I don't know where this is going. Perhaps prepping for the global warming riots.
Is there a way out of surveillance?
Vote with your feet. Divest out of Australia.
Make sure there's a brain drain out of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
disclaimer: I distance myself from the groups currently associated with these schools of thought. I also think the English version of this article is lacks scientific savoir faire.
The gender inequality part is empirically and historically wrong.
edit: To be honest the whole article is trash, better read it here (Psychological theory):
Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living. Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so.
Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would be because the bottom 51% have something to gain from extraction. The top 51% however are already superior and dont need to rely on extraction to fulfill their wants/needs.
51% might have been too broad a number, but do you get my drift? Those in the lower intelligence brackets have a lot to gain, but those in the upper intelligence brackets do not have a lot to gain
51 + 51 = 102%
The bottom 51% have more influence than the top 49% because one is a majority. There is your answer.
As an aside, if you look at the elected representatives of Australia, I suspect you'll find most of them are highly educated.
Outside the US, countries after WW1/2 opted for democracies instead of republics with strong foundations. We're witnessing the point of failure due to the exact issues outlined in those papers.
It's very non-obvious to me why there's a natural "coalition of the bottom" versus that just being one possible way for things to shake out.
(It's also worth noting that the original American system already suffered a MASSIVE failure of the state - coincidentally also around the hundred year mark - which makes me think maybe they didn't have things perfectly figured out anyway. It hurts the credibility of the appeal to tradition/authority.)
What crisis are you talking about specifically? The closest they came to failure was definitely the civil war. Most people would put that as a crisis of absolutely irreconcilable moral differences rather than of normal politics. No political system ever devised could solve that problem without violence or complete separation.
The civil war sure seems like a bigger failure of a state than anything we've seen in Western Europe since the world wars. The "irreconcilable moral difference" was known when the constitution was being created, so punting on it is a pretty giant red flag to me about the ultimate wisdom of the founders, and about the constitution as something we should revere - we should change it constantly as situations change.
Of course, at the time this almost exclusively meant wealthy white men - which is obviously a terrible way to run a voting system.
The converse of this is the "bread and circuses" problem with Democracy. This was supposed to be mitigated by the "House of Lords" equivalent in the U.S. - The Senate.
The Senate was supposed to have been a buffer that protected against popular vote because they were assigned by the state legislature. They were beholden to the welfare of the state, not to direct-democracy political campaigning and all its ills.
Personally, I think its time to re-evaluate the 17th amendment to see if it had the desired effect, or resulted in massive unintended consequences.
Time to sell AAAU etf, you can't trust a bank if the gov't is corrupt.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/20/banki...
On that one, at least, the politicians were too spineless to take a stand.
How many times has this theory been cheated in the last thousand years?
the answer is, a lot
Just like Cuba and Eastern Europe when the USSR was still around. Wonder why.
Previously living overseas was an automatic exemption to the exit ban, but now this must be applied for with proof of overseas residence.
As Australian bureaucracy is barely up to the task of organising a chook raffle this is pretty scary. The news articles I've seen give me the impression that the application process is a bit of a dice roll as to whether you get it or not with people re-applying dozens of times over months and no transparency on why their exit permits are rejected. Whether it will be this hard for overseas resident Australians to escape home remains to be seen.
As a way of discouraging Aussies abroad from popping back in for a family funeral or holiday and clogging up the quarantine system it seems a rather effective deterrent (stay awhile, stay forever!) but the minister responsible reckons that's not the motivation for the rule, so you have to wonder what they're thinking.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/government-defends-ne...
You want a wise, just dictator for life, and maybe you luck out and get one who reigns beneficently for a few decades, but who's to say their successor will be as good, or the next one, and on and on until you inevitably get a Stalin.
Put another way: if the leader dies, and heir A spends all their effort on ruling effectively, and heir B spends all their effort on beating heir A to the throne, how can heir A succeed? You'd need metrics for being a good ruler which are immune to Goodhart's Law.
Given that—over time—power inevitably centralizes and inevitably is abused, those tendencies must be counterbalanced; or else power must be regularly reset by more crude means.
We need more people to challenge their view of reality, and accept that things may not be as happy and comfortable as we want them to be for the security of our futures and our children's futures.
And no, I don't mean "global warming is destroying the ability for life to live" wise, I mean in terms of how much our politicians and public servants are truly serving us at this point. Voting for lifelong politicians more or less got us here, the red pill is accepting that these people may have always had more sinister plans in mind than we thought.
So "Take the redpill" is (in this case) a statement about taking a different path with politics (politicians) .