Sedition, We Are One Day, Intelligent Design, Truth, RuneQuest

[tcpip]

The weekend started with a visit to the small demonstration for civil liberties. We live in dangerous times when people retreat into their private commercial lives over involvement in the public sphere. Chris Savage calls for sedition. I approve of his call for arms: "Because I do not want to see liberty nibbled at, I urge an association of Australian men and women to act mightily, with seditious intention, against the sovereign and against the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia." Who else is up for a bit of sedition?

Afterwards went to the We Are On Day annual meeting at the Melbourne Town Hall. Neither the array of speakers (from the Humanist Society, the Uniting Church, Christian Scientists, Bahai, Islamic Council, Kagyu E-Vam-Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh) or the compere (ABC's Encounter presenter Maraget Coffey) seriously addressed the serious problems in the divergent interests and beliefs, despite claims to similar core values.

Sunday I gave the extended service at the Melbourne Unitarian Church on intelligent design. Quite a good turnout and an interesting discussion by Dr. Bill Hall and Nigel Sinnot. Meanwhile, seventy thousand Australian scientists urge the government not to allow it into the classrooms. More on the presentation at my convert_me post.

Following the service was an animated philosophy group discussion on the nature of truth. I pulled an old rabbit out of my hat by using universal pragmatics to draw the sharp distinction between truth and sincerity (this is where people often get very, very confused). The debate really took an odd turn when matters of "contingent truthfulness" conflict with moral principles. In other words, the old discussion of the difference between moral principles and situational ethics has returned.

After all that, was the continuing adventures of the RuneQuest game run by Andrei. Magnificant stuff; we managed to find the Storm Khan leader of the White Bison clan (my clan!) and distract the army of Broos hunting for him, by tricking them and a century of Lunars into a conflict. The magnificant conclusion of the day saw the summoning of the Clan's Founder to dispatch the remaining chaos creatures and the subservient Lunars singing our praises. Waha help us if they ever discover it was due to our trickery that they fell into conflict with the Broo. It was high fantasy storytelling at its very best.

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Baby steps Jeremy, baby steps... We're not quite ready to take over the country ;-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

I agree, and I'm certainly not going to push the issue, but:

1. We need a (popular) focus for our "sedition" if we intend to achieve much more than making a political point
2. Republicanism is once more on the radar, and has significant popular support
3. Republicanism is specifically "seditious" in that it'd necessarily opposed to the sovereign
4. Establishing a "virtual republic" is actually an achievable goal (not least in that we get to define what we mean by it)
5. I'm ready to take over the country; that's what I meant by "replace the Government". ;)

[jimboboz.livejournal.com]

I fail to see why it has to be against the poor old Sovereign, what harm has she done lately? The problem has been with the legislative leader acting as the Executive, and evading, pre-empting, or corrupting the judiciary, and with the legislature failing in its job of being a house of review to which Ministers are responsible.

When Parliament rubber-stamps stuff, and the PM acts like a Minister-President, and threatens, over-rules and corrupts the pliant judiciary, we already have all the worst parts of a republic without any of the good parts.

Let's return to those principles which our nation was established on, and see how they work, before looking for new principles.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Let's return to those principles which our nation was established on

What? The White Australia Policy? ;-)

You're quite right about the poor ol' Queen. She isn't a target in this debate. Indeed, we can pitch our initial appeal to her to block the legislation.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

I fail to see why it has to be against the poor old Sovereign, what harm has she done lately?

It's not about the individual, it's about the institution.

Let's return to those principles which our nation was established on, and see how they work, before looking for new principles.

Two points:

1. Such a position risks being misrepresented as kneejerk conservatism
   
2. Sometimes things are too broken to fix (eg. the ALP)

That said, I agree that what we're facing is not really a Hardcore Tory regime, but actually a radical and probably treasonous attempt to undermine the Australian Way of Life by a fanatical convert (where was the Dear Leader on 11/09/01?) to the Great Santa. (In fact, I attempted to kick off a movement called "Conserve Australia" a few years back, to embody this "defend hard-won core values without scaring off the Liberals for Forests" concept.)

However, this is meant to be about theatrical civil disobedience, isn't it? As such, I believe we need something headline-grabbing, and small-L liberal conservationism isn't going to cut it.

So, down with the monarchy, me hearties!

[jimboboz.livejournal.com]

Hey, what's wrong with conservatism?

Conservatism, n. - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

Aren't rights of habeus corpus, separation of powers, freedom of speech, all among "the best in society"? Isn't abrogating them a "radical change"?

And Lev, Australia was not "established" on a White Australia policy. That came after Federation. And I said we should return to the principles upon which it was established; not every old policy. The principles were all good, even if the policies were not all good.

Just because Sheriff Johnny confuses constitutional issues with the policies of the government of the day, does not mean that we ought to.

I would never say, "down with the monarchy." The erosion and abrogation of our civil liberties, our prosperity and the egalitarian nature of postwar Australian society has run in parallel with an increasing republican-style government. When the Prime Minister acts as the Executive, having the Governor General as his rubber stamp, opening games, being the spokesman for every ministerial portfolio, etc, we're living like a republic.

Menzies, a monarchist, wanted to ban the Communist Party, but the public and the courts wouldn't let him. Howard wouldn't let a silly thing like the public and the courts stop him. He'd just change the law to say the courts had no authority or something, worked well enough with the Tampa.

High Court: "You cannot use the military in a policing action."
Johhny: "Just passed a law saying I can! Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

Most Prime Ministers tend, over the course of their career at that level, decide that PMs should have executive power, they should be able to impose their will on the Cabinet, there's no need for a Senate, and the states should be abolished, there should only be Federal and local government. That's republicanism if it ever existed at all in this country. Johnny Howard is the most fervent republican we have.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

Hey, what's wrong with conservatism?

Nothing (thus Conserve Australia). It's just not a barbecue stopper, and thus an inappropriate basis for civil disobedience.

Aren't rights of habeus corpus, separation of powers, freedom of speech, all among "the best in society"? Isn't abrogating them a "radical change"?

Yes; as I said, I believe the Dear Leader is actually a revolutionary for the Eschatological Right.

I would never say, "down with the monarchy." The erosion and abrogation of our civil liberties, our prosperity and the egalitarian nature of postwar Australian society has run in parallel with an increasing republican-style government.

Perhaps so. However, certain institutions and ideas (sadly including "Socialism" and indeed "The Left") have been so degraded in the public eye that there is simply no saving them, and continuing to advocate for them is utterly unproductive (aka "Sunk Theory").

Johnny Howard is the most fervent republican we have.

What you seem to be trying to do here is to attach to the term "republican" everything that is negative about out-of-control executive power. All you can possibly achieve by this strategy is to degrade the term "republican". Perhaps this is your intention. I would strongly caution against it.

[jimboboz.livejournal.com]

What you seem to be trying to do here is to attach to the term "republican" everything that is negative about out-of-control executive power.

It's an inevitable development of any republic, it's happened in every one there's ever existed. The head of government tries to become the head of the state, too. Perhaps it's just the American example, I don't know, but that's what happens.

I don't know what a "barbecue stopper" issue is for Aussies. If arbitrary detention and banning strikes doesn't do it, I don't know what would. Maybe if Sheriff Johnny banned footy.