
Everything in Sydney is now illegal- including fun - siquick
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn-lights-out-matt-barrie?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like
======
dalke
What a well-written article. Even an outsider like me could follow what's
happening, the explanation for what's happening seems entirely reasonable, and
the references I followed all supported the evidence in a believable way.

The headline of the Tyler Brûlé description "Nanny state rules making
Australia 'world's dumbest nation'" seems entirely appropriate.

And, WTF!? Routine strip searches at concert venues in NSW?!

------
h0l0cube
So can all those cool tech companies leave all the killjoys up in Sydney and
set up shop in Melbourne already?

------
deciplex
Considering that, every time we have a gun control discussion, every person in
Sydney on HN will come out of the woodwork to lecture Americans about how
wonderful Australian gun control is and, gee, what a great idea a nanny state
is in _this one particular instance_ at least - no I can't say I am all that
surprised, disheartened, or sympathetic to the fact that stupid rules and an
overbearing legal regime have choked the life out of the entertainment economy
in Sydney.

~~~
dalke
That would make sense if the reasons behind both were the same. But it seems
to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions the government
does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state"

More specifically, this article suggests the changes in Sydney are partially
as a way for "evangelical christians to implement a framework of religious
policy" and "actively shutting down any small business that it can find that
doesn’t agree with its small minded evangelical 1950s view of the world."

As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for higher
gun control laws in Australia. For "nanny state" to be meaningful, it must be
able to encompass both movements.

But the article also points to Amsterdam and other places which have an active
night life _and_ strict gun control laws. Thus, it can't be that both are the
result of some "nanny" tendency by the government.

Which is why I don't understand why "nanny state" makes sense for both cases.
Well, other than for some libertarian philosophies where nearly all government
regulation is classed as being part of a "nanny state".

~~~
deciplex
> _But it seems to me that you have mostly arbitrarily grouped "restrictions
> the government does that you don't like" into the category "nanny state"_

Well, _anybody_ is going to do that, even the author of this piece, so your
observation does not give you as much insight as you seem to think, even if
accurate (which it is not e.g. I would not classify overbroad copyright
legislation into the 'nanny state' category, even though I think it makes for
shitty policy).

> _As far as I can tell, that is completely different than the reasons for
> higher gun control laws in Australia._

No, it is not completely different: both are instances of the governing class
adopting policies formed from a mindset that they _know better_ the morality
that the people should adopt as they go about their lives. They believe
partying into the early hours is _wrong_ , and they give this away with the
victim-blaming nonsense and misleading statistics, if not outright lies, they
offer regarding crime in Sydney, which this article rightly tears down.
Likewise, the Australian government (and most other national governments)
would have you believe that owning a gun is _morally wrong_ , and the data
they use to support this assertion are generally about as convincing as the
arguments made to support these ridiculous restrictions on nightlife in
Sydney. Indeed, anyone who has participated in or even observed a gun control
"debate" should be pretty familiar with the sort of statistical dirty tricks
perpetrated here by the City of Sydney.

At any rate, as an aside, in the future try to keep the ratio of strawmen to
sentences in your post somewhere south of 1:1. It's not just that it's
irritating to the person reading it - it also weakens your argument: your
assertion of what I think makes a nanny state, and your implication about my
political philosophy, are both _widely_ off the mark.

------
_0ffh
The author has a very strong point to make, but ruins his article by being
disingenuous throughout. Many of the cited articles say nearly-but-not-quite
what he claims them to say. Why not just keep it real, instead of putting
people off by trying to manipulate them?

