Australia is the only county with a link to it's own page on the list of banned games by country... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_by_...
And one of two pages with a link to it's own page on the list of banned movies by country, along with China... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films
But honestly there were so many things, it sounds funny but I can't even think of particular examples right now.
Oh, smoking is a good example. Doing their best to push adults out of being able to smoke. You can argue it's as justified as you like, but it's still nannying.
There's a lot the country restricts because it thinks it knows what's best for its citizens.
It's different from claiming it's the best country to live in, as so many claim while grilling and nursing a beer.
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/australian-population-gro...
And the reputation of being the best country in the world comes from city/country rankings which routinely have our cities in the top ten:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2023/06/21/ran...
Yeah, that doesn't matter. Most of that percentage is young Australians who buy a $2000 'round the world' ticket with 8 stops or whatever, and they just get drunk in every place. Most of them are not really bothering to explore the countries or cultures, and have no context to claim Australia is 'the best country in the world to live in'.
> And the reputation of being the best country in the world comes from city/country rankings which routinely have our cities in the top ten:
There are plenty of different lists, but sure, Australian cities often make it into the top 10. But not 1st place, sometimes not even the top 5. Which means Australia is among the best, but certainly not the best, which is the claim many Australians insist upon. Hell, there are plenty of countries with all the same advantages but less censorship and less jacked up prices, so that disqualifies Australia right there IMO.
The difference is Americans who bother to travel are normally self-aware enough not to claim it, while the Australians that do, are not.
Out and proud USA #1 folk aren't hard to come by, abroad or at home in the US, the notion of American Exceptionalism is championed proportionally just as much (likely more) than a blind adherance to Australia the Lucky Country.
On those two phrases alone the pro American Exceptionalism crowd do seem at their core to be true believers while the majority of those flying the flag of Australia the Lucky Country are all too aware that Horne coined the phrase with a sneer as a back handed complement.
I wouldn't say it's selective. Just the result of spending extensive time in both countries. Is it not just as possible you're being defensive?
> Out and proud USA #1 folk aren't hard to come by, abroad or at home in the US,
Right, and my point was the minority of Americans who travel tend to learn the world is a bigger place and their country has a lot of issues.
> while the majority of those flying the flag of Australia the Lucky Country are all too aware that Horne coined the phrase with a sneer as a back handed complement.
Not my experience at all. They say it just as seriously as the Out and proud USA #1 folk you refer to, maybe with a little more awareness and less zealotry, but not that much less.
No stranger than hearing English or French accents IMO. Or Canadian. etc.
> BTW, have you travelled anywhere, or is this "most have never travelled anywhere" just something you've heard?
I've been to just over 60 countries so far, and spent about 7 years basically backpacking straight, and plenty at hostels.
That's what colored my cynicism of "Australians travel so prolifically" - most of the time they just had short stops in a city and were there to get drunk. Maybe doing some guided tours as you point out, but rarely going off-road or actually traveling, meeting locals, learning about the culture, etc. You could say many Australians are tourists few are actually 'travelers', if that makes sense.
As they absolutely should.
Australia has a free health care system and smokers are disproportionate in their use of limited resources.
No, they shouldn't, lol. No excuse for it at all.
> Australia has a free health care system and smokers are disproportionate in their use of limited resources.
Many countries have a similar health system, and there are other solutions that don't impact liberty like taxing cigarettes and putting that money back into the health system. Which is already done of course, making your argument moot.
Do they?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Sm...
This seems to suggest by killing the smokers earlier, the government avoids paying expensive pensions, among other things people need later in life.
Obviously I don't support smoking, just nitpicking here.
Smokers despite being a net-positive contributor to the government's tax revenue doesn't change that they are a net-negative drain on society.
* Extreme drug and supplement regulations (in Ireland I can't even get melatonin or St John's Wort without prescription)
* Extreme focus on safety at the expense of freedom. Again in Ireland, it'll take minimum one year but more likely 18 months to get a driving license, and we're subjected to endless government messaging about driving safety even though we have one of the highest levels of road safety in the world. Correlation maybe but if that's the case, they've succeeded and should stop nannying us now
* Strict control of public venue closing times. It's frustrating being at a festival and everything shutting down at 11pm because it's a Sunday night
* extreme levels of control in the form of bureaucracy - I'd say Germany is the winner here. Getting anything legal or administrative done is a struggle
There's a lot more I could list, some big, some small. But the overall feeling is that the state has decided how you should live and wants to control all sorts of minor insignificant parts of your life that they shouldn't have any say in. How dare the government decide whether I can take melatonin or not? It's a small thing, but one of hundreds that add up.
This makes absolutely no sense. If the additional instruction has lead to one of the highest levels of road safety in the world, you're proposing that they should become less safe because it's more convenient for people?