by Letters Leyonhjelm's superiority is illusionary <\/p>\n
Did David Leyonhjelm not prove the \"illusionary superiority\" of his own intelligence in \"The great nanny state delusion\" (July 14). <\/p>\n
His premise was that academics demonstrated \"illusionary superiority\" and so, those promoting nanny state policies who are also predominantly academics are wrong in their belief they have the right to dictate what is good for everyone. He endorses this by saying no trade organisation has ever told him what is good for him. <\/p>\n
First, his study analysis is weak. If 55 per cent of Americans believed themselves to be above average intelligence, then only 5 per cent overestimated and 95 per cent were quite realistic. If 75 per cent of the people with qualifications thought themselves to be above average intelligence they could be absolutely correct, dependent on the percentage who have a qualification. <\/p>\n
Secondly, how can Leyonhjelm ignore the blatant indoctrination of the CFMEU and the like into society? <\/p>\n
To conclude that bans on smoking, drinking, cycle helmets and lock-outs are all illusionary dictates from such weak reasoning is the delusion. I share his belief in personal freedoms, but freedoms bounded strongly by societal laws with the consequential costs of such freedoms born by the individual, not the state. It should be an ideological argument, not one based on apparent flawed bias. <\/p>\n
Jack Parr <\/p>\n
Sandringham, Victoria <\/p>\n
Senator Leyonhjelm is a champion for those who believe they should be able to profit from harming others and pass the costs on to others. He also puts his ideology before any objective assessment of the evidence. <\/p>\n
In 2008 the NSW Government introduced a measure in which liquor outlets associated with more than 10 violent incidents in a year are publicly listed and subject to a range of restrictions, mainly around the service of alcohol, until such time as the annual number of violent incidents have been reduced. The violent incidents in listed venues had dropped by 84 per cent since the scheme began, when 48 venues were associated with 1270 violent incidents. In 2015 there were only 14 listed venues associated with 200 violent incidents. The vast majority of us would agree that pubs and clubs should be required by law to be responsible in the way they sell their products, to reduce harm to their patrons, their staff and the police and ambulance workers. <\/p>\n
Similarly the way gambling products are allowed to be offered impacts on the levels of suicides, family violence, fraud and homelessness that can result from excessive gambling. <\/p>\n
The community is right to restrict those who profit from others' suffering. <\/p>\n
Mark Zirnsak <\/p>\n
Uniting Church in Australia <\/p>\n
Melbourne, Vic <\/p>\n
Why is David Leyonhjelm surprised if a group of people who have been through a process of selection for intellectual ability are higher than the average in this characteristic? If they weren't smarter then there is something wrong with the process of obtaining high qualifications. <\/p>\n
Senator Leyonhjelm thinks that he knows better than the experts who study climate change. But it is going to extremes to then seek to denigrate smart people by saying it is illusionary for them to think that they are smart. <\/p>\n
Perhaps politicians should be encouraged to listen to smart people? <\/p>\n
Reg Lawler <\/p>\n
Dagun, Qld <\/p>\n
Chanticleer columnist Tony Boyd has been writing strongly about the Perpetual versus Brickworks court case (\"Brickworks case carries lessions for Perpetual and shareholder activists\" July 12) but his conclusions about what it means for shareholder activism should not go unchallenged. <\/p>\n
The judge's decision supports a grandfathered corporate structure from the 1960s that no modern ASX listed company would be allowed to create. <\/p>\n
But a decision at law as to the role of directors is not the same as celebrating a 'win' for directors over minority shareholders. Perhaps the more relevant issue here is who should pay the multi-million dollar bill for the case Perpetual unitholders or shareholders and whether the ASX listing rules or the Corporations Act should be amended so that the undemocratic cross-shareholding arrangement has to be unscrambled. <\/p>\n
One vote, one value is an important democratic principle at public companies and the Millner family, along with their independent directors, continue to disregard shareholders in order to entrench their control through structures that neuter traditional board accountability mechanisms. <\/p>\n
The Australian Shareholders' Association congratulates Perpetual for trying to do the right thing. <\/p>\n
And we would prefer commentary to be balanced and note that the other aspect of the case is that Brickworks and Soul Pattinson directors could show respect for their independent shareholders by voluntarily unwinding the gerrymander. <\/p>\n
Judith Fox <\/p>\n
Chief executive <\/p>\n
Australian Shareholders'Association <\/p>\n
The government's proposal to force \"backdoors\" into encryption creates massive systemic vulnerabilities that outweigh any marginal good. We rely on strong encryption to secure all commerce, privacy and freedom of speech. No entity can guarantee that backdoors can be secured; a fact repeatedly demonstrated by continuing government and private sector data breaches. Further, the \"encryption technology genie\" is in the public domain and cannot be put back in its bottle. Access to powerful encryption tools is trivially easy, irrespective of legislation. The government is proposing that global information platform companies \"don't have to break encryption, they just have to give us the data\". This semantic \"spin\" suggests you can preserve strong encryption and yet still access individual data at will. This is nonsense. <\/p>\n
Yes, strong encryption could be preserved for data \"in transit\" but ultimately a backdoor is required to access the data \"at rest\" or as it is entered into, or displayed on, a device. This is functionally equivalent to creating encryption backdoors; any of which create global vulnerabilities with ultimately certain catastrophic consequences. And they do not actually guarantee a window into nefarious activity. Strongly encrypted backdoor-free platforms do make law enforcement work harder, but there are a range of approaches to penetrating the communications of specific criminals that do not create massive systemic vulnerabilities for our economies, our societies and for us as individuals. The government's \"backdoor by any other name\" proposals are folly and ultimately un-enforceable. They should be set aside. <\/p>\n
Roderick Laird <\/p>\n
Glen Iris,Vic <\/p>\n
Vale Liu Xiaobo. An example of standing up for what is right even when being pushed down and locked away. The world needs more heroes that fight for a better and freer world. <\/p>\n
Dennis Fitzgerald <\/p>\n
Box Hill, Vic <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n