Yowiehunters Forum

Irrelevent, how? You started on about parking fines in your post Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:23 am, on page 4 of this thread, and continued in your post on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:11 am on this page, so yeah, right, whatever. I replied to YOUR post, a massive exposition about how you're fighting speeding and parking fines, and how the TORUM isn't legal? So is that irrelevant? There have been so many political issues raised, that this thread's lost all coherence.

There are times when justice has not been done, and people's lives have been permanently affected, that I do not deny, and I believe the courts are far too lenient in many cases of wrongdoing, and true justice has not got a look in. On that you'll get no argument from me, but it's clear on the matter of speeding fines, you and I have polar opposite viewpoints. Just don't try and blame THE MAN for your driving habits and choices is my point.


Shazz

I have already explained... my post referring to the court stuff was originally meant as an example of how corruption has seeped into the political and legal system.

Scarts questioned my integrity so I backed up what I was saying with more information... all in an attempt to wake people up to how indemic the corruption has become. And how we cannot trust the politicians for it is the same politicians who have corrupted the legislation in other matters.

In other words, all relevant to the discussion "... what's hidden?"

Referring back to the topic, which was SSM and hidden agendas. I was speaking to an old man at work this week and he pointed out an interesting point.
The SSM future will of course mean registering for marriage, with the necessary forms and typical red tape. Then all those involved will be on a government data base, just like traditional married couples are. Then, when the Muslims finally get the Sharia Law that seems to be on the not so hidden agenda, they can print out a report of all the SSM couples and deal with them Sharia style.

hillbilly wrote:Referring back to the topic, which was SSM and hidden agendas. I was speaking to an old man at work this week and he pointed out an interesting point.
The SSM future will of course mean registering for marriage, with the necessary forms and typical red tape. Then all those involved will be on a government data base, just like traditional married couples are. Then, when the Muslims finally get the Sharia Law that seems to be on the not so hidden agenda, they can print out a report of all the SSM couples and deal with them Sharia style.

Dunno about the last bit (at least I hope it doesn't get that bad) but he's spot on with one aspect...

... Big Bro will make sure to include, in whatever legislation gets written, full-on data collection and control.
Its all about control and power and information IS power.

I was trying to tell people about a little NSA data collection/analysing project called Project Echelon back in the late nineties. People thought I was a kook and didn't even believe in an agency only answerable to the president called the National Security Agency.

Then Ed Snowden flees the US from the NSA and tells the world there is a project called Project Echelon.

I've been studying this sort of stuff for a very long time... and while I understand WHY people don't want to hear it and would prefer to keep thier heads buried in the sand, it still does frustrate me when good men not only do nothing but then attack the messenger.

...after all... what can be done about it? It is simply the way the world is... bad people do bad things.
The psychopaths are in charge of the asylum and will quite literally do anything to stay in charge.

But an interesting thing is happening.
People are educating themselves.

More and more are seeing through the lies and looking into the 'why' they lie. And creative people are doing amazing things to inevitebly wrench the power back.

The secret is to build an alternative.
Bitcoin is an alternative to the power structure (fiat currency built on debt), it gives people an alternative.

I reckon it's time to provide an alternative to the so-called Australian Government built with blockchain tech...

... Online Direct Democracy...
Imagine a system where ANY citizen can propose a new law, or amendment to an existing one by simply posting it online. Everyone votes, online.
Politicians would become redundant and so would corruption.

I fear nothing from a new law acknowledging SSM, but I do fear how certain 'powers' will sneak in bits that strip away our rights even further. In an Online Direct Democracy this will be avoided because more active participants will be doing it to for the money but to make things better.

*doing it NOT for the money

Hey Wolf
There is a new blockchain I have invested a little bit into their ICO. It is not up and running atm but it is not far off. It is called Tezos.
They are calling it a digital commonwealth that an entire country can run on. It is fully scalable into the future , self ammending legder. It has consensus protocol and everyone can vote on whatever proposal is made. The Tezos developers have thought of everything unlike most of of the earlier blockchains currently in use today which have very limited capacity to scale up etc.

Thanks mate, I'll definitely look into it.

Wolf, your whole argument and legal battles against parking and speeding fines, seems to rest on your mistaken belief, these laws were never proclaimed. For a law to be proclaimed, simply means it has to be officially announced in parliament. What the hell do you think it means?

The laws you have spoken of, have all been officially announced in parliament, with bills passed and a 28 day period before the law becomes effective. The laws you battled were all proclaimed.

I find it astounding you are peddling this c**p. And it is, it is absolute c**p. I don't think you had any wins.

An astute forum moderator would have kick started off a new thread for this topic by now....

Also, speeding in itself is recognised to be a life endangering offence, and speeding is well documented to be a contributing factor in many fatal or serious road accidents. The fatal five in Qld consists of speeding, seat belts not worn, distraction, drink or drug driving, and driver fatigue.

Speed limits have to be set and lines drawn in the sand. Otherwise, under the beliefs of some retarded fools, (not howling any names), it would be perfectly legal to race cars around suburban streets reaching speeds of of over 200ks an hour, during school pickup times. It raises revenue, but its spirit is to reduce road trauma.

It's sad this is the most interesting discussion appearing on a Yowie research forum.....

Maybe its time to lock this thread.

It obviously not getting anywhere

Scarts wrote:Wolf, your whole argument and legal battles against parking and speeding fines, seems to rest on your mistaken belief, these laws were never proclaimed. For a law to be proclaimed, simply means it has to be officially announced in parliament. What the hell do you think it means?

The laws you have spoken of, have all been officially announced in parliament, with bills passed and a 28 day period before the law becomes effective. The laws you battled were all proclaimed.

I find it astounding you are peddling this c**p. And it is, it is absolute c**p. I don't think you had any wins.

An astute forum moderator would have kick started off a new thread for this topic by now....

Also, speeding in itself is recognised to be a life endangering offence, and speeding is well documented to be a contributing factor in many fatal or serious road accidents. The fatal five in Qld consists of speeding, seat belts not worn, distraction, drink or drug driving, and driver fatigue.

Speed limits have to be set and lines drawn in the sand. Otherwise, under the beliefs of some retarded fools, (not howling any names), it would be perfectly legal to race cars around suburban streets reaching speeds of of over 200ks an hour, during school pickup times. It raises revenue, but its spirit is to reduce road trauma.

It's sad this is the most interesting discussion appearing on a Yowie research forum.....

... keep going with your Strawman argument mate. It's way off topic so I won't bother debating your mistaken beliefs. The FACTS are obvious, our governng body is corrupt, as are our courts, so why believe they wont sneak into the SSM act something nerafarious?

This is all speculation, we won’t know what is written in the bill until it is done. I don’t think anyone will have a chance to sneak something nefarious into it as it will be the most publicised bit of legislation to go through.

After reading everyone’s comments I notice two groups, the optimists and the pessimists, I don’t think anything will make the two groups think along the same lines unfortunately.

Zed

Oh, and locking the thread will solve everything? Lol.

Wolf is the one who derailed the thread by boasting his parking fine and speeding fine court battles' supposed wins and most definite losses. Wolf, you're a legend in your own mind!

It's been a big year. Gay marriage is in, and as far as big W is concerned, Christmas is out!

Scarts, you are way off track and out of line with your Strawman attacks.

As explained over and over the 'traffic fine/parking fine stuff' was to provide examples/evidence of how corrupt the government and judicial system has become.

I try to alert people as to what is potentially going on with 'government' IN MY OWN THREAD and all I cop from you is insults, accusations of lying, and diversion from the topic... then you go and say it is ME who has 'derailed' my own thread!!!

You refuse to believe the evidence, fine, that's your choice... may your chains rest lightly upon you.
But if you don't have anything constructive and on topic to add... piss off and derail someone else's thread.

Scarts wrote:Wolf, your whole argument and legal battles against parking and speeding fines, seems to rest on your mistaken belief, these laws were never proclaimed. For a law to be proclaimed, simply means it has to be officially announced in parliament. What the hell do you think it means?

The laws you have spoken of, have all been officially announced in parliament, with bills passed and a 28 day period before the law becomes effective. The laws you battled were all proclaimed.

Where is your evidence of this? The police could not find any, otherwise they would have produced it in court.

Laws MUST be Proclaimed and Gazzetted. There HAS to be evidence of such yet not a single police prosecutor has brought forward such evidence DESPITE THE LAW REQUIRING THEY DO SO!

A Claimant MUST prove their claim! Unless of course one is considered guilty until proven innocent as the magistrate verbalised in court. This last fact alone should make EVERY good citizen angry as hell, but no, all I cop is accusations of lying from a keyboard warrior who has probably never been in court in his life.

Scarts wrote: Speed limits have to be set and lines drawn in the sand. Otherwise, under the beliefs of some retarded fools, (not howling any names), it would be perfectly legal to race cars around suburban streets reaching speeds of of over 200ks an hour, during school pickup times. It raises revenue, but its spirit is to reduce road trauma.

EXCESSIVE speed and dangerous driving is criminal behaviour and SHOULD be punished.

Never have I said speeding and dangerous driving should be allowed, are you really that stupid to read that into my words? You sir, are evidently the retarded fool.

Speed cameras purposely placed around corners, on downhill slopes, etc, are actually in the police handbook as unethical positions that should never be used, yet they do it all the time... why? To raise revenue.

I have no problem with cameras being used (despite the fact they are illegal under The National Measurements Act 1960) to catch dangerous driving behaviours.
I DO have an issue with them being used to 'catch' people doing a couple of k's over the posted limit... especially when in obvious safe environments (like Shazzoir's example of early in the morning with no other traffic).

If speed cameras saved lives, why is it that despite raising many hundreds of millions in revenue the road toll has steadily INCREASED in every state they are used? And this despite HUGE advancements in life-saving technologies like air-bags, better brakes and the handling abilities of modern cars.

In fact, studies have demonstrated enforcing strict speed limits CAUSES accidents, so why are they knowingly causing accidents with their road policies? Because it is a big fat ca$h cow for them.

This is piracy and a perfect example of what happens when corruption seeps into the system and 'good' people don't stand up and do something about it.

Sadly, whenever a smarter sheep points out the fences and the sheering shed, the dumbed down sheep prefer to rip their would-be saviours apart rather than allow their comfortable illusions to be shattered... as this thread demonstrates rather well.

I'm more concerned with the close association some members of parliament have with foreign billionaires than I am with marriage equality.

Dastyari should go, plain and simple. The fact that he's still there speaks volumes; he was able to get massive amounts of money for the ALP so he gets to hang around. Like Sinodinis was allowed to hang around because he was able to secure massive donations for the Liberals. "Follow the money".

Both 'right' and 'left' commentators publicly extol values that are long established - 'traditional' viewpoints are not the exclusive province of Andrew Bolt, etc. There are ideologues of all varieties in every major political party and in every mass media outlet. Witness the surprising fact that both the Nationals and the ALP were pushing for a Royal Commission into the banks; there are clearly points of similarity along with points of difference.

Both 'sides' seem willing to sacrifice fact to support a specific ideological viewpoint, and that's what concerns me about the current state of Australian politics. I think this is the cause of the general public's well documented disengagement with the political system; both 'sides' are so busy blaming one another for everything, they've taken their eye off the ball and the public have noticed this.

The current crisis in conservative politics is born of their own confusion about who it is they're supposed to represent. Is Bernardi correct, or is Turnbull? Are they both partially correct and partially incorrect? Does 'Liberal' equal 'Conservative' and, if it does, how is that term defined?

We often hear the Liberals describe their party as a 'broad church' - but I think this may be part of the problem. Each Liberal faction seems to believe they represent the 'real' Liberal Party. They don't know who they are any more, and have radically different opinions about who and what they represent.

It would be a pity if the LNP fell apart, but I think it's going to. I wish the Democrats still existed. I don't trust the Greens. The ALP are as corrupt and compromised as the Liberals and Nationals (Barnaby Joyce not having the brains to say 'thanks but no thanks' to Gina's little $40,000 present right then and there on the podium astounded me - someone of his experience must've known how bad that would look), and One Nation are a basket case.

As I've said before, minority government would be my preference. A more diverse group of MP's who are truly there to represent the people in their electorate, not just toe the 'party line' and vote as they're told to, might be what's needed. There has to be a circuit breaker. Things have become too murky and people do not feel confident in the current system - just look at what it's given us. A choice between Turnbull and Shorten.

Its getting derailed again. That is an interesting topic Simon, but this thread is really about poofs and lezzo's, marriage and speeding fines. Got it?

Simon M wrote:I'm more concerned with the close association some members of parliament have with foreign billionaires than I am with marriage equality.

Dastyari should go, plain and simple. The fact that he's still there speaks volumes; he was able to get massive amounts of money for the ALP so he gets to hang around. Like Sinodinis was allowed to hang around because he was able to secure massive donations for the Liberals. "Follow the money".

Both 'right' and 'left' commentators publicly extol values that are long established - 'traditional' viewpoints are not the exclusive province of Andrew Bolt, etc. There are ideologues of all varieties in every major political party and in every mass media outlet. Witness the surprising fact that both the Nationals and the ALP were pushing for a Royal Commission into the banks; there are clearly points of similarity along with points of difference.

Both 'sides' seem willing to sacrifice fact to support a specific ideological viewpoint, and that's what concerns me about the current state of Australian politics. I think this is the cause of the general public's well documented disengagement with the political system; both 'sides' are so busy blaming one another for everything, they've taken their eye off the ball and the public have noticed this.

The current crisis in conservative politics is born of their own confusion about who it is they're supposed to represent. Is Bernardi correct, or is Turnbull? Are they both partially correct and partially incorrect? Does 'Liberal' equal 'Conservative' and, if it does, how is that term defined?

We often hear the Liberals describe their party as a 'broad church' - but I think this may be part of the problem. Each Liberal faction seems to believe they represent the 'real' Liberal Party. They don't know who they are any more, and have radically different opinions about who and what they represent.

It would be a pity if the LNP fell apart, but I think it's going to. I wish the Democrats still existed. I don't trust the Greens. The ALP are as corrupt and compromised as the Liberals and Nationals (Barnaby Joyce not having the brains to say 'thanks but no thanks' to Gina's little $40,000 present right then and there on the podium astounded me - someone of his experience must've known how bad that would look), and One Nation are a basket case.

As I've said before, minority government would be my preference. A more diverse group of MP's who are truly there to represent the people in their electorate, not just toe the 'party line' and vote as they're told to, might be what's needed. There has to be a circuit breaker. Things have become too murky and people do not feel confident in the current system - just look at what it's given us. A choice between Turnbull and Shorten.

I agree with everything you said Simon.
It is the 'Party' system at work... designed to give us the illusion of choice...
..."Here's your new boss... same as the old boss."

The 'left' is so far right and the 'right' is so far left these days that both major parties are so close politically it is ridiculous.

My dearly departed Dad used to say political parties should be illegal. And that the only fair way for our system to work was if only independent candidates stood that would represent their community rather than a 'party'.

However the fact is 'they' will NEVER allow any politician to exist if said politician is a threat to 'their' system of control.

One Nation is a case in point...

Back when Hanson first 'broke' into politics (standing as an independent), she pointed out many 'truths' that the common man (sic) agreed with. She had to be destroyed and was... even spending time in jail over BS charges (proving once again the corruption in the legal/political system).

Recently a farmer who had found out the hard way about our corrupted system (attacked by corrupt banks, backed up by a corrupt legal system) ran for politics in order to try and do something about it. He entered politics as a One Nation senator and immediately attacked the corrupt banking and legal system. Where is he now? Forced out and attacked even more vigorously (ironically it was he who first called for an Enquiry into the banks).

Yet another senator who knew 'what was going on' (the truth about our so-called government) has been even more recently forced aside. I strongly suspect the 'real reason' behind the 'dual-citizen' malarky was because they wanted to get rid of this bloke. It worked but the fall-out had some karma attached and others fell too.

(If I need to mention names you really are asleep to the political reality of Australia)

The issue is our government is not only very corrupt and will write whatever they want into any new laws they propose and not inform the people about 'what is hidden'... but our 'government' is NOT even our Parliament of the Commonwealth anymore.

Today's government and court system would be un-recognisable to the founders and would instantly be seen as illegitimate under Constitutional Law, but the sheeple just go with the flow as long as the footy is on TV.

The other thing is this new "internet health record" that's being introduced.

Very little info is available and I'm unable to find a website which provides details. Apparently $1.7 billion dollars has gone into the development of a personalised 'My Health record' for every Australian citizen. It will record every medicine you take, every doctor and hospital visit, blood test result, x-ray, MRI, etc - the lot. The record will be kept for 130 years.

Now there's a three-month time frame during which you can opt out of it, but the Australian Digital Health Agency have stated that there will be no advertising and that they cannot detail when the opt-out period will begin or end.

This was reported in the Herald Sun on November 26th this year and I have been completely unable to find any further info about it so I can opt out. Or even when or how to do so.

Stuff like this, as well as the recent reports about PSO's being present in every shopping complex in Victoria from 2018 onward, really concern me.

As for the same-sex marriage thing, it's just another minor distraction from what they're really up to. Look at this Royal Commission - Turnbull's made a token effort to appease his own backbench and the banks at the same time. Putting a one-year time limit on it was done to please the people Turnbull really represents; his mates in the banking sector. Once a Goldman Sachs employee, always a Goldman Sachs employee it seems.

hillbilly wrote:Its getting derailed again. That is an interesting topic Simon, but this thread is really about poofs and lezzo's, marriage and speeding fines. Got it?

If I can find an image of a lesbian in a wedding dress driving a formula one car, I promise I'll post it.

Wolf wrote:
It is the 'Party' system at work... designed to give us the illusion of choice...
..."Here's your new boss... same as the old boss."

The 'left' is so far right and the 'right' is so far left these days that both major parties are so close politically it is ridiculous.

Yep.

Your Dad was right - it's the 'two party system', not democracy, that's causing our current problems. If each MP represented the constituents in the seat where they'd won the election - and voted and proposed legislation accordingly - things would work more smoothly. Party politics has undermined the intended function of parliament to such an extent that MP's spend their time dealing with the vagaries of party politics instead of the genuine concerns of the people they allegedly represent.

You could look at Sophie Mirabella as an almost textbook case of what I'm talking about - the LNP thought they had the seat of Indi in the bag in 2013. Safe Liberal seat since 1977, hand-picked staunchly Liberal candidate, etc. The ALP hadn't won an election in that seat since 1928. Sophie Mirabella very pointedly ignored her constituents' concerns about public transport and hospital funding (among other things) and got the boot in no uncertain terms. The Libs were shocked and blamed 'the left' and 'the media', without recognising the fact that Mirabella's lack of interest in those whom she was meant to represent had been what sealed her fate. The reality of what people wanted from their federal representative had nought to do with what the party wanted from whoever held that 'safe' seat in the party's name. The parties see every seat as a possession to be won or lost, not as an area with human beings living there who have genuine concerns about jobs, healthcare, education, etc.

I think that was an early indication of what we're seeing now on a national scale, even an international scale. People want to be represented by MP's, the political parties only represent their own interests.

Just to clarify - Indi was won by an independent named Cathy McGowan, not the ALP. McGowan still holds that seat, having been voted in again in 2016.

Simon M wrote:The other thing is this new "internet health record" that's being introduced.

Very little info is available and I'm unable to find a website which provides details. Apparently $1.7 billion dollars has gone into the development of a personalised 'My Health record' for every Australian citizen. It will record every medicine you take, every doctor and hospital visit, blood test result, x-ray, MRI, etc - the lot. The record will be kept for 130 years.

Now there's a three-month time frame during which you can opt out of it, but the Australian Digital Health Agency have stated that there will be no advertising and that they cannot detail when the opt-out period will begin or end.

This was reported in the Herald Sun on November 26th this year and I have been completely unable to find any further info about it so I can opt out. Or even when or how to do so.

Stuff like this, as well as the recent reports about PSO's being present in every shopping complex in Victoria from 2018 onward, really concern me.

And you should be concerned. Too many of us make the mistake of believing everybody else outside our own heads thinks like we do. There are genuinely nasty people in this world who do nasty things.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions because said nasty people USE said good intentions to carry forward their own particular agenda. An example of this is the 'donor' box we tick (or not) on our drivers licenses. Not sure about Australia but it is a little known fact in the US that if a 'donor' is involved in an accident and taken to a hospital, the doctors will NOT put a lot of effort into saving the donor's life because his or her organs are worth $$$.

Simon M wrote:As for the same-sex marriage thing, it's just another minor distraction from what they're really up to. Look at this Royal Commission - Turnbull's made a token effort to appease his own backbench and the banks at the same time. Putting a one-year time limit on it was done to please the people Turnbull really represents; his mates in the banking sector. Once a Goldman Sachs employee, always a Goldman Sachs employee it seems.

Yep, Goldman Sachs rules the world apparently... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEV3zJbahvM

Hey Wolf

Re the video link you posted above. The guy talks about the impending Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
Good idea for a new topic ? I will start up a new thread about this forecast of an impending GFC for discussion.

Is this the end of women’s sport as we know it?

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/end- ... orts-know/

At the risk of sounding prejudiced...that shouldn't be allowed. I don't care about people's social identities, gender fluidity or sexual preferences, but that's completely out of order in my opinion.

It goes beyond self expression or gender identity and goes towards simple biological fact. Germaine Greer was widely pilloried when she protested about trans people being accepted into female only academic institutions some years back, and she did so again in October this year (and was again criticised).

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ay-edwards

She has consistently said that feminism, as she defined it originally, was about women being paid the same amount as men for doing the same job and not being treated as idiots who had to be 'protected' from the world (the original premise of her book 'The Female Eunuch'). She's also attacked whenever she says that feminism has lost its way or gone too far in a certain direction.

It's amazing to me that someone who pioneered gender equality is now routinely attacked by the very people whom she sought to empower. She's often said that unless someone is female genetically she cannot accept them as female; they're simply playing a societal role, they're not 'really' women.

I don't think this sporting issue is to do with marriage equality, but it's clear that things have gone too far in a particular direction. Equality is the goal, not to actually defy mother nature. It worries me a bit.

On the domestic front...AFL bans transgender athlete/player Hannah from playing in the AFL womans league. I wonder if any legal challenge/appeal will come from this.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=afl+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

TheBlackStump wrote:On the domestic front...AFL bans transgender athlete/player Hannah from playing in the AFL womans league. I wonder if any legal challenge/appeal will come from this.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=afl+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

I will be very surprised if it doesn't.
A symptom of the deep corruption of our society is the parasitic class (lawyers) jumping onto every possibility of making money from lawsuits. Win or lose, the lawyers win (unless they go pro bono, which is very rare).

The LGBT lobby is ridiculously powerful and is sure to jump onto this one, unless they are smart enough to see the sport issue is thier Achilles heel. After all imagine a male tennis player ranked above 100... if he decided the money was worth it (it is a lot after all), he could be the next Serena Williams and simply over power all of the competition.
If such a thing happened I believe it could potentially set back thier agenda for years.

TheBlackStump wrote:Hey Wolf
There is a new blockchain I have invested a little bit into their ICO. It is not up and running atm but it is not far off. It is called Tezos.
They are calling it a digital commonwealth that an entire country can run on. It is fully scalable into the future , self ammending legder. It has consensus protocol and everyone can vote on whatever proposal is made. The Tezos developers have thought of everything unlike most of of the earlier blockchains currently in use today which have very limited capacity to scale up etc.

Hey Wolf

Thought this may interest you. Blockchain voting.

Western elections are largely free of fraud, voters trust the results and no ‘enemy’ hackers
can influence the result.
And security and trust in our democracy is more important than a few wasted hours.
Until now, no web based system could offer that level of security.
But now, new blockchain technologies are offering the security of the existing system with
the conveniences of modern technology.
Not too far in the future, I envision you’ll be able to whip out your smart phone on your lunch
hour to vote for your chosen candidate. It’ll only take a matter of seconds.
In a way, blockchain voting has already started. And it’s changing the very notion of elections.
Flux —a new political party built on blockchain technology, is heading the movement.
Their platform allows you to vote on certain issues before passing that information
directly on to their candidates. And if you don’t feel strongly on a certain issue, Flux
allows you to trade your vote to someone else who is more passionate or has more
expertise in the subject.
They are introducing the idea of decentralised political candidates.
They have no political agenda other than giving power back to the people. The candidates
will merely vote on each piece of legislation as directed by a majority of Flux members.
It’s a neat experiment. And a clear sign that many think the current political system is letting
us down. Look out for the option to vote for Flux at your next election.
Crucially, Flux uses blockchain to verify the candidates are indeed, voting as directed. The
information is visible to everyone.
If you like the idea of direct democracy (done cheaply on the blockchain), then I suggest you
give it a go next election. It can’t be any worse than the alternatives, after all.

Good to see.
Blockchain is the future, no doubt about it.
The question is, will it be mankinds saviour of mankinds enslaver?

I copied that info from an article about the recent same sex Marriage Plebiscite.

FLUX may be an Aussie idea also and in operation already.

1. Get your vote
Flux is egalitarian. Every Australian citizen enrolled in Flux receives one vote for each bill before parliament.

You can join FLUX https://www.google.com.au/search?q=flux ... e&ie=UTF-8