take that seriously!

We also spend statistically less GDP on health than you!

HEALTHCARE DATA
America is an outlier in OECD countries in that they privatised medicine and these profit-motive hospitals charge what they want. See this graphic at the WIKI! Health care in the United States - Wikipedia
Then there's this quote:
"For example, the average cost in the U.S. for an MRI scan was $1,119, compared to $811 in New Zealand, $215 in Australia and $181 in Spain. However, data showed that 95th percentile in the price of this procedure in the U.S. was $3,031, meaning some people are paying nearly $3,000 more for a standard MRI scan in the U.S. than the average person in Australia and Spain. "
How U.S. Healthcare Costs Compare to Other Countries
VOX explaining what went wrong.

Stephen Fry explains:

Second Thought explains:

Number two: Since guns can preserve life and property, I consider banning them stupid.

You are 3 times more likely to take your own life with them than you are using them to protect yourself, and you have a much higher chance of being killed by firearm than here in Australia. We banned all kinds of guns after our worst massacre - and we haven't had another firearms massacre since. Banning works! It saves lives. It helps create a society where your 'right to life' is statistically, measurably higher. 19 TIMES higher! Australia is at 0.89 intentional gun homicides per 100,000 people per year, while the US is at 4.96. You are 557% more likely to be killed by firearms than I am.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

But that's a social policy based on evidence and science and PUBLIC feedback and democratic processes! You guys don't understand that. You're brainwashed that a bit of parchment read by old judges somehow does a better job of protecting your 'rights' than democratic government.

Number 3: This speaks to what I posted above as well with added facets. To reiterate, it's about freedom, not safety/security. And that 19 times figure depends on where, in the US, you live.

The 19 times comes from the death by firearms - which probably includes all the suicides.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

I believe we have a lack of enforcement problem in the US right now.

I believe you have a lack of sound policy. You've got a whole agency devoted to drugs and firearms and it can't keep up. Stop the crazy sales of paramilitary weapons and cut it all back to single shot firearms on a farm - and you'll be a lot better off.

But the problem is not guns. A hundred years ago in the US, boys would take a rifle with them to school and leave it in the coatroom with hopes of bagging dinner on the way home.

As I keep saying, a Bill of Rights encodes the blind spots or historical baggage of one generation for all time as if things aren't going to change. Things have changed. Your 'right to bear arms' was written when a musket took 60 seconds to load - now weapons can fire 60 shots PER SECOND and take doors off their frames.

We don't have a gun problem.

Says who? The statistics say you do. The lack of legislation says you do. The only thing that disagrees is an out of date Bill of Rights. If I were on the Supreme Court I would interpret that amendment to being about an 'organised militia' where all the guns were kept on site, under lock and key, and only the militia Colonel could be authorised to distribute the guns in some sort of national emergency. Otherwise all the guns would stay on the rifle range and NOT GO HOME! Why does your nation need so many rifles in the home? It's not for personal protection - most people are asleep in bed when the bad guys come in the room and then it's just too late to reach for your gun.

I am free. How am I not free? The Republican resorting to 'freedom' just mystifies me. You don't enjoy free healthcare and don't enjoy the same freedom of living in as statistically safe a country as I do with the same lifespans as our country enjoys. Free? You guys are enslaved - to your Bill of Rights.

As the debate starts in Australia, many are pleading, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

 

[Direct Driver]

What a typical, almost cliché ultra-right-wing response. Lots of words about achieving your dreams, but it may as well be 'when you wish upon a star' because the healthcare system is vastly too expensive in America, and the so called 'free market' is anything but free or fair with the labor laws your population are enslaved to.

But Most OECD countries have socialised healthcare and it saves lives AND money. (Data below.) But before we get lost in the data here's the real point pertinent to this whole debate.

Human rights can be protected in a nation without a Bill of rights.

Australia has guaranteed universal healthcare. We have kinder social polices than in America, and I would much rather be sick and poor here than in your 'land of the free' (- as in free to be bankrupted by every corporation - the only guys who really get off Scott-free.)


Ah - but who decided that? You're just asserting it like it's gospel truth, but why are you asserting that? What if your Founding Fathers were alive today and evaluated America's healthcare in light of the data from the rest of the world and thought "Boy, we'd better put that in the Bill of Rights!"

See? A Bill encodes the prejudices and blind spots of one generation for all time. They probably just didn't know what kind of huge behemoth medicine could become and the kind of horrid class-bound outcomes that can creep in when healthcare becomes a for-profit business rather than a government service.



I can't do that if I'm a working class dad who's son suddenly becomes sick with blood-cancer. I have experienced this horror - and it was bad enough in Australia where I practically lived in the hospital with my son for 6 months. In America I would have had to sell the family home, and probably would have ended up divorced from all the stress. "The land of the free" not so much!



That analogy is patornising nonsense from someone who just hasn't experienced life. "Don't like Pepsi, try coke?" Except both cost $1000 per can in this story, and you NEED multiple cans to survive a week!


Again, that's patronising nonsense to someone in a health crisis. Talk about victim blaming!
Boy, you're really starting to remind me of James 2.

James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.​

Again, who said? Assertion is not an argument, nor is blind repetition. Saying it 3 times and clicking your ruby slippers together does NOT make this true.



Again, who said? In some contexts it might be entirely appropriate for the government to fund certain things. Hey - I love the creativity and surprises in a free market. Australia is hardly a communist country as we only have 1% more tax per unit GDP than you. Economically that's just 1% left of you. 1%! But we have different priorities, and pay less per unit GDP on our military than you. We decided universal healthcare was simply the fairest and societally SAFEST way to run it - and it works! (See Healthcare data below).

But the main point? We've achieved this without even having the courts intrude into areas of public policy. Our democratic processes achieved this 'right to basic healthcare' - not some intrusive Bill of Rights. We have tried to guarantee access to life-saving healthcare without even appealing to the legal language of 'rights'.


Again - who said? That's a fairly bog-standard Republican churchgoing attitude. But do you respect democracy? What if most OECD democracies trended - historically under the influence of many Christian voters and historical church campaigns I might add! - towards having old-aged pensions, universal government education for children, and universal healthcare?

It sounds like you're blowing the horn for a "Bill of Rights" but actually undermining democracy in the process! See - while Donald Trump called Biden a "radical socialist" Biden would barely even fit into our right-wing party because he's not real clear on universal life-saving healthcare for all! He would be on the far-right - as in the nutty end - of our conservative Liberal party!

That's democracy in action.

Does your definition of government even include democracy, and the overall wishes of the people for something?



That is the exact opposite of reality.
Government can offer healthcare services without a for-profit motive.
Business can't - and wants to make profits - and if there's corporate healthcare even has a legal duty to maximise profit for shareholders. Not service to customers, profit for shareholders! It's why your healthcare costs DOUBLE Australia's healthcare - and you don't even supply it to all your citizens as a 'right'. Our life expectancy is around 82 and yours is around 78 but your healthcare costs per person are DOUBLE ours! So much for the 'free market' delivering better solutions!
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia

So much for your 'right to life'. You guys really take that seriously!


View attachment 295049


We also spend statistically less GDP on health than you!

View attachment 295052

HEALTHCARE DATA
America is an outlier in OECD countries in that they privatised medicine and these profit-motive hospitals charge what they want. See this graphic at the WIKI! Health care in the United States - Wikipedia
Then there's this quote:
"For example, the average cost in the U.S. for an MRI scan was $1,119, compared to $811 in New Zealand, $215 in Australia and $181 in Spain. However, data showed that 95th percentile in the price of this procedure in the U.S. was $3,031, meaning some people are paying nearly $3,000 more for a standard MRI scan in the U.S. than the average person in Australia and Spain. "
How U.S. Healthcare Costs Compare to Other Countries
VOX explaining what went wrong.

Stephen Fry explains:

Second Thought explains:

You are 3 times more likely to take your own life with them than you are using them to protect yourself, and you have a much higher chance of being killed by firearm than here in Australia. We banned all kinds of guns after our worst massacre - and we haven't had another firearms massacre since. Banning works! It saves lives. It helps create a society where your 'right to life' is statistically, measurably higher. 19 TIMES higher! Australia is at 0.89 intentional gun homicides per 100,000 people per year, while the US is at 4.96. You are 557% more likely to be killed by firearms than I am.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

But that's a social policy based on evidence and science and PUBLIC feedback and democratic processes! You guys don't understand that. You're brainwashed that a bit of parchment read by old judges somehow does a better job of protecting your 'rights' than democratic government.




The 19 times comes from the death by firearms - which probably includes all the suicides.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia


I believe you have a lack of sound policy. You've got a whole agency devoted to drugs and firearms and it can't keep up. Stop the crazy sales of paramilitary weapons and cut it all back to single shot firearms on a farm - and you'll be a lot better off.


As I keep saying, a Bill of Rights encodes the blind spots or historical baggage of one generation for all time as if things aren't going to change. Things have changed. Your 'right to bear arms' was written when a musket took 60 seconds to load - now weapons can fire 60 shots PER SECOND and take doors off their frames.



Says who? The statistics say you do. The lack of legislation says you do. The only thing that disagrees is an out of date Bill of Rights. If I were on the Supreme Court I would interpret that amendment to being about an 'organised militia' where all the guns were kept on site, under lock and key, and only the militia Colonel could be authorised to distribute the guns in some sort of national emergency. Otherwise all the guns would stay on the rifle range and NOT GO HOME! Why does your nation need so many rifles in the home? It's not for personal protection - most people are asleep in bed when the bad guys come in the room and then it's just too late to reach for your gun.

I am free. How am I not free? The Republican resorting to 'freedom' just mystifies me. You don't enjoy free healthcare and don't enjoy the same freedom of living in as statistically safe a country as I do with the same lifespans as our country enjoys. Free? You guys are enslaved - to your Bill of Rights.

As the debate starts in Australia, many are pleading, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

You have way too much time on your hands. i.e. did not read. But I did read this part:
"...because the healthcare system is vastly too expensive in America..."
Apparently you didn't read my post either because I addressed that. I've read hundreds of articles about health care and insurance in the US and I used to sell life insurance as an independent contractor back in the late 90's for a short time. Part of my licensing requirement was to pass a test (just like you need to do to sell commercial real estate, which I also used to do). The education I got that enabled me to pass that test was a real eye opener.

Oh, and I have no health insurance. And I've discovered I'm not alone. A lot of us don't, and have discovered that when you pay for health care out of pocket, it is amazingly cheap. In fact, even when I had insurance, I had a $25 copay on Dr visits. One time I finished the appointment and the receptionist told me that I could pay the $25 copay, or I could just pay $20 for the visit.

It took them a while to make me understand, via "nudge nudge, wink wink", that they made more money with me just paying them $20 than if I paid them $25 and they had to do all the insurance company compliance work.

I simply bypass insurance. We rely on the "great healer" and he has been very faithful. Since the day the individual mandate came down, and me being an independent contractor, we've saved over $100,000 in health insurance costs for a couple of our age (we are now 67). And if we get cancer? Well, we now have two acquaintences that have survived stage four cancer via natural means. One used the Gerson method. She's now cancer free for 11 years. The other used Cannibus oil as a post chemo treatment. He's 3 years cancer free. When his doctor discovered he needed no more treatment, he asked him if he had been doing any home treatment. When he informed the doctor, the doctor got red faced and very angry, yelling at him.

Ever since the AMA lost against the chiropractors, I stopped "blindly" trusting mainstream health professionals. That's also when I finally went to a chiropractor and it changed my life - to this day.

 

[eclipsenow]

You have way too much time on your hands. i.e. did not read.

Oh well - that's your loss as I was actually on topic. You're not.

A lot of us don't, and have discovered that when you pay for health care out of pocket, it is amazingly cheap.

The peer-reviewed studies I have quoted repeatedly show American healthcare is often double the price of most OECD countries with worse outcomes. You're just some guy I met on the internet with an anecdote. That simply does not fly - and you're kidding yourself if you think it does.

The rest of your post was so much blah blah blah but does not contradict these two simple graphs. Just because these studies don't fit with your rose-coloured glasses view of your country does not make them invalid.

Final point - this is not a debate about healthcare. Healthcare is just ONE example of how a nation like Australia can more efficiently protect human rights - like the 'right to life' - without having a Bill of Rights. We don't have a Bill of Rights but we're doing better than America is protecting human rights in areas like healthcare, gun control, safe driving and managing the pandemic. It seems this Bill of Rights isn't all it's cracked up to be - and in many ways Australians have more 'freedom' than you have.

 

[Direct Driver]

Oh well - that's your loss as I was actually on topic. You're not.



The peer-reviewed studies I have quoted repeatedly show American healthcare is often double the price of most OECD countries with worse outcomes. You're just some guy I met on the internet with an anecdote. That simply does not fly - and you're kidding yourself if you think it does.

The rest of your post was so much blah blah blah but does not contradict these two simple graphs. Just because these studies don't fit with your rose-coloured glasses view of your country does not make them invalid.

Final point - this is not a debate about healthcare. Healthcare is just ONE example of how a nation like Australia can more efficiently protect human rights - like the 'right to life' - without having a Bill of Rights. We don't have a Bill of Rights but we're doing better than America is protecting human rights in areas like healthcare, gun control, safe driving and managing the pandemic. It seems this Bill of Rights isn't all it's cracked up to be - and in many ways Australians have more 'freedom' than you have.


View attachment 295099

View attachment 295100

We both agree that healthcare in the US is too expensive. Regarding the rest, Austrailia just values different rights than the US does. Your "managing the pandemic one is a good example. The US constitution protects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. It means I can freely run around with no mask on except on government owned facilities. Can I do that in Austrailia?

 

[eclipsenow]

We both agree that healthcare in the US is too expensive. Regarding the rest, Austrailia just values different rights than the US does. Your "managing the pandemic one is a good example. The US constitution protects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. It means I can freely run around with no mask on except on government owned facilities. Can I do that in Austrailia?

No you can't.
Because.
We.
Value.
The right to LIFE.
Of the whole community.
Over.
Your.
Individualistic.
Obsession.
With.
An.
Imaginary.
"Right."
To.
Be.
self-centred.

But the moment the health crisis ends, we allow people out and about without a mask. See how this works? Protect life first - then see how other things go. Your deaths per million are WAY higher than ours - something like 40 times from memory. The American "Muh rights" vibe in this pandemic also hurts the economy more, in the long run.

 

[Direct Driver]

No you can't.
Because.
We.
Value.
The right to LIFE.
Of the whole community.
Over.
Your.
Individualistic.
Obsession.
With.
An.
Imaginary.
"Right."
To.
Be.
self-centred.

But the moment the health crisis ends, we allow people out and about without a mask. See how this works? Protect life first - then see how other things go. Your deaths per million are WAY higher than ours - something like 40 times from memory. The American "Muh rights" vibe in this pandemic also hurts the economy more, in the long run.

I come from a country where our forefathers said things like this: Give me liberty, or give me death.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Americans value freedom over life. That is why many of us literally gave our lives for the freedom of others in both the revolutionary war and the civil war. And you call that "self centered". What it is is different values from different cultures.

As I've said since 1998, if I were a gazelle, I'd rather live in the freedom and danger of the Serengeti than in the comfort and protection of a zoo. So I respect your desire to pursue security and a long life and I assume you will respect my desire to live my life in freedom, though it may possibly be shorter.

After all, life is a mist. We all have the exact same life span. We even have a word for it: Today.

 

[eclipsenow]

I come from a country where our forefathers said things like this: Give me liberty, or give me death.

Well congratulations because you don't have to choose - Trump's let you have both. With his catastrophic mismanagement and denial of the pandemic, you got the 'freedom' to be anti-science and were encouraged to walk around without a mask on and now look at your death per capita! The highest in the world!!

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Oh, you think you've found words that justify 43 times the death and mourning in your population? One of the saddest ironies in all this has been the stance of the alt-right saying things like "My grandfather died in WW2 so that I could be free to NOT WEAR A MASK!" So he died fighting actual tyranny so that your generation could be self-indulgent enough to equate mask-wearing with tyranny? Really?

Shouldn't the equation go more like this? Grandpa died fighting the tyranny of Hitler and fascism so I can do my bit fighting the tyranny of a pandemic and put my mask on - it's the least I can do to help others regain their freedom that bit faster!

This is where the Australian Christian Lobby has you guys right. At 42 minutes in ex Army Brigadier and head of the ACL - Brigadier Jim Wallace - speaks on his concerns about a Bill of Rights for Australia. It's only a few minutes. Please listen to him. 42 minutes in.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

 

[Direct Driver]

Well congratulations because you don't have to choose - Trump's let you have both. With his catastrophic mismanagement and denial of the pandemic, you got the 'freedom' to be anti-science and were encouraged to walk around without a mask on and now look at your death per capita! The highest in the world!!



Oh, you think you've found words that justify 43 times the death and mourning in your population? One of the saddest ironies in all this has been the stance of the alt-right saying things like "My grandfather died in WW2 so that I could be free to NOT WEAR A MASK!" So he died fighting actual tyranny so that your generation could be self-indulgent enough to equate mask-wearing with tyranny? Really?

Shouldn't the equation go more like this? Grandpa died fighting the tyranny of Hitler and fascism so I can do my bit fighting the tyranny of a pandemic and put my mask on - it's the least I can do to help others regain their freedom that bit faster!

This is where the Australian Christian Lobby has you guys right. At 42 minutes in ex Army Brigadier and head of the ACL - Brigadier Jim Wallace - speaks on his concerns about a Bill of Rights for Australia. It's only a few minutes. Please listen to him. 42 minutes in.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

I listened from 41 to the end. The video gave me chills. I often see, on my favorite conservative political site, a story showing how people's individual rights are being horribly violated and over time realized that these stories were ALL in countries outside the US. One of these stories brought a man to political prominence and great riches. That man is Jordan Peterson. What Canada tried to do to their individual citizens regarding speach would never pass constitutional muster in the US.

It is also important to re-iterate to those from outside the US that our constitution does not list the rights the government gives us. Rather, it lists the God given rights the government can not take away. And most of the odd stories we here from others about how bad this is for the population in general are due to actual violations of the constitution or simple lazy police work.

And beyond that I honestly think my tag line speaks to the real problem here. Fact is, everything's fine until it's not. Then the government can trod all over individuals at will - for "the good of society in general". It's hard to beat the peace of mind one gets from knowing they are protected from their own government running shipshod over their rights just because someone who thinks they are more powerful or better than me can do it.

The bill of rights and US constitution is the greatest document ever created other than the bible itself. Of course, opinions vary.

 

[eclipsenow]

I listened from 41 to the end. The video gave me chills. I often see, on my favorite conservative political site, a story showing how people's individual rights are being horribly violated and over time realized that these stories were ALL in countries outside the US. One of these stories brought a man to political prominence and great riches. That man is Jordan Peterson. What Canada tried to do to their individual citizens regarding speach would never pass constitutional muster in the US.

What you've failed to realise is that the mechanism of a Bill of Rights can become a way to sneak in anti-rights legislation. Who's rights does the Bill protect? Which ones? Does a student's right to education and 'emotional peace' infringe a Christian's right to share the gospel? I mean - the gospel contains disturbing news about hell. What about a "Right to sexuality"? What if LGBTQ rights get passed that infringe on a Christian's right to teach biblical sexuality?

Rather, it lists the God given rights the government can not take away.

Poppycock - the right to bear arms is not a God-given right.

And most of the odd stories we here from others about how bad this is for the population in general are due to actual violations of the constitution or simple lazy police work.

Poppycock - it's because your democratic powers have been hamstrung by your Supreme Court which is itself hamstrung by an ancient bit of parchment that is now irrelevant. The right to bear arms was written when a well organised militia were packing old muskets. Now teenage drug lords pack submachine guns and protest it is 'their right.'

Fact is, everything's fine until it's not.

Yeah - the Bill of Right's didn't stop the storming of the US Capitol and in fact some might argue it contributed to it.

Then the government can trod all over individuals at will

That's why we should have a Constitution and spells the powers and processes of government, which I have not been arguing against at all. But within those democratic powers of government things like banning certain types of guns actually save lives. Again, we have not had another gun massacre since the Port Arthur massacres and PM John Howard operated the largest gun buy-back in our history.

- for "the good of society in general".

Most of the time, I enjoy my own privacy. Once every 6 months or year I get Random Breath Tested. It's a "Right" our government has because it isn't lobotomized by a silly Bill of Rights. It means I am 8 times less likely to be killed by a drunk driver.

Are you honestly saying "It's the principle of the thing!" and demanding that I have my right to privacy erase my right to drive on safer roads? Is blowing into a RBT bag that big of an intrusion to you? If you think that - it's because you've been brainwashed in a society that takes self-centered individualistic rights over community rights at almost every point. That's exactly what the ACL was saying would happen. Selfishness enshrined over adult community responsibility.

It's hard to beat the peace of mind one gets from knowing they are protected from their own government running shipshod over their rights just because someone who thinks they are more powerful or better than me can do it.

It's hard to beat the peace of mind I have knowing my Constitution protects me from an over-intrusive government in a far more rational, right-minded way than your Bill of Rights 'protects' you from logical and scientifically informed public policy.

Our Constitution spells out pir government processes that guarantee democracy. Democracy - you should try it sometime!

A note on safety: our deaths per million rate is 35. Yours is 1540-ish last time I looked. You've lost 44 times as many people already and we have NO COMMUNITY SPREAD - not as single new case - and you have 70,000 people a day still! Yeah - that Bill of Rights is really protecting you! You should feel so much peace right now.

Do me a favor? Every time you see the US Covid stats, seriously ask yourself whether being the worst infected country in the world is a part and parcel of having one of the most self-centered "Muh rights" cultures in the world. A masks is a sign of patriotic duty, a tiny fraction of the patriotic duty your grandfathers demonstrated in dying to defeat tyranny. But you whine about it. What does that say about your culture?

 

[Direct Driver]

What you've failed to realise is that the mechanism of a Bill of Rights can become a way to sneak in anti-rights legislation. Who's rights does the Bill protect? Which ones? Does a student's right to education and 'emotional peace' infringe a Christian's right to share the gospel? I mean - the gospel contains disturbing news about hell. What about a "Right to sexuality"? What if LGBTQ rights get passed that infringe on a Christian's right to teach biblical sexuality?

It's actually pretty simple. It is based on the concept that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Students don't have a right to an education. They have a right to pursue an education. We don't have a right to "stuff". We have a right to pursue stuff. And we also have the 4th amendment. That means that no government representative can enter our home without either our permission or a search warrant - or they have probable cause (e.g. they see, through an open window, me trying to choke someone).

And the LGBTQ rights only include the same rights we all have. And many "rights" laws are passed only to be found unconstitutional. i.e. they are trampling someone else's rights without actually granting rights. That's why the "bake the cake" guy won. You have a right to "pursue" a same sex marriage wedding cake, but you can not force anyone to bake you one. The exception is when we are dealing with a good or service where the provider is literally or virtually a monopoly. i.e. Facebook.

Poppycock - the right to bear arms is not a God-given right.

Actually, it is.

In fact, the right to murder, rape rob, etc. are all God given rights. We have the right to sin. If you want to know if you have the "God given right" to choose to do a thing, try to do it. If you are successful, God gave you the right to do it. Of course, that may come with consequences - bad decisions usually do. God gave Adam and Eve the right to choose to eat the fruit, and they did - even though He gave them explicit instructions not to.

That's why the US constitution does not grant rights. Rather, it specifically calls out God given rights on which the state shall not infringe. And it's all about property rights, your body that you occupy being your most important piece of property.

Poppycock - it's because your democratic powers have been hamstrung by your Supreme Court which is itself hamstrung by an ancient bit of parchment that is now irrelevant. The right to bear arms was written when a well organised militia were packing old muskets. Now teenage drug lords pack submachine guns and protest it is 'their right.'

Times change, people don't. Human rights don't go away or change. We crave the same human rights the framers of the constitution did. They never go out of style. That's part of the genius of the US constitution. The rights protected are foundational. And the problem with drug lords is not that they have guns. It is that the government literally created the conditions in which they thrive with Johnson's "Great society." The gun violence is not the problem. It's a symptom. Bastardy is the problem. And the government created it by "trying to help".

Yeah - the Bill of Right's didn't stop the storming of the US Capitol and in fact some might argue it contributed to it.

Contributed? It's what it was designed for. We have the second amendment first and foremost to protect us from our own government. That is how the founders used their guns at that time, to fend off their own government. Youi are probably not aware of many of our forefathers' quotes here in the US. A favorite (which hints at why Nancy is a bit afraid of conservatives):

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

That's why we should have a Constitution and spells the powers and processes of government, which I have not been arguing against at all. But within those democratic powers of government things like banning certain types of guns actually save lives. Again, we have not had another gun massacre since the Port Arthur massacres and PM John Howard operated the largest gun buy-back in our history.

The point of the constitution is to protect freedom, not save lives. That is a secondary goal. That is also based on our Christian roots. Jesus didn't come to save our physical bodies. He came to set us free. Everybody dies at a time of the Lord's choosing. If all you care about is prolonging life, you're doing it wrong.

Most of the time, I enjoy my own privacy. Once every 6 months or year I get Random Breath Tested. It's a "Right" our government has because it isn't lobotomized by a silly Bill of Rights. It means I am 8 times less likely to be killed by a drunk driver.

Another way to fix that is to ensure that the punishment fits the crime when an actual drunk driver does get caught. The "8 times" figure is also fantasy. Remember, most drunk drivers don't get into accidents at all, and unless their BAL is in the neighborhood of .2 or greater, they are safer than a person texting on their phone. And a breath test isn't going to stop that. It is also FAR MORE common.

Are you honestly saying "It's the principle of the thing!" and demanding that I have my right to privacy erase my right to drive on safer roads? Is blowing into a RBT bag that big of an intrusion to you? If you think that - it's because you've been brainwashed in a society that takes self-centered individualistic rights over community rights at almost every point. That's exactly what the ACL was saying would happen. Selfishness enshrined over adult community responsibility.

There is no "right to drive on safer roads". And it is not that blowing into the bag is an intrusion. It is that the government FORCING me to blow into the bag is an infringement on my right to privacy and ability to live my life unmolested by the government unless there is evidence that I'm breaking the law. We value that highly in the US, even though we understand that freedom brings risk. We've just struck a different balance you you in Australia have.

It's hard to beat the peace of mind I have knowing my Constitution protects me from an over-intrusive government in a far more rational, right-minded way than your Bill of Rights 'protects' you from logical and scientifically informed public policy.

I disagree, but opinions vary.

Our Constitution spells out pir government processes that guarantee democracy. Democracy - you should try it sometime!

Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for lunch. I live in a constitutional republic. I very much prefer it. It protects the minority from the majority.

A note on safety: our deaths per million rate is 35. Yours is 1540-ish last time I looked. You've lost 44 times as many people already and we have NO COMMUNITY SPREAD - not as single new case - and you have 70,000 people a day still! Yeah - that Bill of Rights is really protecting you! You should feel so much peace right now.

I don't take the stats seriously. If you die in a nursing home of pneumonia or a heart attack or just plain shutting down, and your corpse tests positive for Rona, you're a Rona death. And pretty much everyone leaves a nursing home via death. I've spent less than an hour with a mask on my face since this thing started. And most of that hour was on a three hour flight from Denver to Chicago where they required you to wear a mask unless eating or drinking. I brought a large Costco bag of peanuts with me and munched them very slowly pretty much the entire time.

Do me a favor? Every time you see the US Covid stats, seriously ask yourself whether being the worst infected country in the world is a part and parcel of having one of the most self-centered "Muh rights" cultures in the world. A masks is a sign of patriotic duty, a tiny fraction of the patriotic duty your grandfathers demonstrated in dying to defeat tyranny. But you whine about it. What does that say about your culture?

Again, the numbers are hopelessly bogus. They are political noise. Nothing more.

Edit: Check out the "locked down" California stats to the "not locked down" Florida stats. 'Nuff said.

 

[Direct Driver]

I need to let you know that I really appreciate you sharing your perspective here. It gives me (and probably you as well) a glimpse into how two British colonies handled differently the break away from England. Our constitutions are somewhat based on the laws of England but with certain and different priorities. This has resulted in two similar, but a little different cultures that still thrive in their own way.

But I have a better understanding of the mind of an Australian regarding the purpose of government in the individual citizen's life compared to an American (aware of the history of our country) and the purpose and role of government in our lives. It explains both of our perspectives on individual issues.

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi Direct Driver,
I understand that you *think* Rights are simple - but they are anything but. They encode the blind spots and prejudices of our age. Who is to say that your definition of rights won't be overturned in Australia - and that Christians might not be able to teach biblical sexuality if an LGTBQ is present?

Your defense of the 'right to bear arms' being God-given is a weird philosophical appeal to free will - but basically admits that it is a right to sin. Well done. That's progress for you. To deal with a problem you've got to acknowledge there's a problem to begin with. Now that you've admitted owning guns is pretty much just a pretext for committing evil acts - we can move on to discussing banning those guns and saving 30,000 American lives a year or 300,000 lives a decade, or the equivalent of the American civil war every 20 years - or the equivalent of a small country every century!

Australia hasn't had a mass-shooting since Port Arthur. We banned certain weapons, and ran the biggest gun buy-back in history. It changed our gun market and nerfed the appeal of the gun in our country. Job done. Next?

Times change, people don't. Human rights don't go away or change. We crave the same human rights the framers of the constitution did. They never go out of style.

But the document encoding those rights does! Like when your constitution used to say a black vote didn't count as much as a white vote. Racism - encoded.

That's why I say democracy is the best way to protect our rights. All government systems are imperfect and run by imperfect human beings with limited knowledge. We don't know what technological or environmental changes will arrive in the future - or how we'll need to respond *as* a society to guarantee our hopes and dreams have the best chance of success.

So under democracy you can listen to various experts and you typically blame a government intervention - Johnson's Great Society. Wow - an old republican with a beef with an old Democratic policy. How original. I mean, I guess the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to blame for your drugs problem? Yay - let's go back to Segregation before 1964 - I mean - your Bill of Rights certainly guaranteed a fair go for the black community before 1964 didn't it!

So much for your claim that "The rights protected are foundational." It took a Democrat proposed legal Act to end *segregation.* But - all praise the Bill of rights! Tell me, why wasn't your Bill of Rights working before 1964?

I scanned through the wiki on the Great Society and honestly can't see why you would blame that for your drugs problem. Here's a thought. What if it's a market driven thing? See - because American's are so prone to ignoring the best thinking from peer-reviewed psychology and sociology they ignore the public health model and declare they have a WAR on drugs! Punish the evildoers! But that's bad policy. Most European countries have a public health model that has decriminalised dangerous drugs so addicts can receive help for their addiction. They get clean shooting rooms with clean syringes, to reduce the spread of disease and risk of overdose. They get a warm safe place to stay, for a while. They get regular contact with health experts - all of this reducing harm. THEN if that regular contact with health finally sparks a relationship of trust, the drug addict might get the confidence to try an alternative like a methadone program and get some counseling support.

But America? You guys punish everyone, limit the supply of drugs to the streets, which drives up the price and ironically makes it an irresistible multi-billion dollar market for cartels. Your war on drugs has single-handedly made cartels the richest organised crime groups in history.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

Except the nutters storming the Capitol were QAnon fools attacking the entirely legal and valid processes of your government. Now you're waxing lyrical about the wonders of patriots - almost purple prose to promote the patriotic acts of people that believe in a worldwide cabal of Satanist pedophiles. Dude, the FBI have rated QAnon as one of America's most dangerous terrorist groups. Please stop and have a long think about how you write!

The point of the constitution is to protect freedom, not save lives.

Spoken like a true Republican with a really bad case of the patriotic martyr syndrome. But doesn't your whole rights-schtick start with "the right to life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness"? There's a reason LIFE starts that sentence. Again, please stop and have a think.

Everybody dies at a time of the Lord's choosing. If all you care about is prolonging life, you're doing it wrong.

There is so much wrong with what you've said here I could write for pages. But the main point is the right to life comes first, and yet can be balanced with other policies. So in Australia we actually enjoy police processes that guarantee a certain amount of privacy. But I'm happy to blow into an RBT tube once every 6 months to drive on roads that are 8 times safer than they used to be! Your Bill of Rights has removed that option. It's not like I'm in communist China and getting my car pulled over and asked to leave my car and strip-searched every month!

The "8 times" figure is also fantasy.

No - it's a statistically reality in NSW as measured before and after RBT was introduced. This isn't some vague measure but a specific coroner confirmed statistic as to every car accident where drink driving was involved. It's measurable over DECADES! And you just skipped past that when you decided not to read my post because it was 'too long'. Oh well, your loss.

There is no "right to drive on safer roads".

Why not? Can you please explain why you think your Bill of Rights should include the right to SIN (under the right to bear arms - according to your own "logic") but not the Right to drive on safer roads? But anyway, I'll grant there's no "Right to drive on safer roads" as it comes under the right to "LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". And where a simple blow in a bag once every 6 months can allow 8 times safer roads (HISTORICAL FACT!) then your Bill of Rights ruling that simple policy is 'Unconstitutional' shows why I don't want it in Australia. It castrates democratic, expert-driven public policy at the expense of the encoded silliness of a previous era.

FORCING me to blow into the bag is an infringement on my right to privacy

Oh boohoo! Cry me a river - you poor man. The sheer GUV-ERN-MYANT ABUSE of it! Advice? Whatever you do don't come and live in Australia because the men here will call you princess and ask you to wear a pink tutu. The attitude here? You do the crime, you pay the fine or do the time. (If you drive high enough over our limit it's automatic jail time. Don't worry - you'll get a fair trial. But it's jail-time. All for drink driving.)

I have blown into that bag many times, and not once have the police been rude or imposed on my time or family more than necessary. They stuck to the job - the job of keeping us all safer. And I thanked them for it! I was proud to do my bit for our country.

Do you serve your country? Do you have a sense of patriotic duty? Mask wearing and blowing into a bag should be considered patriotic.

I don't take the stats seriously.

A Republican that doesn't take science and measurable statistical health data seriously? I'm shocked.
(You've got all the cliche's going now.)

Meanwhile, I just checked - NSW had no community spread yesterday.
That's 34 days since our last documented case of community spread.
Charting the pandemic: Latest data on the NSW and Victoria outbreaks
Victoria had a terrible second wave outbreak when something went wrong with hotel quarantine. They locked down, hard! It hurt! But they're now 3 days since their last documented case of community spread, and that was from their THIRD outbreak! (They had an emergency 5 day lockdown a few weeks back to stop the third wave in its tracks.)
Lockdowns work - when they are early enough and strict enough. We've proved it. But every day you delay a lockdown means a WEEK more pain the other end! Every. Single. Day. You. Delay. Means. Another. Week! So my question to you about American states is did they lock down early, hard, and long enough, or was it late, superficial, and short?
Given the American propensity to shout "Muh rights", I'm sad to say I just don't think lock downs WILL EVER work successfully in your country!


We have some rights in our constitution, but it's not a bill and it's minimalist - leaving the majority of interpretation of these rights to our public representatives. That's the way it should be. Minimalist 'rights' to keep the democratic system working. If we don't like something that gets decided, we'll vote for the other guy or gal. To pick one example (not that it's a big political debate in Australia right now but...) I have the RIGHT to vote to live in a society with gun laws. Do you? In other words, I have more freedom - the freedom to vote on issues your Bill of Rights system has encoded away from you. I can vote on guns in a way you can't. Who has more freedom? Oh - you think you do because for some reason guns are sacrosanct in your mind and touching them is a sign of government overreach. Riiight. Again, don't move to Australia - because we only have 5 'rights'.

There are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution.

1. These are the right to vote (Section 41),
2. protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)),
3. the right to a trial by jury (Section 80),
4. freedom of religion (Section 116) and
5. prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

The High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia's form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.

Australia's common law was inherited from the United Kingdom. Common law is often called 'judge-made' law. This distinguishes it from laws made in Parliament. As well as common law, United Kingdom law includes the Magna Carta of 1215 which was probably the first human rights treaty. Student and teacher resources about the Magna Carta are available here: Magna Carta - the story of our freedom. 800th Anniversary (2015).
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work...how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law​

 

[Direct Driver]

Hi Direct Driver,
I understand that you *think* Rights are simple - but they are anything but.

I don't think rights are simple, so we agree. BTW, I love this phrase: The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws. That's the world we live in. Man is entering - has entered - an extremely evil age.

One of the great attributes of our founders in the US was that they did not trust government. Power corrupts. That's why our bill of rights exists. If you trust government, you don't need one. Give your government god-like powers over the individual and you're good. But I don't think that will work until the government is run by Jesus, himself, after his return. Until then, we are governed by horribly flawed men.

BTW, it was not the UK back then. It was England. and it is where the US got its law as well.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't think rights are simple, so we agree. BTW, I love this phrase: The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws. That's the world we live in. Man is entering - has entered - an extremely evil age.

One of the great attributes of our founders in the US was that they did not trust government. Power corrupts. That's why our bill of rights exists. If you trust government, you don't need one. Give your government god-like powers over the individual and you're good. But I don't think that will work until the government is run by Jesus, himself, after his return. Until then, we are governed by horribly flawed men.

A bill of rights by itself doesn't do anything. It does set certain limits to government power, but the party who enforces it is the government. I happen to like having an explicit bill of rights, but that's no guarantee of freedom. China has a bill of rights, and nobody would mistake them for a free country.

BTW, it was not the UK back then. It was England. and it is where the US got its law as well.

Actually it was Great Britain, which is England, Scotland and Wales.

 

[eclipsenow]

One of the great attributes of our founders in the US was that they did not trust government. Power corrupts.

That's why our CONSTITUTION exists with 5 basic rights that protect us. But what happens in America is they don't protect you from an over-intrusive government AT ALL - which is the real irony. Here you are singing the praises of the Bill as if it actually protects you from government over-reach - yet the Bill itself is a form of government overreach from one generation to all future generations. It says citizens have a right to bear arms. Do they? I don't think so! That's up to each generation to decide through the democratic process. But you can't vote against that. I can.

That's where I have more democracy than you, and more freedom.

Not that it's even a live issue in Australia - apart from a very small minority of ultra-right paranoid types. The majority here would vote to keep things as they are. 19 times safer than the US!

That's why our bill of rights exists. If you trust government, you don't need one.

Rubbish - your Bill of Rights trusts one government in one generation to state your rights so perfectly that it will last for centuries. What a bunch of rubbish! Human systems are imperfect and written with imperfect knowledge. We need to tinker with things now and then as society changes. That's why I say have JUST enough rights to protect the citizens from the government and keep the democratic process working, and then decide the implementation of the other rights democratically. Through the ballot box, and informed by the latest in science and sociology. For those who believe in human rights, the basics don't change. But while everyone can agree on a 'right to privacy' - RBT shows us we have seen that the interpretation of that right can change over time in countries FREE TO DO SO!

Your country is boxed in.

Give your government god-like powers over the individual and you're good. But I don't think that will work until the government is run by Jesus, himself, after his return. Until then, we are governed by horribly flawed men.

You gave God-like powers to your government generations ago when your Bill of Rights were framed. I see that as a massive chain weighing down all future American governments with the dangerous right to bear arms and other things that warp your culture and lead many of you to be self-obsessed.

Lastly, I've noticed a certain trend in your posts now. You don't actually deal with the real and concrete examples I give you - but instead if confronted with a little too much reality - just reassert the same vague waffle about the Bill 'protecting' people from government intrusion.