Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole?

Written By: Steve Pierson - Date published: 6:24 am, July 21st, 2008 - 291 comments
Categories: john key, national, workers' rights - Tags: beneficaires, judith collins

Judith Collins, who has made it her mission in life to attack benefits at every turn, has been meeting with Mission Australia, the largest private â€˜work-for-the-dole’ scheme provider in Australia. This is a clear indication that, in contrast to the moderate, modern approach Key says he espouses, National will be returning to the failed policy of work-for-the-dole.

Work-for-the-dole was introduced in the dying days of the last National Government. It was cancelled by the incoming Labour-led Government in 2000. A report on the scheme concluded it had failed unemployed workers by shortening the length of time they had to find suitable work before either losing their benefit or being conscripted into work-for-the-dole. Work-for-the-dole resulted in higher unemployment than it otherwise would have.

Proponents of work-for-the-dole argue it helps long-term unemployed get off benefits. There’s no proof that’s the case, it’s all ideology. Moreover, the number of long-term unemployed is tiny and has fallen in recent years, not due to work-for-the-dole but because of a full employment policy that invests resources into getting people into decent work.

(source)

Work-for-the-dole is a nice sounding slogan but it doesn’t work in practice. As with ACC and the 90 Day No Rights policy, National is following ideology, rather than doing what makes sense.

[for those who will inevitably claim Labour has moved people from the UB to sickness benefit – the facts]

291 comments on “Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole? ”

Comments are now closed

infused 1

21 July 2008 at 7:05 am

The only reason people have come off the dole was because of the economy. You will see this change very much over the next 12-18 months. If you haven’t found work after 3+ months you really have no excuse so I would support this idea.

Being on the dole a good 2 years all I did was sit around on my ass. At least this way you’re out there doing something.

The govt should have a look at more ideas like the enterprise grant. Got me where I am today.
vto 2

21 July 2008 at 7:54 am

Is it not more like making a contribution back to the community that is helping the unemployed out?

I increasingly like the sound of this Universal Entitlement Benefit, which I read somewhere. A dollop of money for each and every person for basic living costs, whether employed or not.
Stephen 3

21 July 2008 at 8:19 am

Hmm…so The Standard, you wouldn’t support a Work for the Dole for long-term unemployed (whose numbers are very small, yes), like infused suggested? In principle it sounds good, and saying ‘it’s only ideology’ doesn’t really cut it, I feel.

Also, using the definition of long-term unemployed on the UB as FOUR YEARS+ is not very helpful. That stats page records those who have been on for <1, then 1-4. I would have used ‘4 years and less’.
Stephen 4

21 July 2008 at 8:29 am

I should have said ‘Steve Pierson’, not ‘The Standard’, sorry.

[lprent: thank you]
BeShakey 5

21 July 2008 at 8:50 am

Infused – hopefully you realise that things that have worked for you may not work for everyone (and the evidence suggests that work for the dole doesn’t work for many people and has a net negative effect).

Stephen – if you read the post properly the point isn’t simply that the Nats support of work for the dole is that its ‘only ideology’ its that GIVEN THAT IT DOESNT WORK the only reason to support it is ideology. The fact that it doesn’t work is fairly central to the argument so don’t ignore that bit eh?
Stephen 6

21 July 2008 at 8:59 am

BeShakey, I should have said that I agree with the reasons cited in the original post for it not working *generally* (less time etc), but does that really apply to those who have been unemployed for say, a year or more? (I still REALLY take issue with the definition of ‘long term’ as >4 years!)

I haven’t seen the report, perhaps it has a commentary on the matter of the scheme and the long-term unemployed..?
higherstandard 7

21 July 2008 at 9:01 am

SP

Do you know who conducted the report on the scheme or even better a link to the actual report.

I’d like to have a look, as on the face of it I can see no reason why a well run work for the unemployment benefit isn’t something that should be seriously considered.
Rob 8

21 July 2008 at 9:02 am

I don’t think work for the dole will work any more in New Zealand as Ruth Dyson and her cronies have moved a lot of people off the dole to the Sickness Benefit.

This was obviously done to understate dole numbers. I can hardly see National putting in work for the sickness benefit.

I do believe they need to visit each person on the sickness benefit and see if they are legitimate or not as at the moment there is a lot of doubt about Ruth Dysons numbers.
RedLogix 9

21 July 2008 at 9:07 am

The problem is that these types of schemes have a way of looking good on paper, but a long history of being humiliating, exploitative, or just plain pointless in practise.
infused 10

21 July 2008 at 9:12 am

What about more schemes then? The enterprise grant is the best thing ever. They almost canned it. I didn’t even get the grant but continued in starting my own business anyway. It taught me a lot. It was a course for the motivate though.

They also send people on that camp, outward bound. Another awesome thing that hopefully doesn’t get axed.
vto 11

21 July 2008 at 9:17 am

I suspect these schemes will continue to arise for many years to come. Fpr the simple reason that people (voters) resent getting up early in the cold dark winter mornings to go to work when much of their hard work (pay packet) goes to long term unemployed (sleeping in on those same mornings perhaps). And how can anyone be long term unemployed?

So dont expect that this grinding of two sectors against each other will stop.
randal 12

21 July 2008 at 9:19 am

what do they mean by work. time serving, free services for national supporters, training? if people work then they are entitled to pay. who is going to pay for unneeded wirk?
sounds like being convicted of a crime without being charged with anything to me
RedLogix 13

21 July 2008 at 9:20 am

Rob,

Or another way of putting it, is that a lot of people on the Unemployment Benefit were really there because they were not fit to work, but under National the Sickness Benefit criteria were set too high.

My brother has something charming called Ushers Syndrome. It means he is both severely deaf AND is loosing his sight in middle age. Yet during the 90’s he could not get a Sickness Benefit and struggled to hold down various jobs. Often he would hurt himself as a result. Under this Labour govt his position has improved markedly. He still works, but in a subsidised role that is carefully managed. It made no sense to have him on the UB, it was totally wrong category to place him in.

The process of obtaining a Sickness Benefit is not trivial. We rely on medical professionals to act as the gatekeepers, and while they may not be perfect at it, I’m wondering who else you think would be better at it?

But if you want to visit very person on the SB and re-evaluate them feel free, but don’t go moaning about waste of taxpayers money and the bloated bureacracy needed to do it.
r0b 14

21 July 2008 at 9:47 am

don’t think work for the dole will work any more in New Zealand as Ruth Dyson and her cronies have moved a lot of people off the dole to the Sickness Benefit.

Sorry Rob (cool name btw), but this just makes you look like a fool. See the data (up to March 2008) from the Ministry of Social Development:

Unemployment benefit: Five year trend

The number of clients receiving an Unemployment Benefit at the end of March has decreased from 101,000 to 19,000 between 2003 and 2008.

Sickness benefit: Fiver year trend:

The number of working aged clients receiving a Sickness Benefit at the end of March increased from 38,000 to 46,000 between 2003 and 2008.

Over this period Labour took 82,000 people off the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit increased by only 8,000. So I guess the idea that Labour just moved the unemployed to the sickness benefit is pretty much just empty spin then. The increase that has occurred in the sickness benefit has much more to do with our aging population base than to “Ruth Dyson and her cronies”…
Rob 15

21 July 2008 at 9:47 am

RedLogix

I agree with you in terms of your brother its obvious where he should be. My question is why wasn’t this addressed from bureaucrats from both governments prior to this. That is what they get paid for.

I will give you an example I have a Brother in Law who has been on the dole for 20 years!!

Nothing wrong with him but wont get off his arse and work. He got moved from the Dole to the Sickness benefit he thinks its great because he is safe now. I have seen his pride his get up and go diminish totally since he has been on the Dole / Sickness Benefit. I believe inherently where we can Humans are meant to be working it does nothing for them when they aren’t and in fact medical research shows they die younger.

People need a sense of purpose sitting round collecting the dole week after week does nothing form them Psychologically and if they have kids it affects them even worse.

I believe if they were working for the dole on community projects it would be a good thing for them the community and their families
Brett Dale 16

21 July 2008 at 9:49 am

Great idea, but we already have it, expect labour calls it work experience, just go into any winz office, its good for people who have been out of work for a while to get back into.
Rob 17

21 July 2008 at 10:03 am

rOb

Sorry we have the same name I was born with mine and don’t want to hide behind false names.
Labour didn’t take those people off the Dole lets get real any Government in would have had the same results or even better.

The World economy took off commodity prices were at record highs and we rode the economic wave.

When National get in and there are a lot of people going on to the dole because of redundancies and business closure it will all be their fault!!

I would like to see Labour get back in and see how the Govern in tough times what they do with their ever ballooning Government spend and bloated bureaucracy.

See their excuses but no unfortunately National will have to pick up the Sucker pass and put things right again just like they did last time.
Anita 18

21 July 2008 at 10:34 am

I’ve never understood why people moving from the UB to the sickness benefit is seen as a bad thing. If they’re too sick to work they should be on the sickness benefit – to me it seems like an indicator that MSD is looking at people on the UB as individuals and finding out the underlying problems and then dealing with them, which has got to be good!

Way back when, I was on the sickness benefit for two years, and it wasn’t a “soft option” in any sense; I had lots of contact from them (were they WINZ back then? or DSW?), lots of encouragement and support to find part time work, and lots of encouragement and support to make sure I was getting good health care. If I’d wanted a soft ride I would’ve switched to the UB 🙂
BeShakey 19

21 July 2008 at 10:43 am

Rob – I don’t think anyone here is arguing that people working is a bad thing. The issue is whether work for the dole helps people get into good long-term work, and the answer seems to be no.
In terms of Labour getting an easy run, English said that anyone claiming to be able to get the unemployment level under 4% was a liar. The line about Labour having it easy has been trotted out on a range of issues, but it doesn’t really hold up. The unemployment levels probably would have improved regardless, but the improvement has been pretty dramatic under Labour (to the degree that in ’99 the Nats claimed that success of the kind Labour has achieved was impossible).
Strings 20

21 July 2008 at 10:44 am

Gents [and ladies. SP]
Good discussion here – I’m enjoying it.

I have two brothers-in-law, both on the dole since they left school, both also moved to sickness benefit (which pays a bit more it would seem. The diagnosis in both cases is depression. The way it came about is really interesting.

They went to a school in a good area (thanks to my wife and I buying their mother a house that saved us a lot of travel). The school like most in the 70s (I am told, as I finished school in the 60s) didn’t believe in ‘comparing’ or discussing ‘position in class’ or any of the other basic ‘performance’ measures we took for granted. All the kids were “doing fine” and no one ‘failed’ anything. They finish school, and head off to the job market. (By a quirk of nature they are less than a year apart in age and ended up in the same class and year.)

After a few weeks of applying for jobs, they got a few interviews and eventually the “no thanks’ letters started to arrive. They decided to confront a couple of letter writers, and (cutting the story short) get told they weren’t “the best person for the job”, “there were other applicants who fitted our needs better”, and similar.

The result – DEPRESSION! They stopped applying for jobs, drew the dole, got married, had kids, kept drawing the dole, and now draw sickness benefit! All because the education system didn’t believe in telling them the truth or preparing them for the real world they would have to live in.

I believe we currently have a second generation going through this system, and are rapidly approaching a time when full employment will suffer the effects of recession and these two generations will find themselves without jobs. I wonder how many of them will end up as life-long dependents!
r0b 21

21 July 2008 at 10:57 am

Sorry we have the same name I was born with mine and don’t want to hide behind false names.

Yep, pretty brave of you to post under your real name, not many “Rob”s about. My online name is spelt with a “0” (zero) not an “O” anyway, and it’s a tribute to Rob Muldoon, the man who inspired me to get active politically.

Labour didn’t take those people off the Dole lets get real any Government in would have had the same results or even better.

Speaking of let’s get real – my claim was a whole lot more valid than yours!

But of course our governments are only part of the picture, as we are a small economy adrift in a stormy global sea. Events good and bad are only partially a result of government actions. However, even taking this into account, the Labour led governments can take some credit for positive developments. We have done better than comparable economies during the “good times”: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2162
Steve Pierson 22

21 July 2008 at 10:58 am

hs. the report is referenced in the Herald article. I feel confident in relying on that
Julie 23

21 July 2008 at 12:32 pm

What I always find weird about work-for-the-dole as a policy is that basically it is an excuse to bash all beneficiaries while making very little actual difference (other than having to deal with all the hate of course) to the vast majority of those on the dole. It’s a niche policy, one that only impacts on a very tiny number, yet it always gets big media coverage. Kind of like tougher sentences for the very worst offenders I guess. It paints a picture of a Strong Party who are decisive and stern, competent and frugal. Which I guess is what National needs when they have a leader who tends to mis-speak on a regular basis, and little in the way of policy detail.
killinginthenameof 24

21 July 2008 at 12:35 pm

“The result – DEPRESSION! They stopped applying for jobs, drew the dole, got married, had kids, kept drawing the dole, and now draw sickness benefit! All because the education system didn’t believe in telling them the truth or preparing them for the real world they would have to live in.”

So instead the school needs to tell them they are failures so they can skip those couple of job applications and go striaght to the dole?
higherstandard 25

21 July 2008 at 12:38 pm

SP

That must be the first thing you’ve been confident on relying on ex the herald. =)

If I find the original this evening I’ll send you a link through.

Have a good day …… and don’t put up any more videos of yourself !!
higherstandard 26

21 July 2008 at 12:49 pm

SP
I think this is the report on the effect of the work for the dole last time around although not in depth it looks interesting.

http://executive.govt.nz/minister/maharey/ctf/ctf.pdf
monkey-boy 27

21 July 2008 at 1:28 pm

work for dole is not a good idea. However, providing incentives and training which is paid for and in concert with an employer – this is a good idea. Interestingly enough, in my experience I have rarely seen any public-sector industries take up this kind of proposition.
Usually it is small to medium sized employers (who often are villified) who pick up the cudgels and give a longer-term beneficiary a hand.
Would it make sense for unions to get involved in encouraging employers, WINZ and potential employees to accept in-work training?
from my own experience as an -‘in-work’- trainer, ‘back-to-work’ trainer in WINZ as a case manager, I am sorry to inform some of you that there is a hard-core of people out there who have no desire to give up the lifestyle they have chosen – ie not to have a ‘job’ however, often the ‘jobs’ they do have tend to be under the radar.
I have seen non-union members who get wage rises fought for by unions as ‘scabs’ ‘parasties’ etc. but somehow there is a kind of blindness to the issue of long-term beneficiaries who are actually there by choice. In my book, they are ‘scabs’ too. Anita, your experience as a sickness beneficiary is typical, however, sadly, there is also a ‘hard-core’ of people who ‘graduate’ to SB because they are unmanageable, and there is no means to coerce them to take on employment even though they could if they wished.
This is not an attempt to support ‘work for dole’ but I get angry that my folks who have worked hard and paid their taxes support some spoilt rich kid with an arts degree in Mt Eden who hasn’t worked for eight years, and thinks working in McDonalds is ‘below him’. Or a fifty-something ‘budding actor’ who hasn’t worked for twelve years, and who can’t be arsed to even attend training when it is set up and paid for by the state.
G 28

21 July 2008 at 1:57 pm

Great news!! Now that “the number of long-term unemployed is tiny,” with drastically fewer dependent on the ‘wealthy’ for a living, perhaps it’s time to remove the 6% income tax increase they’ve shouldered since ’99!
Tane 29

21 July 2008 at 2:29 pm

That’s a 6% marginal increase, G. Not a single person in this country pays 39% income tax.

If you earn $61,000 a year you’re only paying the higher marginal rate on the last $1,000 of your income. That’s around $1.15 a week extra, from those who can most afford it.

There’s also no need to put inverted commas around ‘wealthy’. The top tax bracket only targets the wealthy by definition. Right now that’s around 14% of income earners, and due to fall away quite rapidly as the thresholds move over the next few years.

It’s quite distasteful when those at the top of the heap adopt the language of the oppressed to justify their privelige.
Killinginthenameof 30

21 July 2008 at 2:37 pm

“I get angry that my folks who have worked hard and paid their taxes support some spoilt rich kid with an arts degree in Mt Eden who hasn’t worked for eight years, and thinks working in McDonalds is â€˜below him’. ”

Sorry but that statement makes me seriously doubt your earlier claim that you worked for winz. You sound like your just here to troll using very old and very disproven sterotypes. Please Fuck Off.
lprent 31

21 July 2008 at 3:05 pm

G:

with drastically fewer dependent on the ‘wealthy’ for a living, perhaps it’s time to remove the 6% income tax increase they’ve shouldered since ’99!

Perhaps you could give an innovative way of reducing the increasing number of people on superannuation?

Looking at the projections I’d say that taxes should being increased rather than reduced to cover the forward costs of the superannuation system. Of course that is one voting block that is hard to marginalise.

That is a polite way of saying that you should use your brain more often.
G 32

21 July 2008 at 3:17 pm

Tane: “It’s quite distasteful when those at the top of the heap adopt the language of the oppressed to justify their privelige [sic].”

I don’t understand, Tane; why do you find it distasteful when someone at the top of the heap asks for an end to the extra 6% marginal rate he’s been paying for 9 years, but think it’s entirely tasteful for you to demand he keeps paying it?

After all, it is his money, right?
G 33

21 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

Oh dear, Iprent; I’m sure you could’ve made your point without being catty.
randal 34

21 July 2008 at 3:25 pm

g no its not his money. it was created by society and can be given and taken away. money is only a lien on future production unless its in the possession of a NAT who then thinks it is necessary and sufficient reason for anyone without it to kiss his butt. haw haw haw.
DS 35

21 July 2008 at 3:32 pm

“After all, it is his money, right?”

For the 1,347,567th time: taxes are part of the social contract. Without the social contract you’d have no money at all (or do you think that the social and economic infrastructure that enabled people to earn what they do suddenly popped out of a hole in the ground?). Given this, tax levels (who pays and how much) become a matter for society as a whole to determine.
r0b 36

21 July 2008 at 3:33 pm

After all, it is his money, right?

The money belongs to him/her in the same sense that the taxes belong to society.

“Ownership” is a social and legal convention, just like “taxation”. Nothing more, nothing less. Society has decided that people can own stuff, and that they pay progressive tax (and has decided other things too which lead to the specific marginal tax discussed above).

Or in other other words, the rights of ownership and the duty to pay tax have exactly the same practical and moral foundation (in social conventions).

(Righties like to bang on about the first half of this equation and try to ignore the second half.)
G 37

21 July 2008 at 3:35 pm

Randal, let me get this straight: you’re suggesting that when a man sweats all day to earn a buck, and gets paid that buck in exchange for his sweat, it was society that did the actual sweating?

How absurd.
higherstandard 38

21 July 2008 at 3:37 pm

Randal

“No it’s not his money it was created by society and can be given and taken away”

What ?

Have you been staring to hard at pictures of Winston again ?
G 39

21 July 2008 at 3:37 pm

DS, can you name a contract that would hold up in court without the signatures of both parties?
Tane 40

21 July 2008 at 3:38 pm

After all, it is his money, right?

Spare me the libertarian rhetoric. All property rights are a social construction. Remove the state and see how long your property rights last.
G 41

21 July 2008 at 3:42 pm

Rob: “Society has decided that people can own stuff, and that they pay progressive tax…”

That a false statement, Rob. You’re inferring all of society made that decision, when in fact it did not. Quite a large portion of society thought it was a shit idea. Or don’t those earning in the higher bracket count as citizens?
G 42

21 July 2008 at 3:45 pm

You’re right, Tane, anarchy wouldn’t work – it’s barbaric.

But you haven’t explained the matter of distaste.
r0b 43

21 July 2008 at 3:47 pm

That a false statement, Rob.

Ahhh no it isn’t. I didn’t say that society had unanimously decided – that would be silly.

You’re inferring all of society made that decision,

No I’m not.

Or don’t those earning in the higher bracket count as citizens?

Of course they do.

If you think that society hasn’t decided that taxation is a Good Thing then you better take a careful look around at the real world some time.
Tane 44

21 July 2008 at 3:52 pm

But you haven’t explained the matter of distaste.

Because we have a social system where most of the world’s wealth is concentrated in very few hands, and this is caused overwhelmingly by class privelige rather than merit.

The balance is already well in favour of the wealthy, so to hear the wealthy whining about how badly they’re doing and demanding an even greater slice of the pie at the expense of the poor is, in my opinion, distasteful.
higherstandard 45

21 July 2008 at 3:54 pm

r0b

Of course society has decided that paying taxes is a good thing that is not as you know the point that G was fomenting mischief with it was purely a throw away comment about the top marginal tax rate.

Tane it’s not the wealthy in NZ that are whining it’s the vast bulk of what one might call “Middle NZ”

In terms of your second paragraph what are you suggesting that everything is nationalised ??
G 46

21 July 2008 at 3:56 pm

We’re not debating taxation, Rob, we’re talking about the extra 6% that the majority enforced the minority to cough up.

In future it would be more accurate for you to say “most of society” so you avoid lumping me — who did not make any such decision — in with your blanket claim.
G 47

21 July 2008 at 3:59 pm

Tane: “The balance is already well in favour of the wealthy, so to hear the wealthy whining about how badly they’re doing and demanding an even greater slice of the pie at the expense of the poor is, in my opinion, distasteful.”

They’re not demanding a greater slice of the poor’s pie, Tane; they’re asking for the return of the extra slice of pie they made by their own sweat, which was taken away from them.
r0b 48

21 July 2008 at 4:03 pm

We’re not debating taxation, Rob, we’re talking about the extra 6% that the majority enforced the minority to cough up.

Actually, where this took off, and what we are discussing in the broadest sense, was your comment about “ownership”.

In future it would be more accurate for you to say “most of society’ so you avoid lumping me â€” who did not make any such decision â€” in with your blanket claim.

OK, sure. And when you make claims about the wealthy please make it clear that you aren’t speaking for all of them, you’re speaking only for a small subset of the wealthy who whine about taxes. Many of us are very happy to pay taxes as is our social duty. Don’t lump me in with your blanket claim.

Edit they’re asking for the return of the extra slice

There you go again G – you are asking – not all of us.
Tane 49

21 July 2008 at 4:08 pm

G. You have an incredibly simplistic view of how a modern industrial society works, as well as the basis of property rights.

As r0b has already explained,

“Ownership” is a social and legal convention, just like “taxation”. Nothing more, nothing less. Society has decided that people can own stuff, and that they pay progressive tax (and has decided other things too which lead to the specific marginal tax discussed above).

Or in other other words, the rights of ownership and the duty to pay tax have exactly the same practical and moral foundation (in social conventions).

The reason you’re allowed to own a virtually unlimited share of society’s resource as property, have this property protected by state violence and then use that property to employ staff whose labour you turn into personal profit is because society lets you. The tax you pay (including the 6% marginal tax above $60k) is your end of the bargain.

Feel free to try and lobby your fellow citizens to renegotiate the social contract, but don’t pretend you’re oppressed or hard done by.
G 50

21 July 2008 at 4:09 pm

What blanket claim, Rob? I was talking about the minority who didn’t want to pay it. And quite a large minority it is.
r0b 51

21 July 2008 at 4:13 pm

What blanket claim, Rob?

This one G:

They’re [the wealthy] not demanding a greater slice of the poor’s pie, Tane; they’re asking for the return of the extra slice of pie

I’m wealthy, and you don’t speak for me, or the many others like me, who are happy to pay taxes.
DS 52

21 July 2008 at 4:14 pm

“DS, can you name a contract that would hold up in court without the signatures of both parties?”

Mate, you signed the social contract the moment you were born (an event which likely took place in a hospital paid for by … taxes).

Mind you, if you don’t like it, you could always go and live on some uninhabited island. No-one’s stopping you. Just get used to living without sanitation, economic infrastructure, government-enforced property rights, or any of the other benefits that civilisation provides through taxes. Let’s see how much money you make then, eh?
G 53

21 July 2008 at 4:15 pm

So what you’re all saying, Tane, Rob et al., is that you agree with Randal: the guy who sweats for a buck, and gets paid a buck, doesn’t actually own the buck.
G 54

21 July 2008 at 4:20 pm

DS, you’re quite mistaken: I didn’t sign anything when I was born, in fact I was unable to sign my name for about three years, and much older still when I actually signed my first contract.

Or are you suggesting I was born to serve society?
r0b 55

21 July 2008 at 4:21 pm

So what you’re all saying, Tane, Rob et al., is that you agree with Randal: the guy who sweats for a buck, and gets paid a buck, doesn’t actually own the buck.

Speaking for myself only, he (or she) owns the buck in exactly the same sense that society owns the tax on the buck.

He would not have earned that buck without (as DS points out) the hospital he was born in, the schools that educated him, the roads he drives (or cycles!) on, the laws and structures of society that protect him (and his employer). For all of that, he pays his taxes. Some do it willingly, some whine about it.
Tane 56

21 July 2008 at 4:24 pm

G. The buck wouldn’t exist without society. It’s that simple.

Society has to create the context in which that buck is earned. In exchange it asks for a share of every buck earned.
G 57

21 July 2008 at 4:24 pm

Again I ask, what blanket claim, Rob? As I said, I was talking about the ‘minority’ who didn’t want to pay it; not the ‘wealthy’ as a blanket whole.
G 58

21 July 2008 at 4:30 pm

Society didn’t create anything, Tane: individuals did. There is no such entity as society.
r0b 59

21 July 2008 at 4:30 pm

As I said, I was talking about the â€˜minority’ who didn’t want to pay it; not the â€˜wealthy’ as a blanket whole.

Well then G you need to learn to express yourself more clearly.

There is no such entity as society.

OK, you’ve crossed over into raving looney territory. Pick up a dictionary some time, you’ll find “society” listed under “S”. Bye bye G.
Ben R 60

21 July 2008 at 4:33 pm

In theory requiring people to work for money they get paid seems a good idea. Just basic reciprocity or fairness, rather than a one way entitlement.

On the other hand it would need to be supported with social safety net to ensure children still have structured activities if their parents are working; ie universal pre-kindergarten/kohanga reo; funding for after-school programs etc.
G 61

21 July 2008 at 4:35 pm

I don’t have to clarify anything, Rob, since I made no such statement. You made an assumption.
G 62

21 July 2008 at 4:40 pm

A Society is a grouping of individuals, Rob, millions of them; and the fact is, that grouping never got together – every one of them – and created a single thing.

I don’t need a dictionary to know that.

[edit: feel free to give me an example if you think I’m wrong]
Tane 63

21 July 2008 at 4:46 pm

Society didn’t create anything, Tane: individuals did. There is no such entity as society.

Channeling Thatcher there, G?

Clearly society does exist. The problem is you’re imagining it as some giant monster that comes down from the hills at night to steal your earnings. It’s not. It’s a concept used (among other things) to describe the social relations between individuals that make civilization possible.

Good to see you agree your ideology is sociopathic though.
Pascal's bookie 64

21 July 2008 at 4:48 pm

Seeing you’re into talking crud g, I just took a buck of my pocket and it’s got a picture of the bloody queen on it. What’s up with that I thought, and investigated further and lo and behold all ‘my’ money has got pictures of the queen on it.

Funny that, it’s as if something is going on.
r0b 65

21 July 2008 at 4:51 pm

G: As I said, I was talking about the â€˜minority’ who didn’t want to pay it; not the â€˜wealthy’ as a blanket whole.

G: I don’t have to clarify anything, Rob, since I made no such statement. You made an assumption

G some minutes before: with drastically fewer dependent on the â€˜wealthy’ for a living, perhaps it’s time to remove the 6% income tax increase they’ve shouldered since â€˜99!

That’s a blanket claim about the wealthy G. And you are kinda pathetic trying to avoid owning your own words.

Really goodbye, I’ve a meeting to get to.
G 66

21 July 2008 at 4:56 pm

Tane, as I said, ‘Society’, that is to say the grouping of individuals in a country, never together created a single solitary thing. Instead, individuals and groups of individuals created things — but those grouping are not called society: they’re called inventors and companies.
monkey boy 67

21 July 2008 at 4:57 pm

“I get angry that my folks who have worked hard and paid their taxes support some spoilt rich kid with an arts degree in Mt Eden who hasn’t worked for eight years, and thinks working in McDonalds is â€˜below him’. ‘

Sorry but that statement makes me seriously doubt your earlier claim that you worked for winz. You sound like your just here to troll using very old and very disproven sterotypes. Please Fuck Off.”

well ‘killinginthenameof’ I’m sorry, but that situations described were directly drawn from personal experience as a WINZ case manager. I don’t know what you imagine case managers are like – what/ all lovely and sympathetic, there to ‘make a difference’? well, maybe at first, but those stars soon leave their eyes. Actually, if you were to listen to some conversations that case managers have about some of their lovely clients, I dare say you might be quite shocked.

I think you need to get out more.
Matthew Pilott 68

21 July 2008 at 5:02 pm

Pascal’s Bookie – splendid!

You’re right, Tane, anarchy wouldn’t work – it’s barbaric.

A Society is a grouping of individuals, Rob, millions of them; and the fact is, that grouping never got together – every one of them – and created a single thing.

Spot the incoherency.

(cap – ‘while horizontally’… captcha goes for the ‘adult’ crowd)

Tane, I’m not sure if it was channelling as much as paraphrasing Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

I wonder if Thatcher thought families are the largest organic social structure. G would probably think so. Or maybe not even that…
Tane 69

21 July 2008 at 5:03 pm

G, we’ll have to continue this later. I have an appointment to make.
Tane 70

21 July 2008 at 5:04 pm

MP, I’m still waiting for him to come out with that other great libertarian standard, “The smallest minority is the individual.”
G 71

21 July 2008 at 5:07 pm

Rob writes: “G some minutes before: [quotes me] ‘… with drastically fewer dependent on the â€˜wealthy’ for a living, perhaps it’s time to remove the 6% income tax increase they’ve shouldered since â€˜99!’

That’s a blanket claim about the wealthy G. And you are kinda pathetic trying to avoid owning your own words.”

Rob, that is not a blanket claim. Or are you saying the poor don’t depend on the wealthy for a living? If they didn’t (and it sounds like only a tiny number these days still do) then there’d be no need to demand the wealthy pay the extra tax.

And that neatly brings us back to my original point.
Jane 72

21 July 2008 at 5:08 pm

Whilst accusting ‘G’ of holding simplistic views, Tane, R0b etc are stereotyping ‘G’ to suit their own ends.

People who ‘whine’ about tax may not be ‘whining’ because they don’t think they are part of a greater community and shouldn’t have to pay anything.

Some people whine about tax because they pay a lot and don’t feel that they are getting value for money.

When you are paying 1/3 of your income in tax, one way of looking at it is that you work 4 months ‘for the government’. Now if I am working 4 months not for myself, but for the taxman, I am going to make damn sure my money is being spent wisely, on roads that don’t need resurfacing every year, on people that genuinely need the benefit, rather than career beneficiaries, etc. And why shouldn’t I? It’s my money that I am earning, and as a resident of NZ I am obliged, and happy to pay tax.

Being told that the money I work for is not actually mine, it belongs to ‘society’ is ludicrous.

Also, I am a 30yo female living in Auckland and earning $46k in an administration role so I am not a rich prick. I get annoyed that ‘society’ tells me that I would be better off financially if I start having babies and get on the DPB and get working for familes and a part time under the table job.
G 73

21 July 2008 at 5:12 pm

I don’t spot the incoherency, Mr. Pilot, could you expand on your confusion?
djp 74

21 July 2008 at 5:16 pm

Tane, so we are all in servitude to big bro..**AHEM** I mean “society”?

Jokes aside keep up the good fight G.

It is sad if we have progressed from:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

to Tane’s:

“All property rights are a social construction.”

—-
<scribble scribble>
…down with big brother…
</scribble scribble>

🙂

[lprent: Ahem – I can’t resist.

I don’t quite get the point of comparing the two quotations. I can’t see any mention of property rights in the former.

However, of course around here I am BIG BRUV (and the other one found that out a while back).

So what do we have here – sedition? Bugger – they’ve removed the death penalty for sedition… In fact sedition seems to be gone… Bugger.

I want the good old 18th century with mandatory floggings for trivial offences. Just like the period that djp’s quotation came from. 🙂 ]
G 75

21 July 2008 at 5:18 pm

Tane: “The tax you pay (including the 6% marginal tax above $60k) is your end of the bargain.”

When you come back, Tane, perhaps you could explain to me where, when and with whom I got to bargain. This extra tax was foist upon me without my agreement; without a contract signed — the very things that separate the civilised man from the barbarian.
higherstandard 76

21 July 2008 at 5:25 pm

DJP

Indeed the arguments are even more bizarre then usual at the Standard, just last week I was called a liar for disagreeing with someone on a comment that we had the 2nd best health system in the world based on a survey of 6 health systems in which we were ranked third equal with Australia.

Not sure what’s next at times perhaps a post explaining how Winston’s recent behaviour is actually all John Key’s fault ?
G 77

21 July 2008 at 5:28 pm

You make some excellent points, Jane. Indeed, if we must work for Society for half the year (and that’s where it sits when you include all the hidden taxes), then we shouldn’t have to wait to get a life-saving operation. I personally know of three families destroyed by loved ones dying from misdiagnosis and delays in the system.

And thanks, djp. 🙂
Matthew Pilott 78

21 July 2008 at 5:37 pm

G – I thought it was pretty self-evident. Society is the order individuals have created out of anarchy.

DJP – you’ll notice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t exclusively entitle you to property as such, which is exactly what Tane is pointing out.

Jane – that’s one way of looking at it I suppose, but a very short term one. If you were to continue working I’d happily assume you’ll progress to a point where WfF and such wouldn’t provide such financial benefits over your full-time employment. You are actually wrong on one point, you mention an under-the-table job. If you mean committing tax-avoidance, well, society as codified in New Zealand Law certainly doesn’t say to do that.

And if you want to be positive, isn’t it nice that society, in recognising the financial burden that having a child is, has sought to make it as viable a choice as possible for those who choose to do so? And have even incentivised working after having had children with WfF… Best of both world, one could argue.

HS – this is what happens when you let a Libertarian loose on a left-leaning forum.
Policy Parrot 79

21 July 2008 at 6:11 pm

G – I suggest you read this. Should suit your sweat = money argument

http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/does-national-know-what-hardworking-means/
Draco TB 80

21 July 2008 at 7:26 pm

djp:
Every one but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor or they will never be industrious; I do not mean, that the poor of England are to be kept like the poor of France, but, the state of the country considered, they must (like all mankind) be in poverty or they will not work. by Arthur Young

Same time period as the piece you quoted. Hmmm.. What was it JK said, oh, that’s right “we would like to see wages drop”.

G:
The reason the poor are dependent upon the rich is because if they weren’t then the rich would be as well off as everyone else. Capitalism requires poverty as the above quote stipulates otherwise people won’t work to make others rich.

Jane:
The idea of paying people to have children also comes out of our mercantilist past:
The people are the riches and strength of the country. Nicholas Barbon
Is not that country richest which has the most labour? Josiah Tucker
That the strength and riches of a society consists in the numbers of the people is an assertion which hath attained the force of a maxim in politics. Henry Fielding

But when you’re working assiduously to keep said labour poor then Adam Smiths when the cost of labour is too cheap then it will die out (paraphrased) comes into play and so it behooves society to pay people to have children.

One day we will break away from the mercantilism that’s destroying our economy and our society.
Dean 81

21 July 2008 at 7:45 pm

r0b:

“I’m wealthy, and you don’t speak for me, or the many others like me, who are happy to pay taxes.”

Really.

Dr Cullen would like to have a word with you. He called people like you “rich pricks”.

How does it feel to be a member of a political party where the Minister of Finance classifies people as such, r0b? You always seem to dodge this question and I’d be greatful if you could find the time to answer it.

My money is on you being a hypocrite about it, but I’m prepared to be pleasantly suprised.
Dean 82

21 July 2008 at 7:49 pm

Draco:

“Same time period as the piece you quoted. Hmmm.. What was it JK said, oh, that’s right “we would like to see wages drop’.

It’s a little bit late in the piece to be quoting what Key has said when you’re conveniently ignoring some of Clark’s clangers.

Would you like a refresher course on her flip flops or her “slips of the tongue”, or shall we just agree to call her “slippery”? I hear thats a word you might like to use now and then, in reference to Key of course.
Steve Pierson 83

21 July 2008 at 7:54 pm

Dean. He called Key a rich prick – he did not say all rich people are pricks or that all pricks are rich.
Dean 84

21 July 2008 at 7:59 pm

SP:

“Dean. He called Key a rich prick – he did not say all rich people are pricks or that all pricks are rich.”

Would that be like called Don Brash cancerous and corrosive?

Actually this raises an interesting point, seeing as how you’re defending it. How much money does one have to have before the Minister of Finance is allowed to call you a rich prick? How much makes one a rich prick? Can this be divided amongst property, trusts or bank balances in some way to avoid the Minister of Finance for New Zealand being able to label someone a rich prick?

Do Clarke’s multiple properties count?

I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Tane 85

21 July 2008 at 7:59 pm

G.

Firstly, are you seriously arguing that nothing has ever been achieved by society working collectively? I’m not sure where to even start on that, it’s so absurd. Perhaps you would care to clarify your statement and how it relates to our argument.

Secondly, the ‘social contract’ is not a contract that you can opt out of, short of going bush or leaving for a different society. Humans are social animals and each society has rules that govern it. That’s just a fact. The beauty of democracy is it gives you an opportunity to have a say on what these rules are, and to try and persuade your fellow citizens to come around to your side. If you don’t like the ‘contract’ as it stands then go start a lobby group or join a political party.

djp.

Don’t confuse my descriptive statement that property rights are a social construct with a normative statement that property rights should not exist. Property rights certainly have their uses, I’m just pointing out that they’re as much a social construct as taxation, and you can’t call one illegitimate without likewise abandoning the other.

You should also be careful not to conflate private property rights with freedom. It’s crude and inaccurate.
Rex Widerstrom 86

21 July 2008 at 8:11 pm

By the time I find a spare moment to come here we’ve abandoned the main topic and started in on Econ 101 I see ;-P

Well I’d just like to point out that:

1. I have, in the past, been unemployed for more than 3 months, vto & others. Not for want of trying.

2. I turned up at WINZ with my folder of rejection letters and other evidence I was seriously looking for work and was told they weren’t all the interested in seeing them, actually.

3. I was then sent a summons to, first, attend a course which would tell me how to prepare a CV and why it was important not to wear jandals to my interview. I responded that, though this vital information was indeed ommitted from my postgrad study, I was fairly certain I’d picked it up somewhere.

4. I was therefore sent a further summons telling me that if I did not show up to work for the dole at some local marae (where, other participants informed me, most of the day was spent smoking – an activity in which I do not indulge) my benefit would be cut. Again I declined on the basis that if I wished to learn how to inhale tobacco or indeed grub weeds I could do so during the hours when potential employers weren’t actually available to call, meet with etc.

Thank goodness a sane WINZ case officer got me out of the impending s**t fight… but he basically did so by lying, cheating, or somehow fooling the system into leaving me alone. I heard he’d been caught helping people such as myself once too often and shifted to Head Office. He certainly disappeared from the local branch. Can’t actually be helping people, now can we?!

The story had a happy ending – I started my own business and contributed vastly more in taxes than I’d ever taken in benefits.

But RedLogix has it nailed when s/he describes it as “humiliating, exploitative, or just plain pointless in practise”.

Work for the Dole as a policy + Christine Rankin as a candidate = goodbye to any credibility National might hope to have.

(Work placements with a real employer, however, which I used when managing a work skills training scheme… now that’s another, altogether better, story).
Brett Dale 87

21 July 2008 at 8:12 pm

Isnt calling someone “A Rich Prick” a form of racism? at the very least its bigoted against people who are wealthy.

[you can only be racist when discriminating against someone on grounds of race. If I say you’re thick, it’s not racist, it’s just insulting. And, for the last time, calling Key a ‘rich prick’ does not mean all rich people are pricks or all pricks are rich. SP]
r0b 88

21 July 2008 at 8:14 pm

I’m kinda busy with a poorly documented program tonight Dean, so I’m not here to chat, but since you ask:

Dr Cullen would like to have a word with you. He called people like you “rich pricks’.

No he didn’t, he called John Key a rich prick. Are you misinformed, or are you deliberately lying?

How does it feel to be a member of a political party where the Minister of Finance classifies people as such, r0b? You always seem to dodge this question and I’d be greatful if you could find the time to answer it.

Feels great to be a member of the Labour Party thanks Dean. It ain’t perfect, but it works for the people of NZ, and that works for me. Occasional stupid comments by leaders of the party are regrettable, but they don’t change what they Party is for and what it achieves.

So what party do you support Dean? You made a big song and dance a while back about not being a Nat. So who do you support?
Pascal's bookie 89

21 July 2008 at 8:16 pm

DJP wrote:

It is sad if we have progressed from:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’

to Tane’s:

“All property rights are a social construction.’

Let’s see where the author of the DOI went from the where you stopped quoting him:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sounds like he’s saying that we have these things called governments, and that they have a whole bunch of powers, unspecified. Seems to me he was talking about some sort of, I dunno, let’s call it a social contract whereby we give the government some powers and in return it uses those unspecified powers in a way most likely to effect (our) Safety and Happiness.

What’s odd though is that no one has ever signed such a contract, as many here have so ably pointed out. I guess the author was a bit of a thickee. Should probably have thought about things a bit harder. Or maybe he was describing how society actually is, rather than making up a fairy story about how it began.

Hmm what’s that bit in the middle again:.

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Seems clear enough. If you don’t think your government is acting in a way that you feel most likely to effect your happiness and safety you have a right to change or or abolish it. Wow. Maybe we should have some sort of way where the government can be changed periodically depending on the aggregate views of the governed. If such a mechanism could be constructed that would answer most of the problems I see being raised here.

If we can’t construct such a mechanism, I guess it means violent revolution is our only recourse. Seems a bit silly over a 6% difference in marginal tax rates but hey ho.
Steve Pierson 90

21 July 2008 at 8:33 pm

Brett’s comment reminds me of this http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000981.html – ‘that’s horse racist’
Dean 91

21 July 2008 at 8:40 pm

r0b:

“No he didn’t, he called John Key a rich prick. Are you misinformed, or are you deliberately lying?”

I see you dodged the actual question. What a suprise! Utterly unlike a Labour party member.

I’ll repeat it for you, seeing as how you like to continue to avoid it.

How much money does one have to have before the Minister of Finance is allowed to call you a rich prick? How much makes one a rich prick? Can this be divided amongst property, trusts or bank balances in some way to avoid the Minister of Finance for New Zealand being able to label someone a rich prick?

I’m not entirely sure you couldn’t be more sycophantic with your replies if you actually tried, r0b, but then we get this:

“Feels great to be a member of the Labour Party thanks Dean. It ain’t perfect, but it works for the people of NZ, and that works for me. Occasional stupid comments by leaders of the party are regrettable, but they don’t change what they Party is for and what it achieves.”

It’s OK to call someone cancerous and corrosive, as well as perform numerous, rubber-spined flip flops, as long as they’re Labour. Well, I guess that about wraps it up for your objectivity, r0b. As if you had any in the first place.

“So what party do you support Dean? You made a big song and dance a while back about not being a Nat. So who do you support?”

I’ll leave that to your “Labour = Good, National = Bad, NZ First = let’s just pretend they don’t exist” philosophy to work out. It ought to keep you amused for a while, when you’re not defending people who liken a person to a disease that kills people. At least we know where your principles are – as far down the food chain as Trotters. Victory at all costs eh, r0b?
r0b 92

21 July 2008 at 8:42 pm

Oh – and while we’re quoting from the founders of America…

Thomas Jefferson defined a republic as: “a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority”.

John Adams defined it as: “a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws.”

John Adams again: “Public Virtue cannot exist without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” and “…public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society.”

So there you have it – governments are sovereign, and private desires are subordinate to the rights of society (which G does not believe in), even to the founders of the good ‘ol US of A.
Brett Dale 93

21 July 2008 at 8:44 pm

So Steve, say if I called someone “A unemployed poor prick” you wouldnt have a problem with that?
Brett Dale 94

21 July 2008 at 8:46 pm

I guess racist is the wrong word too use, how about Bigoted???

Surly calling someone a rick prick is being bigoted against wealthy people?
Dean 95

21 July 2008 at 8:47 pm

SP:

“[you can only be racist when discriminating against someone on grounds of race. If I say you’re thick, it’s not racist, it’s just insulting. And, for the last time, calling Key a ‘rich prick’ does not mean all rich people are pricks or all pricks are rich. SP”

Once again, as you’re avoiding it like Clarke does with someone wearing a scarf who goes to church.

How much qualifies a person as a rich prick?

How much, Steve?
Dean 96

21 July 2008 at 8:50 pm

Brett:

“I guess racist is the wrong word too use, how about Bigoted???

Surly calling someone a rick prick is being bigoted against wealthy people?”

It’s A-OK when a Labour MP calls someone a rich prick. They can’t be bigoted, because theyre a Labour party member.

QED.
r0b 97

21 July 2008 at 8:50 pm

I see you dodged the actual question. What a suprise! Utterly unlike a Labour party member.
I’ll repeat it for you, seeing as how you like to continue to avoid it.

Nope, answered the question. But keep trying to rephrase it and pretend I didn’t.

How much money does one have to have before the Minister of Finance is allowed to call you a rich prick? How much makes one a rich prick? Can this be divided amongst property, trusts or bank balances in some way to avoid the Minister of Finance for New Zealand being able to label someone a rich prick?

According to my Little Red Book the exact amount is $45 Million, and it can be divided any way you like. (There you go Dean, I’d certainly hate to be accused of dodging a question by saying it was a stupid question that didn’t need an answer, which was my first instinct here).

“So what party do you support Dean? You made a big song and dance a while back about not being a Nat. So who do you support?’

I’ll leave that to your “Labour = Good, National = Bad, NZ First = let’s just pretend they don’t exist’ philosophy to work out. It ought to keep you amused for a while

Why Dean, you’re dodging the question! What a surprise!

Which party do you support Dean?
Dean 98

21 July 2008 at 8:59 pm

“According to my Little Red Book the exact amount is $45 Million, and it can be divided any way you like. (There you go Dean, I’d certainly hate to be accused of dodging a question by saying it was a stupid question that didn’t need an answer, which was my first instinct here).”

Your answer would be amusing if it wasn’t so typically condescending. As usual, someone from Labour says something utterly bigoted and reprehensible and you’re willing to write it off in the cause of the greater common good, and actually excuse people behaving like spoilt children.

No wonder you haven’t said anything about NZ First. How embarassing that must be.

“Why Dean, you’re dodging the question! What a surprise!

Which party do you support Dean?”

I don’t support any, except possibly for the Greens and the Maori Party. My mind isn’t made up yet, but one or both of them are likely to get my vote this time around.

You remember the Maori party, right? “Last cab off the rank” and all that – yet ANOTHER of Clarke’s stupid statements? Haters and wreckers, right?
Pascal's bookie 99

21 July 2008 at 9:06 pm

I think he said he was tossing up betwixt the maori Party and the Greens r0b.

It’s because they don’t use harsh rhetoric and our Dean is nothing if not a delicate wee flower.
r0b 100

21 July 2008 at 9:12 pm

PB – I think you must be right. Unless perhaps Dean is a Progressive? Bit surprising that he’s afraid to answer the question himself, really, when he is so aggressive about having other people answer his. Still, there’s nowt as queer as folk, as my old Gran used to say.
Dean 101

21 July 2008 at 9:15 pm

“I think you must be right. Unless perhaps Dean is a Progressive? Bit surprising that he’s afraid to answer the question himself, really, when he is so aggressive about having other people answer his. Still, there’s nowt as queer as folk, as my old Gran used to say.”

Sorry, r0b, I’m in moderation. You’ll have to get back to that pesky API and wait I suppose.
r0b 102

21 July 2008 at 9:20 pm

Sorry, r0b, I’m in moderation.

You don’t need a link to answer the simple question Dean – which party do you support?
Dean 103

21 July 2008 at 9:51 pm

“You don’t need a link to answer the simple question Dean – which party do you support?”

It’s not a link, r0b. My previous two comments are in moderation, and neither have links in them.

I’ll repeat it, and hope I don’t get caught in moderation again.

I don’t support any, except possibly for the Greens and the Maori Party. My mind isn’t made up yet, but one or both of them are likely to get my vote this time around.

You remember the Maori party, right? “Last cab off the rank’ and all that – yet ANOTHER of Clarke’s stupid statements? Haters and wreckers, right?

[lprent: Looks like the misspelling of Clark. I seem to remember getting annoyed about it a few weekends ago, along with the misspelling of various other names (including mine). I figured that people who like misspelling names should go and stand in the corner for a while.

Of course the more you go into moderation, the more the system thinks that you should – I like these nice little learning algorithms. But hey, I never claimed to be nice – in fact I always enjoy the opportunity not to be. ]
Dean 104

21 July 2008 at 9:53 pm

Sorry, r0b. I tried to paste in what I’d said – no links – and it caught the comment in moderation again.

I guess we’ll both just have to wait.
Felix 105

21 July 2008 at 10:04 pm

Why? Surely you could just type it. It must be less than four words unless there are some parties I haven’t heard of with very long names…

Or perhaps you don’t actually know? That’s ok, just say it. Is that why you said “both” just have to wait? Because you don’t know?

Nothing to be ashamed of.
Matthew Pilott 106

21 July 2008 at 10:30 pm

Dean, in case you forgot, to be a rich prick you also need to make a few personally offensive comments in parliament. Whether Cullen read too much into them is an objective call, but I wouldn’t want to suggest for a minute that you’re trying to downplay that.

Perhaps “rich” was a simple observation (and a correct one, by most standards) and “prick” was a quality assessment (also correct? I better not answer that, but then Key isn’t flinging a few nasty comments my way is he?).

Now tell me, do you think chanting “pay it back” day after day is a positive and constructive way to lead the Opposition? Do you remember the minor parties almost ready to walk out? Do you remember Orewa? “Cancerous and Corrosive” was pretty harsh, but he’d gone a long, long way from “Honest Don” by then, don’t you think? I don’t think it’s a comment to be having such a protracted cry about, as the Right have been doing for nigh on three years anyway!

Brett Dale, you’d be right if Cullen said all rich people are pricks. He didn’t. A BMW almost cut me down at a crossing the other day. I said a few choice words to the driver after he slowed down, including a comment along the lines of his wanky BMW 318i being a Corolla with a $15,000 badge (it had mirror tints and was lowered with cut springs, but apologies to other 318i drivers), and suggested the owner shared several of the qualities of his car.

So, I guess I think all BMW owners are wankers right? I better call up some of my mates and apologise.
Dean 107

21 July 2008 at 10:30 pm

“Why? Surely you could just type it. It must be less than four words unless there are some parties I haven’t heard of with very long names

Or perhaps you don’t actually know? That’s ok, just say it. Is that why you said “both’ just have to wait? Because you don’t know?

Nothing to be ashamed of.”

Rant all you like, Felix. You’ll see when the comments are out of moderation.
djp 108

21 July 2008 at 10:32 pm

Matthew Pilot:

I have heard the statement “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is derived from the works of John Locke who had a similar concept (“life, liberty, and estate (or property)”) and also said “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”.

In any case I know the statement does not specifically address property but I just wanted to contrast socialism and classical liberalism.

—

Drako TB: I am not giving a blanket endorsement to every quote from the 1700s

—

Tane:

I believe you see some use for property rights.

What I rail against is the concept that “society” confers these rights, for what is given can be taken away. I like the way the US founders put it with “unalienable” rights and a constitution (sadly not adhered to these days otherwise the US probably would not be in iraq) that supersedes govt.

You should also be careful not to conflate private property rights with freedom. It’s crude and inaccurate.

Well I actually do believe that property rights are a significant portion of freedom. If I don’t have my own property with which to feed myself, clothe myself etc… then their are certain freedoms that I do not possess.

—

Pascals Bookie:

I wasnt trying to say that all govt should be abolished. I simply am suspicious of all govt and statists.

What I like about the DOC and the US Constitution is that it puts significant limits on govt (although it seems as if they are not adhered too these days).

—

lprent:

I want the good old 18th century with mandatory floggings for trivial offences. Just like the period that djp’s quotation came from. 🙂

Well I guess there are some positives in the last 200 years of progression.

….actually wait a minute I think they have just switched to tasers instead of the floggings 🙁
Dean 109

21 July 2008 at 10:39 pm

“Perhaps “rich’ was a simple observation (and a correct one, by most standards) and “prick’ was a quality assessment (also correct? I better not answer that, but then Key isn’t flinging a few nasty comments my way is he?).”

Then why didn’t he just call him a prick?

The answer is of course that Cullen and Labour detest anyone worth a lot of money. To them it is an insult along the same lines as the word prick.

Stop trying to explain it, Matthew. It’s quite obvious and you’re simply trying to make excuses for a stupid thing (r0b’s own words) the Labour Minister of Finance said when he was under pressure and spoke his mind. You and I both know the politics of envy is alive and well within the Labour caucus.
Swampy 110

21 July 2008 at 10:40 pm

It’s not ideology to say that people who do not have proper work habits, would not benefit from having to meet some of the expectations of normal employment and that is where WFD is quite valuable.

LTEs are a very disadvantaged group in the labour market and may have little opportunity to get the skills needed for moving into an actual job without the accountability that WFD implies.
G 111

21 July 2008 at 10:44 pm

Okay, tough keeping up with the full-court press, but here goes:

Matthew: So those are the only choices with which you’re familiar: a socialist society and anarchism? What about a constitutional republic that recognises the rights of the individual by limiting the powers of the state and the majority.

Mr. TB: You say Capitalism wouldn’t exist without the poor. Prove it.

Tane: ‘Firstly, are you seriously arguing that nothing has ever been achieved by society working collectively? I’m not sure where to even start on that, it’s so absurd.’

I said society hasn’t created anything, Tane. Society is not a group of people within the total group: it is the total, and the total has never created anything. If it’s so absurd, name me just one invention that can be attributed to the total.

Secondly, a democracy that does not protect the rights of the minority is worthless nay, dangerous. We all know the untold evil that has been committed under the banner of majority rule.

Rob, I notice you haven’t yet established this so-called â€˜blanket claim’ I’ve made, but rather dismissed me as being unclear. I say again, it is not for me to establish that which I have not stated.

If you’re going to quote the genius Jefferson best you don’t remove the thrust of the man’s great ideal — the constitutional republic. Jefferson, perhaps more than any other great political thinker, was entirely cognisant of democracy’s shortcomings: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.’

Among his greatest concern lay with the minorities in society: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.’

And apropos to our debate regarding taxation: ‘ To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.’

Socialism, which compels men to subsidize all manner of things abhorrent to them, is the epitome of tyranny.

Rob, you said, “So there you have it – governments are sovereign, and private desires are subordinate to the rights of society (which G does not believe in), even to the founders of the good â€˜ol US of A.’

Governments are indeed sovereign, but good government does not have the right to chain the individual to it or society. That’s why they wrote the constitution, a charter enshrining the rights of every individual to work, earn, and keep what they earn — with minimal taxation: the good ol’ US of A did not impose income tax until 1861: 3% of all incomes over 600 dollars.

Finally Rob, you stated: ‘Speaking for myself only, he (or she) owns the buck in exactly the same sense that society owns the tax on the buck.’

If your premise holds, and you believe society owns the tax I pay, you believe society owns my wages also, which means you believe society owns the profit of my labour; and since my labour is my time, and my time is my life, what you’re suggesting here is that society owns me.

Very 1984 of you.
Robinsod 112

21 July 2008 at 10:51 pm

GOd you people are so boring! Especially you G – if I read one more dullard using Orwell as a metaphor I’m just gonna puke.
Matthew Pilott 113

21 July 2008 at 10:53 pm

Then why didn’t he just call him a prick?

Why didn’t I just hassle the BMW driver, instead of knocking his car? Do you think I must hate every BMW driver? Think that means I must be envious of them? Or are you just spinning a wee yarn?

You and I both know the politics of envy is alive and well within the Labour caucus.

Dean, I don’t know that, and you clearly don’t know much at all.

You honestly think that Labour caucus is jealous of John Key’s wealth…! You’re running a wee joke here right? I think you got me there for a sec.

P.S. yeah, I think it was a stupid thing – but I’m not stupid enough to take your interpretation (out of interest, if it was just a stupid thing to say, how can you also be taking so much out of it, and extrapolating that Many Senior Labour MPs Are Jealous Of The Wealthy? Wee contradiction there maestro). I think the envy is on your side, but people are often jealous of those in power; I won’t call you up for it too often, if you don’t make it so obvious in future…
G 114

21 July 2008 at 10:56 pm

Robinsod, instead of a lefty knee-jerk, perhaps you could address the point that preceded the reference, for it neatly summates the central premise of Orwell’s great novel: the subjugation of the individual to society.
djp 115

21 July 2008 at 10:58 pm

Get over it Robinsod… to people like me Orwell was a political prophet 🙂
G 116

21 July 2008 at 11:00 pm

Hear hear, DJP!
Matthew Pilott 117

21 July 2008 at 11:08 pm

G, merely pointing out that society has done a whole lot more than you give it credit for. Or do you think there’s a patent out for Democracy? Some punter must be raking it in…

djp, socialism is not exactly summed up by the statement “all property rights are a social construction”; nor is that statement untrue. I might as well have a punt at summing up the classical liberalism with “f..k the rest of you”. To be blunt.

Socialism, which compels men to subsidize all manner of things abhorrent to them, is the epitome of tyranny.

G, a quick poser – talking your latest comment a bit further, let’s say that the only thing everyone could agree on is the police, judiciary and the defence forces; there would be no point in having an elected government to administrate any of this stuff. And even then, there would be people who object to the few civil organs remaining (anarchists, pacifists). You’re arguing that democracy, and pretty much the entire core of civlisation, is abhorrent. And you fail to make any distinction between socialism and, say liberal representative democracy.
Dean 118

21 July 2008 at 11:13 pm

“Why didn’t I just hassle the BMW driver, instead of knocking his car? Do you think I must hate every BMW driver? Think that means I must be envious of them? Or are you just spinning a wee yarn?”

It’s Ok that MPs behave like children and hurl insults across the floor then is it Matthew?

Speaking of wee yarns, what’s your take on the Peters debacle, maestro?

You see, more than one person can start trying to behave like a condescending twat, but in the end you just appear to be precious.

“I think the envy is on your side, but people are often jealous of those in power; I won’t call you up for it too often, if you don’t make it so obvious in future ”

Oh, of course. You’re absolutely correct. For instance, Clarke is not rich by any average definition of the word. Only Key.

Matthew, your comments on this matter shine a new light on the phrase ‘double standard’.
r0b 119

21 July 2008 at 11:18 pm

Rob, I notice you haven’t yet established this so-called â€˜blanket claim’ I’ve made, but rather dismissed me as being unclear.

After a certain point G I stop banging my head against a brick wall, and I’m quite content to let the record speak for itself.
Felix 120

21 July 2008 at 11:19 pm

Didn’t mean to be rude, it just seems you have no trouble posting now so why not just answer r0b’s very simple question?
djp 121

21 July 2008 at 11:22 pm

Matthew Pilot: Maybe not, but it is a scary quote and it seems to be a concept that you lefties subscribe to.

You say classical liberalism is summed up by “f..k the rest of you’ but that is not the way I feel at all. I believe in compassion and aid to the needy but I don’t believe in forcing others to my view.

G: good thoughts, like your thinking

Everyone: good nite
G 122

21 July 2008 at 11:28 pm

A pacifist can’t — and shouldn’t — be forced defend himself against a tyranny, but he has no right to tell the rest of us to drop our weapons; anarchists can ignore the law at their own peril, as long as they don’t threaten the lives or livelihoods of others.

The democratic process of electing a government to take care of those essential services is an ideal and fair method. I am not an anarchist; I do not believe we should privatise the police, the courts or the military. Moreover I think there would need to be an objective oversight mechanism for all those departments.

I support democracy wholeheartedly — underpinned by a constitution that protects the rights of minorities, and individuals.
G 123

21 July 2008 at 11:29 pm

You really have a hard time admitting you’re wrong, don’t you, Rob?

PS: Anything to say about your tax/wages syllogism?
RedLogix 124

21 July 2008 at 11:37 pm

G,

The ideas you are regurgitating had some attraction when I was a horny, spotty teenager reading Heinlein.

With the benefit of forty odd years hindsight I can only laugh at my younger self for being so easily seduced by it.

[lprent: I’d chastise you for a personal attack, but I’m not sure he’d know exactly what the attack was. Hell – it echoed out of my past (and I still read those books on the odd occasion).]
G 125

21 July 2008 at 11:42 pm

Pity you haven’t learnt to construct anything more than a feeble refutation in all that time, Mr. Logix. I left the “You’re wrong — No I’m not — Yes you are — No I’m not” method on the playground before I had spots. 🙂
r0b 126

21 July 2008 at 11:52 pm

You really have a hard time admitting you’re wrong, don’t you, Rob?

Sorry G, you’re off the list of people who can goad me into debate. The record is above for all to see.

Anything to say about your tax/wages syllogism?

Yup. It wasn’t a syllogism.
G 127

21 July 2008 at 11:57 pm

Not trying to goad you into anything, Rob, just trying to get you to man-up and admit you made a false assumption.

My syllogism, your premise:

“Finally Rob, you stated: ‘Speaking for myself only, he (or she) owns the buck in exactly the same sense that society owns the tax on the buck.’

If your premise holds, and you believe society owns the tax I pay, you believe society owns my wages also, which means you believe society owns the profit of my labour; and since my labour is my time, and my time is my life, what you’re suggesting here is that society owns me.”

I take it you think society does own me.
r0b 128

22 July 2008 at 12:12 am

Not trying to goad you into anything, Rob, just trying to get you to man-up and admit you made a false assumption.

As above.

My syllogism, your premise

G honey, you’re using big words that you don’t understand. My statement was not a syllogism (it’s under “S” in the dictionary, look it up). The chain of reasoning you try and build on my statement is about as valid as your grasp of vocabulary.
G 129

22 July 2008 at 12:16 am

Rob: “My statement was not a syllogism …”

G: “My syllogism, your premise.”

Care to comment on your premise and my syllogism?
r0b 130

22 July 2008 at 12:24 am

Care to comment on your premise and my syllogism?

Do you own a dictionary G? Look it up in Wikipedia. Neither you nor I has stated anything with the logical structure of a syllogism. Only one of us even knows what the word means. And that one is getting bored…
G 131

22 July 2008 at 12:28 am

You made a statement that contained two premises; I used deductive reasoning to take your premises and arrive at a conclusion, which I know is rather disturbing, and I can see why you’re strawmanning this to get out of addressing the point.
r0b 132

22 July 2008 at 12:41 am

Sorry G, it’s not really fair of me to tease you about this any more. Just in the future, if you’re going to throw around the terminology of logic in debate, you really should learn to use it properly. Start with syllogism (it’s still under “s”).

I used deductive reasoning

Ahh no, I hesitate to suggest what I think you used, but it certainly wasn’t “deductive reasoning”. Deductive reasoning won’t get you from “If … you believe society owns the tax I pay” to “you believe society owns my wages also”.

Goodnight G, sleep well.
G 133

22 July 2008 at 12:43 am

… hang on a minute…

1. A man owns the buck in the same way:
2. Society owns the tax on the buck;
3. Therefore… actually you’re right, Rob — one can’t make this into a syllogism: your statement and your premises are utterly nonsensical.

What on earth are you trying to tell us?
G 134

22 July 2008 at 12:58 am

Okay… got it.

What you’re saying is: the man owns some of the buck, but not the portion society carves off the buck in tax. Now, since society determines what portion of the buck they will own in tax (which could be as much as 100% if the majority so decides), they in effect have control of ALL the buck.

Which brings us back to:

1. Society controls/owns the buck;
2. The buck is the sum of the man’s labour – his time – his life;
3. Society controls/owns the man.

Okay. Care to comment on that? Which is your classic 3-part Aristotelian syllogism.
Pascal's bookie 135

22 July 2008 at 5:31 am

1. is uncontroversial. Property rights are a construct. Without some sort of govt with such powers, private property cannot exist beyond that which you can protect. The US founders knew this, which is why they abandoned Lockes silly claim of a natural right to property.

2. is simply false. The buck is something that he chose to exchange things for, knowing that the govt has claims upon it.

so 3 is not proven.
G 136

22 July 2008 at 8:40 am

Mr. Bookie:

1. Property rights are jealously protected under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

2. Be specific: the ‘things’ he exchanged for the buck were his labour, his time, his energy, his sweat, himself. The buck is simply his labour — his life — converted into an inert form for the ease of future exchange.

So 3 is proven.
Pascal's bookie 137

22 July 2008 at 8:57 am

Nonsense.

1.Firstly, I was talking about the DOI, rather then the Constitution but no matter. The constitutiion, in the section you quote proves my point.

What do you think ‘without due process of law’ means?

It means the govt can do it, but they have to obey the law. They can’t do it arbitrarily. They have to obey the rights as they are constructed by the law.

Which means that if the govt passes laws saying they can do it, and follows those laws, then guess what? It’s constitutional. If they meant to say that the governemnet couldn’t deprive people of personal property, they wouldn’t have qualified it.

Do you reallyu think that the US constitution does not allow the govt to compel the paying of tax?

2. Those things are what they are, they are not ‘himself’. They are things that he has done or produced. He then chooses to exchange them for money. Bully for him. He doesn’t have to, but he finds it convienient to do so. It benefits him.
r0b 138

22 July 2008 at 9:06 am

Okay. Care to comment on that? Which is your classic 3-part Aristotelian syllogism

Well it’s close enough for the sake of argument I guess.

1. As per PB is uncontroversial. The quote you add from the 5th ammendment strongly supports this – “without due process of law” and “without just compensation” are very strongly asserting the role of society, it’s agreed laws and concepts of justice.

2. Is just silly. My job and my “money” is a small part of who and what I am. Much of what I do I am not paid for.

3. Not via your flawed reasoning, but I happen to believe that 3 can be true. Society can in theory decide that it owns individuals. But it usually applies this to subsets of individuals, and it calls them slaves. Slavery has been common enough in human societies over the years. Thank goodness we do not currently live in a society which has made such a decision eh G!

Lots of meetings today (unpaid volunteer work – fancy that), so bye for now.
djp 139

22 July 2008 at 10:06 am

It is interesting how the statist views the US constitution as a springboard that the state can use to dive into the affairs of an individual and the liberal views the constitution as a wall that limits the reach of the state.

dont forget the context from which the constitution was born, the boston tea party and all that. Some of you seem to want to divorce the American Revolution from the anti-statism that fuelled it.
G 140

22 July 2008 at 10:14 am

Mr Bookie writes: “2. Those things are what they are, they are not â€˜himself’. They are things that he has done or produced. He then chooses to exchange them for money. Bully for him. He doesn’t have to, but he finds it convienient to do so. It benefits him.”

Try and follow this, Pascal (and Rob): his labour is his time, time spent on planet earth — his life: to own the product of his labour is to own his life; to own him.

If he exchanged his labour for a couple of pigs, then exchanged one of those pigs for rent, he’d be housed and fed by the fruits of his own labour. Indeed, the best way to get your hands out of his pocket is to bring back barter.

Rob, if you’re failing to understand that the right to own property is the cornerstone of liberty then you’ll never understand the genius of the American Constitution, and further debate on this point will be fruitless.

With regards to slavery: what’s stopping you? Could you tell me what mechanism is in our own Bill of Rights that would prevent the majority from creating your Marxist ideal, where property rights are abolished and the people are slaves to the state?
G 141

22 July 2008 at 10:21 am

Precisely, DJP! It was a tax revolt!! Time for another *Tea Party* I say!!! 🙂
Pascal's bookie 142

22 July 2008 at 11:01 am

You clowns are hilarious.

Like your 5th amendment point you introduce the tax revolt, which again proves mine and r0b’s point.

Yes it was a tax revolt, it’s all there in the DOI. What was the famous cry?

“No taxation ever! Unrestricted private property rights!”

No. Because they were not bloody idiots, the cry was:

“No taxation without representation!”

So, what were they complaining about, the existence of taxation or the lack of representation? (Hint: it’s the latter, read the DOI.)

I’m starting to see a pattern here, where you see the words ‘no taxation’ or ‘the govt must not’ or whatever and then ignore the qualifiers that destroy your argument. You should probably stop doing that.

You seem to think that when I say that property rights are a construct I am saying that they don’t exist. Not so. I am saying that they are constructed by a framework of philosophy or laws or what have you. A good thing too. It doesn’t make sense to talk of them in any other way.

Anyway I’m busy, might respond tonight, depending on family commitments, and whether or not you lift your game. 😉
r0b 143

22 July 2008 at 11:12 am

Rob, if you’re failing to understand that the right to own property is the cornerstone of liberty

Is it? Says who? Where does this right come from? Who, or what, confers this right?

then you’ll never understand the genius of the American Constitution

The constitution, 5th amendment, as quoted by you above, e.g. “without due process of law’ and “without just compensation’ are very strongly asserting the role of society. As are other statements from the founders of the constitution, as quoted by me above: “public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society.”

It is you that fails to understand “the American Constitution”. America was founded on slavery. The authors of the constitution? Right into slavery. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and slave owner, as was Thomas Jefferson and others. The original constitution contained four provisions that allowed slavery to continue. America didn’t get around to abolishing slavery until the 13th Amendment in 1865. How about them slaves – what property rights did they have G?

and further debate on this point will be fruitless.

This debate has been fruitless for quite some time now G.

your Marxist ideal, where property rights are abolished and the people are slaves to the state?

Not my ideal at all G. It is you, not I, that worships a constitution founded in slavery. I want nothing to do with slavery thanks.
Ben R 144

22 July 2008 at 11:39 am

“that worships a constitution founded in slavery. I want nothing to do with slavery thanks.”

Isn’t that like criticising evidence that smoking is bad because the Nazis identified it? I think you need to look at the Constitution on its own merits or otherwise.
G 145

22 July 2008 at 1:08 pm

Pascal: “You seem to think that when I say that property rights are a construct I am saying that they don’t exist. Not so. “

Where, pray tell, do property right exist in your world?

Rob: “It is you that fails to understand “the American Constitution’. America was founded on slavery.”

No, Rob. It was founded on the idea of freedom, and during the 1800s they tightened the Constitution to make property rights the cornerstone of liberty.

It’s foolish to ignore the times in which the DOI and Constitution were drafted. To apply modern thinking to history is idiotic. Despite this, as you know, Jefferson (notwithstanding his own embarrassing failures in this area) worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. Among his greatest achievements include:

> Introduction of a bill in 1769 the Virginia legislature to abolish the importation of slaves into that state.

> Inclusion of an anti-slavery provision in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

> Initiated the Congressional ban on slavery in all federal lands in 1784 (his effort to extend the act to the 13 states lost by only one vote).

> In 1808, as President, he signed into law a bill banning the slave trade with Africa.

He, more than any man in America, paved the way for Lincoln to abolish it altogether. And who eventually destroyed slavery in America? The feudalist southerners? No – it was the capitalist northerners.

Now, I ask again…

With regards to slavery: Could you tell me what mechanism is in our own Bill of Rights that would prevent the majority from creating your Marxist ideal (for it is clear you do uphold Karl’s idea that society should control the wealth — not the individual), where property rights are abolished and the people are slaves to the state?
G 146

22 July 2008 at 1:15 pm

By the way, one and all: I note that nobody has yet been able to name a single thing invented by the group called ‘Society’.
Pascal's bookie 147

22 July 2008 at 1:19 pm

“I note that nobody has yet been able to name a single thing invented by the group called â€˜Society'”

Just quickly then:
Civilisation.
Matthew Pilott 148

22 July 2008 at 1:38 pm

Not that it’s worth bothering about (after all Dean has admitted to being a ‘condecending twat’, though I’ve yet to see evidence he knows what condecending means) but…

It’s Ok that MPs behave like children and hurl insults across the floor then is it Matthew?

Speaking of wee yarns, what’s your take on the Peters debacle, maestro?

You see, more than one person can start trying to behave like a condescending twat, but in the end you just appear to be precious.

No dean, as the saying goes, it’s not ok. What Key said wasn’t ok and nor was Cullen’s response. I assume this will be the last time you pretend Cullen’s comments occured in a vacuum.

Peters? Will be interesting to see if he’s done anything wrong. I somewhat doubt it, but then we’ve got “perkbuster” on the caae so I’m sure it will all come out. Poor attempt by the way.

Oh, of course. You’re absolutely correct. For instance, Clarke is not rich by any average definition of the word. Only Key.

Matthew, your comments on this matter shine a new light on the phrase â€˜double standard’.

Thank you, Dean, for showing the absurdity of your previous accusation, that the Labour caucus are envious of Key’s wealth. Talk about looking like a twat. Oh, nice non-existant ‘double standard’, perhaps you can check a definition after taking a peek at ‘condecending’.
DS 149

22 July 2008 at 2:48 pm

Since we’re throwing around eighteenth century quotes, here’s one to add to the collection:

“Natural rights are nonsense on stilts.” – Jeremy Bentham.

Or in other words, could those claiming that property rights are not a social construction please demonstrate precisely where these rights come from, if not from a social consensus?
G 150

22 July 2008 at 4:05 pm

An honest attempt there, Pascal, but I’m afraid civilisation is not an invention or a thing: it’s a collective term for all that was invented by individuals in advanced industries. But thanks for playing.
G 151

22 July 2008 at 4:13 pm

DS, property rights stem from your unalienable right to life. No-one and no group has a right to take your life, or those values you pursue and gain in your life.

Totalitarians disagree. They believe you don’t have a right to exist for your own sake. They believe you are born to serve the state and/or society.
Vanilla Eis 152

22 July 2008 at 4:20 pm

G: Why do we have an ‘unalienable right to life’? Why humans? Why not lions – perhaps then daddy would stop wolfing down the cubs?

I’ve been reading this thread all the way through, and I’m really struggling to grasp where you’re coming from, although DS etc seem to be quite clear.

So, please: Why do you have an inalienable right to life that other species don’t seem to have? Is it because of our societal structures make the taking of life taboo?
G 153

22 July 2008 at 5:26 pm

Vanilla, the matter here is a question of morality, something which separates us from the animal kingdom. The Right to Life is not a concern for the animal, it automatically, without consideration, just gets on and lives its life in a day-to-day struggle for survival. Unlike animals, Man must choose to survive. The role of morality is to determine the rules by which we maintain our survival, individually and together as a society.

Clearly the first rule for humans is thou shalt not take a human life. If one was a hermit this would not be a rule that needs stating. But the moment the hermit gets a companion they must agree upon a strategy that safeguards their respective lives.

As a principle, the Right to Life stipulates that one man cannot deprive another for his own benefit.
r0b 154

22 July 2008 at 6:41 pm

No, Rob. It [America] was founded on the idea of freedom, and during the 1800s they tightened the Constitution to make property rights the cornerstone of liberty.

You’re living in some kind of teenage cartoon version of History G.

America exists because of the annexation of Native American lands. What happened to their property rights G? America was founded in slavery and the constitution perpetuated slavery as described above. Where were the slaves’ property rights? Women didn’t get the vote until 1920 – what about their rights? Racial segregation was enshrined in American law until the 1960’s – what about blacks’ rights? Slavery arguably continues in America to this day, with an estimated 50,000 women and children brought against their will to the US for sexual exploitation each year (CIA estimate).

In short, Dear G, America was founded on the idea of freedom and property rights for rich white males (and even then it incorporated equally strong concepts of social obligation). It is a model of Libertarian freedom only in your (ill-informed) dreams.

property rights stem from your unalienable right to life

Says who?

The question you are unable to answer G, is who or what confers these “rights”. A right by definition is granted by some agent. Who or what grants the right to life, and the right to property?
Dean 155

22 July 2008 at 7:37 pm

Matthew:

“No dean, as the saying goes, it’s not ok. What Key said wasn’t ok and nor was Cullen’s response. I assume this will be the last time you pretend Cullen’s comments occured in a vacuum.”

I don’t think I ever said that Cullen’s comments were ever said in a vaccuum, Matthew. If I did, can you please show me where I did, because I will apologise unreservedly for being unfair.

I hold as much contempt for National as I do for Labour. I can understand your confusion though, given your self-professed Labour = good, National = bad way of thinking.

“Thank you, Dean, for showing the absurdity of your previous accusation, that the Labour caucus are envious of Key’s wealth. Talk about looking like a twat. Oh, nice non-existant â€˜double standard’, perhaps you can check a definition after taking a peek at â€˜condecending’.”

Um, yeah. I really don’t think you get it, do you Matthew? See my previous comments regarding National, cross reference that with Clarke’s own wealth, compare that to your own unwillingness to define exactly what a rich prick is and why Cullen is allowed to call someone that, add in your defence of such envy, and what are we left with?

Labour = Good, National = Bad.

Please try harder next time, Matthew. I know you’re capable of more rational debate. If only you could rise above petty, “it’s my chosen camp” politics.

[lprent: in my usual pedantic style, I’ve put some common mis-spellings into the moderatiion queue. I see you’ve found one 🙂 ]
Pascal's bookie 156

22 July 2008 at 9:00 pm

An honest attempt there, Pascal, but I’m afraid civilisation is not an invention or a thing: it’s a collective term for all that was invented by individuals in advanced industries. But thanks for playing.

It wasn’t really an honest attempt g, it was trite. Which is what I thought the question deserved.

Your response however is just silly. Civilisation isn’t a bunch of widgets. It needn’t be industrial, and it needn’t be advanced, however you wish to define that.

Civilisation, in my view, stems from the root word civil. It means something like ‘a large bunch of people behaving in a sustained civil manner, maintained by following some culturally defined rules for living’. Pretty informal and obviously needs some work, but good enough for starters. This sort of thing is produced by a society. It can only be a collective effort.

If you wanted to contrast ‘civilisation’ with it’s absence, what would you use? In modern political terms I guess we’d say “failed state’.

Funny how that works, everything you bring up, ends up proving my point.

You’re right though I was just playing.

Where, pray tell, do property right exist in your world?

I’m not sure what you are asking. Every society has some form of property rights. (They are very useful things). The type of property rights vary wildly depending on the society.

Most societies equal or larger than city size have had a ruler, usually a Monarch or Oligarchy of some form, that owns or can take control of, most everything should the need arise.

Our own culture has recently developed representative democratic checks on this system to promote other rights. (Yay us). These are very important and grand and are what the US constitution and DOI are about. Even more recently we have begun to use the taxation and legal systems to prevent the rise of super-wealthy powerful elites (aristocracies). We do this through monopoly busting, death duties, progressive taxation and redistribution, consumer protection laws, public education and health systems and so on. The result has been unprecedented growth in health, wealth and freedom over the last 70 to 100 years. But again I’m just playing with you.

On a more serious note, I’d like to ask you a question, since I’ve been so forthcoming with answers:

We don’t see many societies that define property rights as absolute at the individual level. I can’t think of any in fact, so help me out G. What society past or present has recognised property rights properly in your view? We’ve already found that the US didn’t in our conversations about the DOI, the 5th Amendment and the Boston Tea party. So where has it been tried, and was it any good?
(Non-fictional answers preferred).
G 157

23 July 2008 at 12:48 am

Pascal, let me rephrase the question so that I may get a more succinct and definitive answer: according to you, what property is an individual entitled to own?
G 158

23 July 2008 at 1:02 am

Rob, the vast minority of North American Indians were land owners, the rest were nomadic, and when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed. And before you get on your moral high horse, I accept there were savage atrocities on both sides. But as I recorded in my post on the other thread — to which you promised to return and didn’t — capitalism ultimately benefits everyone, including the native americans in ways they’d never have independently achieved in several thousands of years.
G 159

23 July 2008 at 1:44 am

I’ll try and get back tomorrow to answer some of the broader questions posed here.

In the meantime, Rob: “The question you are unable to answer G, is who or what confers these “rights’. A right by definition is granted by some agent. Who or what grants the right to life, and the right to property?”

A right, by definition, is a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. My Right to Life does not need your approval — or a court’s for that matter; I may justly and morally claim it for myself. The only requirement from you is that you respect it.
Pascal's bookie 160

23 July 2008 at 5:26 am

An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised the society she is a part of determine is hers.

Obviously.

Property is determined and defined by rights, which are in turn constructed by societies.

Now answer the question I posed.
G 161

23 July 2008 at 8:42 am

“An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised the society she is a part of determine is hers.”

Thank you, Pascal, and I will try to answer your question when I get back tonight.

But first let me point out that if she does not have control over her property, she has no property rights at all. The power of its disposal in this instance rests entirely with society, for there is no limit to the powers society has over ALL her property. If society determines she should have zero property (as is the case of communism), then she shall have none.

As proof, think of it like a mortgage. You don’t technically own your property until your loan is all paid back. In your world, the people hold the title in perpetuity.
r0b 162

23 July 2008 at 11:20 am

So that’s it then G, in my summary of the concept of property rights in the founding of America you have only one point to disagree with:

Rob, the vast minority of North American Indians were land owners, the rest were nomadic, and when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed.

Seriously G, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You’re about the fourth Libertarian I’ve had versions of this discussion with, and every one of them has turned out to be profoundly ignorant of history (particularly American history, and all have turned to America as their beacon). I’m starting to think that profound ignorance is a requirement for Libertarian ideology.

Where to begin. Well, here’s a map of Native American lands circa 1600. You’ll notice that 99.99% of America is inhabited and claimed. European Westward expansion pushed the Native American people out of these lands – for a very short summary see this Wikipedia page under the heading “Removal, reservations, and forced assimilation”:

In the nineteenth century, the incessant westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, United States Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy.
…
The most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy took place under the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees but not the elected leadership. President Jackson rigidly enforced the treaty, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 Cherokees on the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees â€” along with approximately 2,000 black slaves held by Cherokees â€” were removed from their homes.
…
Conflicts generally known as “Indian Wars” broke out between U.S. forces and many different tribes. U.S. government authorities entered into numerous treaties during this period but later abrogated many for various reasons.

Now, why was forceful relocation and an “Indian Removal Act” of Congress required if these lands were not occupied G? Why the very detailed maps of the lands involved? Sounds to me like Native American Indians had lands and property rights don’t you think? Sounds like these were taken from them, and that is why they went to war.

But history is a bit dry by itself don’t you think? Sometimes we should just listen to the voices of the people:

“This war did not spring up on our land, this war was brought upon us by the children of the Great Father who came to take our land without a price, and who, in our land, do a great many evil things… This war has come from robbery – from the stealing of our land.” – Spotted Tail

“We, the great mass of the people think only of the love we have for our land, we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go, to let it go it will be like throwing away (our) mother that gave (us) birth.”. – Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokees.

“The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die. That is, the Indian in us dies.” – Mary Brave Bird

And so on, and so on, and so on and on and on.

Tell me G, do you wish to reconsider your claim that “the vast minority of North American Indians were land owners, the rest were nomadic, and when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed.” ???
DS 163

23 July 2008 at 11:51 am

“DS, property rights stem from your unalienable right to life. No-one and no group has a right to take your life, or those values you pursue and gain in your life.”

Okey-dokey. Suppose I buy up all the land around your house, and assert my property rights by refusing to let you cross my property. End result: you starve to death. What comes first – your “right” to life, or my “right” to property? Under this scenario, the two are incompatible.
Matthew Pilott 164

23 July 2008 at 11:52 am

Dean, if it’s not your chosen camp, why the insistence on portraying Cullen’s comments as such? Take your comment that you don’t think you said Cullen’s comments occured in a vacuum. You’re taking his comments, applying no provocation or context and then using them as the basis of a viewpoint on the entire Labour caucus’ view of rich people, inferring hypocracy and assuming we’re left with “Labour good, National bad”. You need to think through it a little more (or, for the Love of God, read into it a little less!), if that’s all you can come up with.

This conclusion of yours, Labour good – National bad, totally and completely negates the “politics of envy” you so assuredly stated was alive and well in Labour earlier.

Perhaps you would like to take another shot at it, but I hope not, dead-horse flogging isn’t pretty.

To be honest, I won’t try harder when you present such arguments, what you’re putting forward is pretty easy to ridicule, since it’s a combination of mind-reading and illogical conclision. Not worth the effort.
Pascal's bookie 165

23 July 2008 at 8:55 pm

Thank you, Pascal, and I will try to answer your question when I get back tonight.

I’ll look forward to it.

But first let me point out that if she does not have control over her property, she has no property rights at all.

Errr, no. She has as many property rights as are conferred by the framework society constructs. A more accurate version based on what I said would be:

‘if she does not have absolute and ultimate control over her property, she has no property rights at all’.

Which I think you would agree doesn’t sound like such a strong argument.

The power of its disposal in this instance rests entirely with society, for there is no limit to the powers society has over ALL her property. If society determines she should have zero property (as is the case of communism), then she shall have none.

Except that by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere. It may be a lot, in may be very little.

Say you manage to convince me, and then we set out and convince the rest of the nation together. We establish a system with as many property rights as you wish. That’s the same thing g, as establishing communism. Not in outcome, but in principle. Society determining what property rights exist.

What you seem to be doing is saying that if society determines property rights that are less than what you believe they should be, then somehow those socially constructed rights aren’t real.

As if there are transcendent real property rights that just happen to coincide with your views, and as if when trying to establish what property rights a society should have, the assumption must be that your view is already established as correct. Assuming to be already true, that which we are asking you to prove. This is known as begging the question.

As proof, think of it like a mortgage. You don?t technically own your property until your loan is all paid back. In your world, the people hold the title in perpetuity.

Not really. ‘In my world’ society constructs the idea of title, which allows me to own property.

I think we may have to agree to disagree (for now) on this point. I’m pretty sure that I understand your argument, and I have been as clear as I can be about why I reject it.

So let’s not let it be a distraction from you answering the question about whether any society past or present has had property rights as you see them.
G 166

24 July 2008 at 12:26 am

Rob. Does America own the moon because they planted a flag on it?

Regarding America’s human rights record (which, I’ll be the first to admit, is not perfect): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” Might’ve taken them a while to completely follow through on it, but they were the only ones in the world at that time who had enough sense and morality to sanctify the idea in writing. And how many other states in history can you name that went to war in the name of ending slavery?

DS. Absurd hypothetical. Try another one set in a real world, with helicopters.

Pascal. “We do this through monopoly busting, death duties, progressive taxation and redistribution, consumer protection laws, public education and health systems and so on. The result has been unprecedented growth in health, wealth and freedom over the last 70 to 100 years.”

The unprecedented growth to which you refer is attributable to capitalism, not socialism.

“What society past or present has recognised property rights properly in your view?”

17th century America came closest to the ideal. But even today, in the face of ever-creeping socialism which now allows the state to forcibly purchase private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment still recognises it is private property with Just Compensation.

“An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised the society she is a part of determine is hers.”

Once again, Pascal, he who has control of the property has the rights, which in this case is society – not the individual. Another proof: if society lets me keep half of my property, you’d tell me, “You have property rights on that half.” But if society votes later to appropriate another half of that half those prior ‘rights’ go right out the window. Simply put, your version of Property Rights aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

If I really did have rights on that property, by right I would be able to say, “No, you told me it was mine and you can’t take any more of it.” How many socialists do you think would support my claim and chain themselves to my property in solidarity? Would you?

“Except that by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere. It may be a lot, in may be very little.”</i”

Exactly, Pascal, it’s completely arbitrary. The fact is there is no limit in the system you advocate (or is there?). And if there is no limit, society could take it all if it so chooses, which means they have ultimate control and all the rights.

Currently I can’t think of another nation outside of America that constitutionally limits the power of the state, and its citizenry.
G 167

24 July 2008 at 1:09 am

Tsk! The above should read: “19th century America came closest to the ideal.”

It’s been a long day. :-/
Pascal's bookie 168

24 July 2008 at 5:30 am

G. So the answer is No then. OK.

I think if you pay attention to the US constitution you will note that it contains mechanisms whereby the Constitution itself can be amended. Bits can be added or deleted. Crikey, was does that mean? That the whole things is arbitrary so none of it counts.

You keep conflating society and state. I make a distinction. The state can try all sorts of things, and the people may let them get away with it. They may not. Either way new rights are socially constructed. And yes, they are arbitrary.

Everywhere.

We started by saying that a 6% difference in marginal in tax rates was somehow a big deal about Freeeeeedommmm.

Yet here we are, and you’re claiming that the closest we’ve come as a species to freedom is a state that explicitly allowed slavery, and expanded it’s borders through the genocide of the former occupying nations. ffs.

I’m done.
Pascal's bookie 169

24 July 2008 at 6:07 am

” Another proof: if society lets me keep half of my property, you’d tell me, “You have property rights on that half.’ ”

No, I wouldn’t. I’ll tell you that you were begging the question of what ‘your property’ is, again. sheesh.
r0b 170

24 July 2008 at 8:15 am

Rob. Does America own the moon because they planted a flag on it?

What is that supposed to mean G? Are you suggesting that Native Americans did not own the land that they were forcibly ejected from? Do you still believe your painfully ignorant claim that “when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed” ? Tell me G, as I asked you above, is that what you still believe?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ” Might’ve taken them a while to completely follow through on it

They have never completely followed through on it. Certainly not until at least the 1960s (when separate treatment of Blacks was still enshrined in law), and arguably not even today.

If I was prone to unkind thoughts G, I might be starting to wonder if you held any regard for the equality and rights of Native Americans and Blacks.

but they were the only ones in the world at that time who had enough sense and morality to sanctify the idea in writing.

What childish nonsense (as if ideas are “sanctified” by writing them down). Anyway, the Greeks had it sussed, Aristotle: “Democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely’. Such ideas were developed by the Stoics who emphasised the natural equality of all rational beings.

Early New Testament writings took the idea of equality and set it in the context of equality before God. Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Similar concepts of equality are expressed in the Talmud and in Islam, and in most of the world’s religions.

The Age of Enlightenment saw the emergence of many key ideas that have shaped civilisation ever since, one of these was that “reason makes all humans equal and, therefore, deserving of equal liberty and treatment before the law”. See particularly the writings of Voltaire: “Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference”, and if you really want to go to town try Rosseau’s essay On the Inequality among Mankind. The origins of the Motto of France – Liberty, Equality, Fraternity – are traced back to these times.

So in short, the phrase in the DOI that “all men are created equal” is a fairly unremarkable statement, very much in tune with strong themes in religious writing and with the intellectual traditions of the time.

And how many other states in history can you name that went to war in the name of ending slavery?

I’m not enough of a historian to know, but that war was of course a civil war, and the more disturbing question is how many other states needed to go to war with themselves over this. Most other nations managed the process peacefully.

So then, to sum up: G, do you still believe your claim that “when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed” , and do you believe that Native Americans and Blacks have exactly the same rights as other Americans?
G 171

24 July 2008 at 10:02 am

Pascal, please read more carefully. My answer to your question, “What society past or present has recognised property rights properly in your view?” wasn’t ‘no’. My answer was America, who didn’t even introduce income tax until 1861, and then it was only 3% — a fair sum in my opinion, for the cost of running core state services. And even today, while they may appropriate private property for public use, they still award the owner “Just Compensation” as protected under the 5th, and thereby recognise it is private property, or a ‘value’ belonging to the owner.

You people are misinterpreting the Constitution in ways that, frankly, make you look naive. Americans hotly contest infringements to their original deed, and would never allow the state — or it’s citizens — to rape their assets in ways your system would condone. In fact, there’s even a clause in their constitution that affords the people the legal right to overthrow their own government. Can you name another bill of rights that does that?

“Yet here we are, and you’re claiming that the closest we’ve come as a species to freedom is a state that explicitly allowed slavery, and expanded it’s borders through the genocide of the former occupying nations.”

Slavery was an accepted practice all over the world, Pascal — and America, as far as I can tell, were the only ones who went to war to end it. And I think it’s a bit rich for a socialist to be pointing fingers and crying genocide when the track record of your lot totaled 100 million murdered just last century — including that infamous group of National Socialists in Germany.

“No, I wouldn’t. I’ll tell you that you were begging the question of what â€˜your property’ is, again.”

If you don’t know what your property even is, Pascal, how the hell can you, as a member of the all-powerful, all-controlling society, confer rights to it? Just as well you’re done here, because you clearly don’t have a grasp of the subject.

Rob: “They have never completely followed through on it. Certainly not until at least the 1960s (when separate treatment of Blacks was still enshrined in law), and arguably not even today.

If I was prone to unkind thoughts G, I might be starting to wonder if you held any regard for the equality and rights of Native Americans and Blacks.”

That wouldn’t be unkind, Rob, given that I have clearly and deliberately stated my position on that kind of ‘savagery’, that would be utterly misrepresentative. And again with the blanket write-offs. Stop tarring America with the brush of the group of redneck racists, and perhaps, with your bleeding heart, spare a thought for the 300,000 white Yankees who died fighting to end slavery.

Once again, the DOI was their statement of intention, and where the Americans go further than all those other luminaries you mention, is the legal document called the Constitution of the United States, which, in terms of sanctified human rights, is the greatest bill of rights ever written.

“… when the Europeans arrived 99.99% of America was uninhabited and unclaimed’? — Tell me G, as I asked you above, is that what you still believe?

Yep. Uninhabited means having no residents; not inhabited. Apart from tribes like the Chickawa and Nez Perce, who had settlements and farms (who were unjustly robbed I might add), the vast majority were nomads members of a people or tribe that has no permanent abode. Unclaimed means not claimed as property, a legal concept that was unknown to these people — until the arrival of the Europeans.

Now if you please: Does America own the moon because they planted a flag on it?
G 172

24 July 2008 at 10:20 am

A question for all you one-eyed, anti-American socialists: in terms of human rights and personal freedom, what country (past or present), comes closest to getting it right?
Pascal's bookie 173

24 July 2008 at 10:50 am

17 different flavours of stupid.

Begging the question is not the same as raising the question. Learn the difference and you might be worth talking to.

The constitution creates the rights. It constructs them. Without it there are no rights, just claims. This is what you have completely failed to address. Repeatedly.

By your own damn reasoning the fact the fifth amendment exists means there are no real property rights worth having in America because the Constitution allows the govt to take your property without your consent.

Communists and Nazis are not my lot. Fuck off. The fact that you’ve stooped to that in place of any argument is revealing.
Pascal's bookie 174

24 July 2008 at 10:55 am

“Unclaimed means not claimed as property, a legal concept..”

The funny things is at times you actually get it (but only when excusing genocide).

Property is a constructed right.
r0b 175

24 July 2008 at 11:12 am

Ho then G

I find you Libertarians endlessly fascinating I really do. Anyway, good, you believe that Native Americans and Blacks have the same rights as everyone else. Let’s carry on from there.

Stop tarring America with the brush of the group of redneck racists … Yankees who died fighting to end slavery.

Redneck racists like the slave owning authors of the constitution? We’ve been through this above. And the civil war was about money and power (as most wars are), in this case the secession of the Southern states (though the visible flash point issue certainly was slavery).

the legal document called the Constitution of the United States, which, in terms of sanctified human rights, is the greatest bill of rights ever written.

It most certainly is not. And how you can possibly believe that America lived up to the ideals so glibly expressed in those few short words is beyond me. Native Americans and Blacks certainly did not have the equal rights that we both agree were there due, as enshrined by law up until at least the 1960s. How on can you go on believing things that are factually false?

Yep. Uninhabited means having no residents; not inhabited … the vast majority were nomads members of a people or tribe that has no permanent abode. Unclaimed means not claimed as property, a legal concept that was unknown to these people â€” until the arrival of the Europeans.

You have two major problems for yourself there G.

(1) You are simply factually and historically wrong, as shown above. The Native American Indian peoples went to war to defend their property rights.

(2) You have created a contradiction for yourself. You claim that property rights are inherent, universal, natural and inalienable. But you also now claim that “property, a legal concept that was unknown to these people â€” until the arrival of the Europeans”. So which is it G? Because it can’t be both. Are these rights inherent and universal, or are they a legal and social construct of the Europeans? I await your reply with keen interest.

Now if you please: Does America own the moon because they planted a flag on it?

No.
G 176

24 July 2008 at 11:45 am

“Begging the question is not the same as raising the question. Learn the difference and you might be worth talking to.”

Enlighten me: what exactly is the difference and how does that effect the question? And while we’re at it, what exactly is your definition of ‘property’?

“The constitution creates the rights. It constructs them. Without it there are no rights, just claims. This is what you have completely failed to address. “

No, Pascal, the authors of the constitution created the constitution, and the state representatives ratified it with the support of the people. I assure you I understand the concept quite thoroughly, and you’ve yet to prove I don’t. Moreover…

“By your own damn reasoning the fact the fifth amendment exists means there are no real property rights worth having in America because the Constitution allows the govt to take your property without your consent.”

… you clearly have no idea at all. As I’ve said repeatedly — and the point you continue to avoid — the “Just Compensation” clause categorically DOES recognise private property and the right for an owner to retain its value, if not the original property itself.

“Communists and Nazis are not my lot. Fuck off. The fact that you’ve stooped to that in place of any argument is revealing.”

You see, Pascal, this is the difference between you and I: I’m prepared to put a stake in the ground and stand by it, while you lot do nothing more than try and uproot it. Where’s your stake? I ask again: Which country, in your opinion, got it or gets it right?

I apologise if I’ve insulted you, or unfairly misrepresented you, but you are a socialist, yes? You do maintain that society decides how much or how little the individual may nominally ‘own’, yes?
G 177

24 July 2008 at 12:08 pm

“Redneck racists like the slave owning authors of the constitution? “

Anachronistic, Rob. Please keep a little historical perspective, and recognise the fact that the Founding Fathers had enough intuition to plant the seeds of equality liberty for all in America — while Jefferson, as I’ve said, worked tirelessly to legislate the end slavery, and Lincoln went to war against the redneck bastards who insisted on preserving it.

And, HA! And when the shit hits the fan, which to which country does that toothless beast called the U.N. turn to stop holocausts like Bosnia? Brilliant… 🙂

“Native Americans and Blacks certainly did not have the equal rights that we both agree were there due, as enshrined by law up until at least the 1960s.”

What law, exactly?

“Now if you please: Does America own the moon because they planted a flag on it?

No.”

Why not?

(Your answer to this will fast track my reply to the other points you made.)
G 178

24 July 2008 at 12:17 pm

[edit (the system wouldn’t allow me to correct literals and syntax): * “… equality and liberty for all in America…” & “… when the shit hits the fan, to which country does that toothless beast called the U.N. turn to stop holocausts like Bosnia?”]
r0b 179

24 July 2008 at 12:28 pm

Anachronistic, Rob. Please keep a little historical perspective,

Ahh so the universal declarations of equality that you so admire, that did not apply Native Americans, Blacks or women, aren’t quite so universal after all. They need to be interpreted with “historical perspective”. Or rose tinted spectacles. Whatever.

Lincoln went to war against the redneck bastards who insisted on preserving it.

No, the Cvivil War was a war to defend slavery, not to end it. The Southern Confederacy attacked first to preserve their “rights” to own slavers. The Northern Union had to respond of course, but they did not initiate a war to end slavery.

What law, exactly?

You know, these ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Why not?
(Your answer to this will fast track my reply to the other points you made.)

Because property rights are a construct created by society, and (in my opinion) society does not judge planting a flag on the moon as establishing ownership.

Gone until tonight.
DS 180

24 July 2008 at 8:38 pm

“DS. Absurd hypothetical. Try another one set in a real world, with helicopters.”

Nope, very possible hypothetical in your Libertarian fantasy land (or are helicopters invading the air space over my property and disturbing things situated on my property suddenly to be ignored? And what about the time before helicopters were invented?). Face it, mate, the scenario I used blows a gigantic contradictory hole in your argument. Either I have the right to assert my property rights (and in doing so starve you to death), or I don’t. Either way, you lose.

BTW, the US Civil War didn’t become a war to end slavery until half-way through, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. Before that the North was simply fighting to preserve the Union.
Pascal's bookie 181

24 July 2008 at 10:25 pm

I sense that you are getting a little defensive and wanting to go on the attack. Not surprising because you’ve pretty much left yourself without a leg to stand on.

How about I recap my position, and your response to it, and we’ll use the US constitution and it’s marvelous 5th Amendment as an example. There is going to be a bit of repetition here, but I ask that you bear with me. None of it will be superfluous, and I’ll let you have the last say. You can find out what begging the question means some other time.

My position, (my ‘stake in the ground’ if you like) is that rights, including property rights, are constructed by societies. That it is meaningless to consider them without recognising this.

You asked:what property is an individual entitled to own?

In answer I replied that : An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers. (I’ve fixed a typo by adding ‘of’)

I later added: … by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere. It may be a lot, in may be very little.

That is to say that a persons property entitlement is determined by the system of property rights she is operating under. Further, as per my position, that system of rights will be constructed by the society she lives in.

You responded: “…if she does not have control over her property, she has no property rights at all. The power of its disposal in this instance rests entirely with society, for there is no limit to the powers society has over ALL her property. If society determines she should have zero property (as is the case of communism), then she shall have none.”

and later: “… he who has control of the property has the rights, which in this case is society – not the individual. Another proof: if society lets me keep half of my property, you’d tell me, “You have property rights on that half.’ But if society votes later to appropriate another half of that half those prior â€˜rights’ go right out the window. Simply put, your version of Property Rights aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

If I really did have rights on that property, by right I would be able to say, “No, you told me it was mine and you can’t take any more of it.’

and later yet: you clearly have no idea at all. As I’ve said repeatedly â€” and the point you continue to avoid â€” the “Just Compensation’ clause categorically DOES recognise private property and the right for an owner to retain its value, if not the original property itself.

So much for our positions. Now lets have a look at the US example, see how it fits with my position, and then see where your responses fit in, bearing one more quote from you in mind:

My answer to your question, “What society past or present has recognised property rights properly in your view?’ wasn’t â€˜no’. My answer was America

Now….

According to me An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.

So a person living in the US has the property rights recognised by the US society. What would they be? Where should we look? I say the Constitution. That’s where the courts over there look, and that is what the citizens rely on. As you say, the authors of the constitution created the constitution, and the state representatives ratified it with the support of the people. In other words the constitution is a construction built by their society, that they use to resolve disputes. Including those regarding property.

So that’s where we look, according to me, to determine what a person in the US has in the way of property rights. What do we find?

Our old friend the 5th amendment. And what does it say?

No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (irrelevant stuff omitted)

Seems clear. It would appear that the constitution recognises that people have private property rights. It didn’t have to of course, but that’s what they wrote and ratified and agreed upon, so that’s what they created.

Not unrestricted private property rights though. Lookie there! The govt can, with due process of law, deprive a person of their property. They can also take it for public use if they give them ‘just compensation’. We should also note that the constitution can be amended. These rights could in theory change, as long as the proper process is followed.

So according to my position, that’s what their property rights are and they get them from the constitution.

Now let’s look what happens to US private property rights when put under the blowtorch of your responses to me.

According to you, he who has ultimate control of the property has the rights. Well we see that the gov’t has the right to pass laws depriving people of their property, and that they can take your property off you, and replace it with just compensation. (We also remember that the constitution can be amended.)

Who do we think determines what just compensation would be?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that ultimately it will be ‘the courts’. Which as I’m sure you are aware, are a branch of the govt. So it looks to me like it’s the gov’t that has the control when push comes to shove.

So how do US private property rights stack up if we accept your positions: If I really did have rights on that property, by right I would be able to say, “No, you told me it was mine and you can’t take any more of it.’

and

The power of its disposal in this instance rests entirely with society, for there is no limit to the powers society has over ALL her property. If society determines she should have zero property (as is the case of communism), then she shall have none.

Looks to me like they gets all blown to shit.

So according to me, US citizens have private property rights created by their Constitution, (which, JFTR, is my favorite enlightenment document), and according to you they don’t.

So there you go. I believe that property rights can exist, and you’re just a big ol’ contradictory mess.

n’night.
G 182

25 July 2008 at 12:15 am

Rob, quite right, planting a flag on the moon does not establish ownership. Why? Because ownership comes from a combination of using one’s labour with an unused resource. If a man digs a hole in the ground on an unclaimed lot and strikes gold, that gold is rightly his. When the Chickawa Indians built huts, plowed the land and began farming it, it became rightly theirs. For the nomadic tribe, however, there was no such inhabitation, and so they had no such claim on the land. If merely walking across a stretch of territory from year to year constituted ownership then America could make the absurd claim that it owned the moon, and the American sealer John Davis could have claimed Antarctica when he first landed there in 1821.

Property rights do not — and should not — come from a society collectively deciding upon a head of state, who then makes claims on other people’s property in their name. If that were so then Andrew Jackson would have had every right to invade and confiscate the property of the Chickawa Indians — an act that still to this day makes federalists and libertarians cringe in unconstitutional horror.

The Jim Crow law, as you know, does not not appear in the DOI or the constitution. It was, as you know, ruled to be unconstitutional and abolished. Thank Jefferson & Co. for the constitution.

“No, the Cvivil War was a war to defend slavery, not to end it.”

Not to be rude, Rob, but that actually made me laugh. Could your glass be any less half empty? 🙂
G 183

25 July 2008 at 12:59 am

Well, Pascal, firstly I’d just like to say that I appreciate your thorough consideration in reply, and without the bitchiness that I’ve seen so much of here at The Standard — so thanks. 🙂

I do feel, however, that we are going around in circles (I’m sure that feeling is mutual), and I’m not sure how much more we can achieve on this particular line. It may be that you and I pick this up again later on another thread, with a fresh approach.

But before we abandon the field, I’d like to sleep on this and have another read of your post tomorrow — give it its due consideration.

In the meantime, Pascal, could you tell me, academically, which political and economic systems you advocate?

G
r0b 184

25 July 2008 at 7:55 am

Because ownership comes from a combination of using one’s labour with an unused resource.

I wonder who or what it is that recognises and confers such rights eh G? Society perhaps? Anyway, so now you have no less than three theories of ownership / property rights.

(1) Your starting Libertarian position that property rights are inherent, universal, natural and inalienable.

(2) Your position when denying the property rights that Native Americans fought and suffered and died for, that property is a legal construct of the white man (“property, a legal concept that was unknown to these people â€” until the arrival of the Europeans’).

(3) And now an attempt to back down from 2, that “ownership comes from a combination of using one’s labour with an unused resource”.

Thanks for making the philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism so abundantly clear for us all G. Rock on. I’m done with this thread, farewell.
G 185

25 July 2008 at 1:47 pm

Well, Rob, I’m glad to see you don’t have issue with my other points, so all that’s left to do here is clear up is this alleged anomaly.

As I stated above:

“A right, by definition, is a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.”

So, with regards to settlers like the Chickawa Indians, their property was:

1. inherent, natural and inalienably theirs;
2. while their property wasn’t legally claimed (because, as I said, there was no formal law until the arrival of the Europeans), it was most certainly morally theirs — because…
3. they had established ownership by a combination of their labour and an unused resource.

As such, that bastard Southern Redneck Andrew Jackson had no right to take it from them; it was immoral and unconstitutional.

The sad thing is, Rob, under your definition of property rights, the state (who had been elected by the majority of society) had every right to confiscate the Chickawa’s land.

Perhaps now you can see why natural and unalienable rights are so important.
Vanilla Eis 186

25 July 2008 at 2:04 pm

Good lord G. If people ignore one of your points all of a sudden you’re correct?

Does that mean that by failing to answer PB’s excellently written post point by point he wins the argument?

And what does it matter where he stands on a political spectrum? Attack the argument, not the man. I’ve been watching closely, and so far he has you licked. Your response seems to be something like “Society doesn’t grant property rights, we have them because they’re unalienable” without going to say why they’re unalienable or where they came from in the first place.

The concept of rights is a social construction. No other animal has self-given rights. The difference between them and us? Well, I’m hearing society from one side, and from you…?

Of course, and I’m afraid I must ask, there is the possibility that you think God gave us rights? I can’t think of any other reason for your obtuse reasoning other than that it is based upon belief rather than logic. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you can’t argue with believers, so there’s not a lot of point trying)
G 187

25 July 2008 at 2:13 pm

Pascal, it appears Rob’s last hoorah has inadvertently and neatly put everything into perspective — including our issue.

Under the system you advocate, property owners like the Chickawas have no power to stop society (under the auspices of the state they elect) from having all their property confiscated if society so determined — and did — without just compensation.

Under the 5th Amendment of the American system the Chickawas were justly compensated for the loss of their land.

Under a libertarian system, the Chickawas would still be living and residing on their land, protected by Private Property Rights.
Vanilla Eis 188

25 July 2008 at 2:30 pm

Thats it? Thats actually the statement you’re using as your trump card?

I consider this to be the single least enlightening conversation of this length for a long time (Excluding Rex and Eve re: 9/11, of course).

I remain utterly unconvinced of Libertarianism, especially as the argument in favour reads something like: “because we say so, nyah nyah!”

captcha: libby problems.
Problems indeed.
G 189

25 July 2008 at 5:34 pm

That is all that needs to be said, Vanilla. Not a trump card, as you put it, but the issue of property rights brought into sharp focus.

The Chickawa Indians scenario shows us who among us really has their best interests at heart:

Socialism supports the confiscation of their property.

Libertarianism absolutely, categorically does not.

And irony is, according to socialists it’s the libertarians who are the heartless bastards.
DS 190

25 July 2008 at 5:45 pm

—–As such, that bastard Southern Redneck Andrew Jackson had no right to take it from them; it was immoral and unconstitutional.——

G, Native Americans were not considered citizens of the United States until 1924. As far as America’s Founding Fathers (you know, the guys who actually came up with the Fifth Amendment) were concerned, chucking Native Americans off their land was perfectly constitutional.
G 191

25 July 2008 at 6:12 pm

Personally I’m disgusted by their treatment.

It’s a shame you’re not.

But of course, as a socialist, you actually uphold this sort of society-endorsed land grab, don’t you, DS?
Steve Pierson 192

25 July 2008 at 6:23 pm

G. Don’t be disgusting. No-one is saying the treatment of Native Americans was right.

Quite clearly the treatment of Native Americans didn’t arise from a lack of property rights, they existed in both Native American law and the legal systems the Europeans bought with them. The problem was that when the Europeans imposed their legal system on the US they didn’t extend it to include the Native Americans and their pre-existing rights. That was because they were racists and imperialists, not because they didn’t beleive in property rights… (btw, nothing in this argument says property rights are inherent or necessary for people to treat each ther justly)

If you can’t engage with your opponents in a respectful manner, and that includes not purposely misrepresenting their arguments, you’ll never get anywhere.
G 193

25 July 2008 at 6:36 pm

SP, I’m merely pointing out that socialism upholds the idea of taking property from people like the Indians, if the majority of society determines it — which is something libertarians find utterly abhorrent.

How is that disrespectful?
Tane 194

25 July 2008 at 6:38 pm

God, I leave the thread for a few days and come back to find G accusing socialists of supporting the dispossession of Native Americans.

Bro, you gotta lot of growing up to do.
G 195

25 July 2008 at 6:47 pm

The argument, Tane — not the man.
Pascal's bookie 196

25 July 2008 at 9:19 pm

G, I’d prefer if you used some quotes to show how our issue has been resolved. If that seems like too much effort, not my problem. It does seem a little weak for a days ‘thought’.

You said that the US was an example of your kind of rights in action. I pretty much demolished that, and showed that the only rights worth having are ones created by societies.

Other ‘rights’ don’t exist, they’re only fairy stories untill you convince society that you’ve got them. Do that, and the society you are a part of, has constructed them. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! That’s what they did in the US, that’s where their rights come from. FFS

Finally I’d like to talk about your idea that nomadic tribes don’t have property rights, because I don’t see how you get there. And I understood what you said, so don’t bother repeating yourself.

It doesn’t seem to me that poking holes in the ground or building structures confers any rights, per se. Is this some sort of magic?

Nomadic tribes don’t just wander around willy nilly. They go to certain areas for different reasons. They know where they need to be for the seasons. It is more reasonable in this sense to think of them as having a lot of property that they roam over. They winter by the lake, spend the Buffalo hunting season on the plains, retreat to the mountain passes in times of war, (you do know that nomadic tribes fight wars to defend and expand their hunting grounds and water sources don’t you?). They have vast stores of institutional knowledge that determine their wanderings. I think that has as much relevance as a poorly developed cabbage patch.

But there you are just saying that none of that matters, ‘no holes in the ground, no rights’ And you accuse me of… whatever it was you think you’ve shown.

And I’ve changed my mind, about teaching you what begging the question means. Go read up about it yourself you lazy prick.
G 197

26 July 2008 at 3:10 am

Pascal, I’m sorry my reply appeared lazy. I assure it was not. Don’t mistake brevity for glibness.

I confess I’m not sure of your position anymore; you were espousing socialist ideals earlier, but now you’re singing the praises of the constitution. I thought my summation would either be accurate or solicit a correction that would clarify things.

With regards to land owners (like say the Chickawa farmers), do you think society:

a) has the right to determine the confiscation of their land without any compensation?

b) has the right to determine the confiscation of their land with ‘Just Compensation’?

c) should recognise their property rights and leave them in peace?
G 198

26 July 2008 at 3:47 am

Pascal, you wanted me to use a quote. I thought this one of yours might be pertinent to the above, applying the Chickawa farmer to your principle:

“… by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere [with the Chickawa property]. It may be a lot [of the Chickawa property], in may be very little [of the Chickawa property].”

Might it be all of the Chickawa property, Pascal? If not, why not — and where would you draw the line?
Pascal's bookie 199

26 July 2008 at 11:06 am

I confess I’m not sure of your position anymore

Clearly.
you were espousing socialist ideals earlier, but now you’re singing the praises of the constitution

I’ve never espoused any socialist views on this thread that I can recall. I praise the US constitution because it is a clearly written example of exactly what I’m talking about. A society explicitly constructing a framework of rights for living under. Including a form of property rights.

With regards to land owners (like say the Chickawa farmers), do you think society:

a) has the right to determine the confiscation of their land without any compensation?

b) has the right to determine the confiscation of their land with â€˜Just Compensation’?

c) should recognise their property rights and leave them in peace?

See g, the thing is these questions don’t make sense. The ‘rights’ the Chickawa have are determined by the framework. If they are recognised as ‘land owners’ under the system then they have some property rights. What those rights are is determined by the system. There can be no answer without reference to the system.

Calling them ‘property owners’, assumes that there is a system of property rights already in place, that they are a part of that system, and that they ‘own’ the land within that system. In that case the answer to your question is self evident.

That is what begging the question means.

Here’s a clue. There are communist forms of property rights. Capitalist forms of property rights. Tribal forms of property rights. There are Monarchist, feudalist, anarcho-syndicalist and many other forms of property rights. (What we have not been able to identify is an example of the libertarian form of absolute individual private property rights)

How we determine what a person a has a right to, is dependent 100% on what system they are operating under. Under an absolute monarchy, the Monarch has all the property, by right. If you don’t like that, your option is to seek to change the system.

Just saying “I’ve got property rights” doesn’t count for a tin a beans. What counts is convincing society to change the system so that it recognises/creates that right. Then you’ve got some property rights created by the new system.

You seem to want me to argue as if there is some platonic ideal of some version of property rights that is written into the structure of the universe. Property rights that exist independently of societies. That’s just noise.

I’m getting really sick of repeating this point g.
G 200

26 July 2008 at 4:35 pm

“I’m getting really sick of repeating this point g.”

I know what you mean, Pascal, but please bear with me — we’re at the point of understanding each other’s idea of property rights with the example of the Chickawa Indians applied to our respective political ideals:

“(What we have not been able to identify is an example of the libertarian form of absolute individual private property rights)”

Libertarians believe, absolutely, that the Chickawa Indians should have been left in peace, on the land they morally owned — by natural and unalienable right — through a combination of their labour and an unused, unclaimed resource.

Now, let’s apply your principle of private property rights to the Chickawa:

“… by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere [with the Chickawa property]. It may be a lot [of the Chickawa property], in may be very little [of the Chickawa property].’

Under this ‘social construct’ the confiscation of the Chickawa lands was entirely legitimate because it had the sanction of the majority of society in America at that time.
G 201

26 July 2008 at 4:49 pm

[edit: in anticipation of a possible loophole, I’d like to revise that last paragraph to read:

“Under this ‘social construct’ the confiscation of the Chickawa land is entirely legitimate if it had the sanction of the majority of society.]
killinginthenameof 202

26 July 2008 at 5:22 pm

So G answer the following:

1. Ideally what would A) a Socialist and B) a Libertarian do about the confiscation of Chickawa land?

2. How does this compare with where A) Socialist and B) Libertarian Parties actually stand on the issue?
G 203

26 July 2008 at 6:46 pm

I can only answer for myself, Mr. Killing.

In accordance with libertarian principles I wouldn’t have appropriated their private property in the first place. But now that it has been taken I would follow the rules of the 5th Amendment and ensure their private property rights were recognised with just compensation. And I would leave them to dispose of ALL their settlement money as they see fit.

What about you, KITNO?
G 204

26 July 2008 at 7:15 pm

I do, however, know where Marx would have stood on the issue:

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

He would have confiscated the Chickawa’s land.

“2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

And then taxed the shit out of them.
Pascal's bookie 205

26 July 2008 at 8:25 pm

Except, I haven’t anywhere stated anything about what you think is ‘my principle of private property rights’. All I have stated is that property rights, like all other rights, are a construct.

You seem to think that that means something about what form those rights take. Your libertarian property rights, if they ever got put into practice anywhere, would be a construct of a libertarian society. Just the same as the communal property rights that exist in many tribal societies are a construct of those tribal societies. That doesn’t mean that either set is the real form of property rights. It doesn’t mean one set is stronger than the other. It just means that they are different. Judging one set from the standpoint of the other, using the language of ‘rights’ is a fool’s game.

In US society at that time they had an idea, IIRC, about manifest destiny. That the republic had a right of divine providence to expand across the continent. That is a right they created for themselves, and unfortunately for the Native American peoples, the new republic was powerful enough to enforce that right.

What I think about the morality of any of this, is utterly irrelevant. I’m talking about what rights are. You keep conflating this with what content a system of rights should have, what form those rights should take.

You seemed to have changed your position, yet again. Firstly you said correctly that no society has had property rights as you understand them. Then you said the US did, and now you are talking about a hypothetical libertarian state. It seems to me your ‘stake in the ground’ moves around quite a bit.
RedLogix 206

26 July 2008 at 8:37 pm

In accordance with libertarian principles I wouldn’t have appropriated their private property in the first place.

Except of course that under the social construct of the era in which the Chickawa lived, ‘property rights’ were only as good as their ability to defend against invasion by others. There was no such thing as a ‘right to occupy’; all that mattered was the ability of the tribal warriors to fight off invaders.

Property rights as we know them in modern times, only exist as a result of the rule of law and our statutory mechanisms of enforcement.
Pascal's bookie 207

26 July 2008 at 9:16 pm

What would be ‘just’ compensation g? Would you determine that? What if they demanded NYC and a couple of aircraft carrier battle groups as a downpayment.
G 208

27 July 2008 at 1:41 am

Let’s cut to the chase, Pascal, before you do a ‘Rob’ and cry “I’m bored with this thread, I’m leaving,” without actually putting a stake of your own in the ground.

My position regarding the Chickawa remains consistent: in accordance with my politics they should have been allowed to keep their land without any interference whatsoever.

Now please, stop prevaricating: according to your politics (whatever they are), or according to the ‘social construct’ you have posted many times, is society justified — if they so decide — in confiscating the Chickawa’s land, or not?

And why?

And as a supplementary question (in case you get hung up on the details of the Chickawa case) is society justified — if they so decide — in confiscating anybody’s land, or not?

And why?
G 209

27 July 2008 at 1:48 am

BTW, you skipped over this question, Pascal. Are you unable to answer it, or is it that you just don’t want to?

“… by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere [with the Chickawa property]. It may be a lot [of the Chickawa property], in may be very little [of the Chickawa property].’

Might it be all of the Chickawa property, Pascal? If not, why not â€” and where would you draw the line?
Pascal's bookie 210

27 July 2008 at 10:18 am

“is society justified â€” if they so decide â€” in confiscating anybody’s land, or not?”

Dude. Please. Try and follow. When you say that it is ‘their land’ or ‘their property’ or what-have-you, you are presupposing a system of property rights. You are assuming that ‘property’ means something independently of the social melieu.

That is begging the question. It is a circular argument you nonce. Therefore there is no legitimate question for me to answer. It’s certainly not up to me to ‘draw the line’.

Now seeing we are talking about unanswered questions, why are you so focussed on the chickawa? What about the ‘nomadic’ tribes? Where do they fit under your plans? Genocide fodder? No rights to roam over there traditional hunting grounds etc?

What compensation would you give to the Chickawa today? Who would decide what is ‘just’ compensation? What would make it ‘just’ when they had no say in the fact their land was taken?

I’m still waiting for a response about why you changed your position with regard to whether or not the US is an example of your system in action.

You’ve got nothing, so go ahead and imagine you’ve stumped me and declare yourself victorious if that what you wish. The fact remains that property rights are a construct of societies, and libertarian ideas of unrestricted private property rifgts have never been tried. Not because they are so awesome, but because they are incoherent. Which is why even in democratic free market economies, Libertarian parties get about 2-5% support. Just like Communists. With whom they have much in common.

I’m done
G 211

27 July 2008 at 5:09 pm

“I’m done”

And there it is. Leaving the argument, as I predicted, without actually stating for the record what you think should have happened to the poor ol’ Chickawa (or the nomadic tribes for that matter.)

“The fact remains that property rights are a construct of societies, and libertarian ideas… are incoherent”

Honestly, Pascal, are you saying this is incoherent to you?:

“My position regarding the Chickawa remains consistent: in accordance with my politics they should have been allowed to keep their land without any interference whatsoever.”

You had to go, I understand that — but you’ve already in effect answered my question. You’ve stated in black and white that society determines what property rights the Chickawa (and other landowners like them) have…

“An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.”

… and, according to you it might be as little as a fraction of 1% (might be none at all, but you simply won’t be pinned down on that one will you, P?):

“… by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere. It may be a lot, in may be very little.

So you see, when it comes to the Chickawa land I’m the one telling society to get their hands off, and you, Ms Bookie, are the one who’ll allow society to rip them off.

Finally, Pascal, this really does put the icing on the cake:

“Libertarian parties get about 2-5% support. Just like Communists. With whom they have much in common.”

Oh dear, P, had I known I was arguing with someone who thought the abolition of property rights was the same as protecting them I may not have wasted my time here.

It’s alright, I know why you had to go. The realisation that your so-called ‘social construct’ (which is socialist, by the way) permits the confiscation of the Chickawa land must be quite a shock.

Were we the Chickawa’s choice of candidates, representing our respective political ideals, I think we both know for whom they would have voted — (and before anyone says it, we would have afforded them that right too.)

Regards,

G.

[PS: I’m happy to answer anymore direct questions. I just wish you were…]
G 212

27 July 2008 at 5:29 pm

Unanswered questions:

“What compensation would you give to the Chickawa today?”

Market value for their land at the time of confiscation, minus any compensation that has already been awarded, all adjusted for inflation.

“Who would decide what is â€˜just’ compensation?”

Not who, but what: in this case the register of property value.

“What would make it â€˜just’ when they had no say in the fact their land was taken?”

As I said, I think it was wholly unjust their land was taken in the first place.

“I’m still waiting for a response about why you changed your position with regard to whether or not the US is an example of your system in action.”

No need to wait, Pascal, just read what I’ve written maybe three or four times already. Once again, for your convenience: the US system is closest to the system I support, but far from perfect.
Anita 213

27 July 2008 at 5:58 pm

G,

I’ve been barely following this, but I’m now curious…

Market value for their land at the time of confiscation, minus any compensation that has already been awarded, all adjusted for inflation.

Why?

Why not either current market value or old market value plus interest?
RedLogix 214

27 July 2008 at 6:20 pm

Market value for their land at the time of confiscation

Market value is the price that a willing buyer pays a willing seller. Indeed the very notion that they owned the land and that they would sell it was probably repugnant to them.

The Chickawa were not willing sellers. Therefore the notion of a market price is a nonsense.
G 215

28 July 2008 at 12:56 am

I have no problem with any of you challenging my argument, indeed I relish it, but it’s hardly an argument to simply write it off as nonsense, as Tane and many others have done here. I happen to agree with you, Red, the Chickawa would have been thoroughly — and rightfully — repulsed by the idea that society could take away their land. But for the love of reason, how about offering an alternate proposition or another course of action?

Do you, Red, think the Chickawa should have been left to live and work on their land without interference from society?

And now that their land has been confiscated, how should they be compensated?

The fact that none of you — not a single one of you — has offered an opinion as to what should have happened to the Chickawa land speaks volumes about the lack of principle involved in your respective philosophies. Like a flock of amoral sheep you simply defer the question to the will of society and follow the majority wherever it might wander. Haven’t any of you got an opinion of your own? Has socialism made you that brain dead that you can’t answer a simple question?

The ‘social construct’ you keep hammering on about is a floating abstraction. If you think it’s so watertight, test it with the concrete example of the Chickawa land. If you dare.

So, once and for all, according to your ‘social construct’, what do each of YOU think should have happened to the Chickawa land?

(A rhetorical question of course. I expect you all to keep silent on it. After all, to defend your system you’ll have to admit that it does indeed grant society the power to confiscate anything — including the Chickawa land — if it so decides.)
G 216

28 July 2008 at 1:08 am

“Why not either current market value or old market value plus interest?”

Good question, Anita. The former is impractical due to the significant improvement to the land around the Chickawa River in the last hundred and fifty years. The latter is a perfectly reasonable idea, provided you subtracted the interest they would have received on their settlement fund.
r0b 217

28 July 2008 at 1:53 am

Goodness G you make the energiser bunny look like a sloth. I left this thread long ago, and I’m not coming back. Against my better judgement I’ll add just this final comment. Share and enjoy.

The ‘social construct’ you keep hammering on about is a floating abstraction

Socialism is a social construct. So is Libertarianism. So is Social Democracy and Conservatism. And law. And property rights. They are all of them social constructs. Conventions adopted by groups of people.

You prefer the Libertarian version of politics (and some confused Eurocentric version of it for property rights), and because this is what you prefer you elevate it in your mind to some kind of natural and universal Truth. But it isn’t, it’s a social construct, just like any other. This is why you have never been able and will never be able to answer the question of where these rights (as you see them) come from. They come from societies that agree to work that way G (except that there never has been and never will be a Libertarian society).

Because you refuse to understand or acknowledge the above your question below is ill-formed, but I’ll try to adapt it and give a few answers anyway.

So, once and for all, according to your ‘social construct’, what do each of YOU think should have happened to the Chickawa land?

A society adopting the construct of Libertarianism should left them completely alone (but such a society has never and will never exist in reality).

A society adopting the construct of Socialism should have recognised them as peasant farmers and organised them into a collective.

A society adopting the construct of Social Democracy should have given them a vote, and let them participate in making decisions about their own future (within a system that protected the rights of minorities, only very limited conceptions of democracy ignore minority rights).

A society adopting the construct of pure Capitalism “should” (argh – within its own moral framework which I abhor) have maximised its wealth by exterminating or enslaving them and taking their land.

But this is a pretty silly game don’t you think? All we really know for sure is that every expansionist culture that has met up with native peoples has behaved more or less like pure Capitalism, including the European expansion into America which all you Libertarians hold up as your role model.

Goodbye.
Pascal's bookie 218

28 July 2008 at 5:31 am

As further to r0b’s post, I’ll tell your what a society that constucted a system based on Pascal’s bookies ideas would do.

Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.

If we found ourselves in the position of needing to compensate them, we would first offer them their sovereignty back. Then their land that was taken from them, or if they would prefer some other form of compensation.

I note that you would use a market price, which is essentially having your society telling them what their land is worth.

Obviously the current ‘owners’ of the land wouldn’t feel good about it, so you’d go to some govt registry to use that registry estimate to arrive at the price you would dictate and give them. If you don’t think that it is an estimate, do you think that QV valuations are the real values and that any deviance from them is a ripoff?

Your answer seems to me to rely on a number of social mechanisms to arrive at justice. Why do you think that is g?

And who would pay the compensation in your scheme g? The tax payer? Wasn’t that where we started?
G 219

28 July 2008 at 2:57 pm

Rob, your understanding of certain political systems is clearly quite limited, so let me enlighten you:

In a Social Democracy the people vote for a state which then takes it upon itself to make decisions on their behalf. There is no limit to the amount of interference that might entail (as Pascal points out above), and no mechanism to stop them. The Chickawa land entirely is up for grabs, and what happened to them is entirely consistent with your brand of politics.

It’s fortunate for the Chickawa, though I’m sure small comfort, that the 5th Amendment at least recognised their property rights to extent they compensated them for value of their land.

Now, on to Capitalism. You say:

“A society adopting the construct of pure Capitalism “should’ (argh – within its own moral framework which I abhor) have maximised its wealth by exterminating or enslaving them and taking their land.”

Astonishing in its ignorance. Had you bothered to refer to your beloved Wiki you would’ve seen that pure Capitalism, otherwise known as Laissez-faire Capitalism, is “a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production [like the Chickawa farmers] are best allowed a minimal of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.”

In other words, Rob, under Laissez-faire Capitalism the Chickawa farmer would not only be still breathing, he’d still be sucking in free air as he plowed the land that was rightly his, safe in the knowledge that no majority vote would ever take that away from him.

Under a Social Democracy life would not be so certain. In fact they were (by a similar unconstrained mechanism in your political system) rightly dispossessed of their land in accordance with the wishes of society at the time.

I note your assertion that a Social Democracy contains a system that protects the rights of the minorities is without substantiation. There is not, as far as I’m aware, any ‘law’ or ‘principle’ that protects their rights under a Social Democracy. Simply speaking, you’re talking through a hole in your tiny hat.
G 220

28 July 2008 at 3:15 pm

Thanks for your straight forward answers, Pascal. Refreshing after all this prevaricating. 🙂

Now, you say, “Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.”

Why not? According to you, “An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.” What if society determined it would confiscate the Chickawa farmer’s land? As indeed it did.

When will you people realise that a Socialist system, or a Social Democratic system contains NO MECHANISM OF PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY?
G 221

28 July 2008 at 3:29 pm

“And who would pay the compensation in your scheme g? The tax payer? Wasn’t that where we started?”

There’d be no need for compensation; I would have recognised their property rights from the get go. And as a capitalist, if I was hungry I would have entered into a free trade deal with them for the supply of their produce. If I wanted a plot of land by the Chickawa River I would have negotiated a fair price for the deed. If they wanted help in protecting their individual rights from those marauding, looting, raping, enslaving, nomadic savages known as the Plains Indians I would negotiate a fee for that service. And if they wanted help in administering disputes between their own tribesmen I’d negotiate a fee to set up a court of law.

In other words, help them create a freedom-based civilisation.

What I wouldn’t do, is presume to tell them that society will dictate how much they may own.

That’s barbaric.
Pascal's bookie 222

28 July 2008 at 3:30 pm

contains NO MECHANISM OF PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Sure it does dipshit.

It’s called the Law.

Duly enacted and followed by the government and people.

Enforced by the courts with all sorts of interesting mechanisms at it’s disposal. (It’s amazing what societies can do g. You should look about you sometime.)

That’s where rights come from, or do you think you can have rights that aren’t created and protected by society in some way or another.

As we’ve seen, the Americans’ property rights (such as they are) are created and protected by their constitution, which they created.

Is that why they are not an example of your system?

How would you compensate the Chickawa tribes G? Through Taxation? Then what about your private property rights?

What about the nomadic tribes g? Are their hunting grounds and the like fair game?
Pascal's bookie 223

28 July 2008 at 3:35 pm

Then what did you mean by this:

“What compensation would you give to the Chickawa today?’

Market value for their land at the time of confiscation, minus any compensation that has already been awarded, all adjusted for inflation.

Like I said, you’re just a big ol’ mess of contradictions aren’t you g?
Vanilla Eis 224

28 July 2008 at 3:42 pm

G: Errr, there’re the courts, who’re charged with ensuring the Government adheres to laws. Then there’s the fact that political parties can’t pass legislation willy-nilly without opposition. Then there’s the fact that you can vote to change the Government if you don’t like what they’re doing, and there’s (hopefully) a Fourth Estate that will unbiasedly inform you of what the Government is doing, so you can get all indignant about your 6% marginal tax rate (which is what this was all about in the first place, yes?).

There are restrictions on Government – you seem to be trying to state that there aren’t, and thats why a Social Democratic system is bad.

So, somehow after about ninety gazillion pointless posts where you go around in circles, all I have taken from yours posts (and I’ve read all of them, but have no desire to go back and do so again) is: “government is bad, because it has power over my life”. So what? Don’t like it, move to a country where the government has no power over your life. The fact that you remain here means you’re accepting the social contract currently in place.

I thought the argument was about society, not systems of Government? Government takes the shape of whatever society determines at the time. If some sort of neo-fascist party took root in NZ and was voted in, it would be because we have a (hypothetically) neo-fascist society, hold neo-fascist ideals and want neo-fascist systems put in place. The same goes for all of the above systems that r0b was pointing out – but you seem to have missed the point of this exercise completely.

This is not a “liberalism is bad, socialism is good” debate, because in a liberal society, there is still a society that is making decisions. The only time that society doesn’t determine what is acceptable is when there is no society, a la anarchism.

You’re not arguing the same point as PB and r0b, you’re not even close. Again: This is not an argument about how an Indian tribe was treated (although you seem to have latched on to it quite firmly, and refuse to let go) but about how the tax you pay is owned by society, and you agree to pay that tax through a social contract. The argument has stemmed from the point that you are unable to grasp the fact that society, as a whole, can make decisions that affect it’s members, even if some of those members don’t agree with the decision.

Currently, you are unhappy that you pay too much tax, money which goes towards things for the benefit of society. Fine, you’re perfectly entitled to think that, but if you want it to change you need to convince the rest of society to claim less tax or you can remove yourself from society. You can ask it to do so by finding someone in politics with the same viewpoints as yourself and voting for them, alternatively you can stand yourself. If people don’t like your ideas and you’re unsuccessful, you’re welcome to move to whatever libertarian paradise you see fit.

But please, please don’t try and convince us that society doesn’t exist and/or is bad.
G 225

28 July 2008 at 4:02 pm

I’ll be back later to discuss, but in the meantime:

“It’s called the Law.”

What law, Pascal? References please.
G 226

28 July 2008 at 4:09 pm

[edit to clarify: precisely which law protects Private Property?]
G 227

28 July 2008 at 4:15 pm

Also, Pascal, you didn’t answer this question (again):

Now, you say, “Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.’

Why not? According to you, “An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.’ What if society determined it would confiscate the Chickawa farmer’s land?

You see, this is the central point, which none of you wants to address: under a Social Democracy there is no mechanism to stop society from determining the wholesale confiscation of land — no law, nothing.

I look forward to your citation that says otherwise.
Vanilla Eis 228

28 July 2008 at 4:23 pm

G: He did answer your question.

Society, in PB’s perfect world, would recognise that even the nomadic tribes had claims to the land they roamed. There would have been no confiscation of any Indian lands and thus no need for reparations.

However, society, at the time of the great expansion westward, did not recognise their claim to the land, and confiscated said land. It’s not a hypothetical situation G, it’s what happened. What should happen now is debatable – their society has determined an outcome and paid any compensation they feel appropriate. If they decide in the future that they haven’t paid enough, they can pay more. Does PB (Or do I – sorry to speak on your behalf PB but G seems to ignore me entirely, as evidenced by the fact that he’s never answered a whole post of mine) personally believe that they paid enough? Well, probably not. It’s hard to compensate a nation for wholesale destruction of their way of life. But we’re not part of the American society making these decisions.

Quick question: Do you mind that a portion of your tax (pretend it’s that extra 6% at the top) goes towards paying for Waitangi Tribunal settlements?
Steve Pierson 229

28 July 2008 at 4:32 pm

G. Our entire legal system is predicated on the concept of private property. The laws that both uphold a system of private property and protect owners of private property from having others enjoy that property are myriad.
G 230

28 July 2008 at 4:34 pm

I have to go out, Vanilla — and I will answer you more comprehensively on my return — but I want to quickly say that the question has not been answered.

Let me simplify it for you:

Under a Social Democracy does society reserve the right to confiscate all of a Chickawa framer’s land? If not, how do you reconcile it with Pascal’s statement?:

“An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.’
G 231

28 July 2008 at 4:37 pm

SP, that’s very wishy-washy where law is not. Please cite the law or the clause that protects private property.

Back later.
Matthew Pilott 232

28 July 2008 at 4:41 pm

“There’d be no need for compensation; I would have recognised their property rights from the get go. And as a capitalist, if I was hungry I would have entered into a free trade deal with them for the supply of their produce. If I wanted a plot of land by the Chickawa River I would have negotiated a fair price for the deed. If they wanted help in protecting their individual rights from those marauding, looting, raping, enslaving, nomadic savages known as the Plains Indians I would negotiate a fee for that service. And if they wanted help in administering disputes between their own tribesmen I’d negotiate a fee to set up a court of law.

In other words, help them create a freedom-based civilisation.”

For a fee. Freedom? Enslaved to the dollar, more like.

Interestingly enough, you’re saying what you would do as an individual, and then comparing it to what an entire society would do under a specific form of government. These are not comparable examples – you need to explain what a society under the form of organisation you are advocating would do before you can ask for a comparison. To do that, you also need to explain is such a society was viable and could exist, before claiming that something could happen under it.
Vanilla Eis 233

28 July 2008 at 5:40 pm

You’re still arguing the wrong question G.

Under a Social Democracy does society reserve the right to confiscate all of a Chickawa framer’s land?

We’re not talking about Social Democracy. We’re talking about Society.

Can I envisage a society that has given itself the right to confiscate the Chickawa Farmers lands? Yes, I can. Amazingly, that same society is the one you hold up as the pinnacle of civilisation – the same one that wrote the Constitution of the United States.

I’m not here to argue about Social Democracy – that was never the point of the debate. It was whether or not Society (completely different to Social Democracy – not all societies are Socially Democratic) has the ability to legally tax incomes and whether the income from that belongs to society or the person producing the original income.

Unless of course I’m wrong here, and you weren’t originally complaining that the tax you pay still belongs to you, and that the thieving Labour Government was taking too much of your money?

I just hate seeing PB et al argue with you when you can’t even make up your mind on the definitions of the debate. I’m not sure I can be bothered with this when you’re constantly shifting the terms of debate and being decidedly obtuse. Stick to the topic, answer my whole post and not small portions without context (As I’ve seen you do with PB and r0b) and I might post again.
G 234

28 July 2008 at 7:20 pm

Vanilla, it’s a little unreasonable to expect me to answer every point made by my six or so opponents on this topic of property rights. I’m doing my best. It would be best for all of you to ask me a few pointed questions.

But I’ll indulge you this once since you’re feeling left out.

“Society, in PB’s perfect world, would recognise that even the nomadic tribes had claims to the land they roamed. There would have been no confiscation of any Indian lands and thus no need for reparations.”

Not so. The state, sanctioned by society, did take the Indian land, because the mechanism to stop the confiscation was missing. This is the mechanism that libertarians want restored; the mechanism that stops societies (like the one Pascal advocates) from confiscating private property.

“However, society, at the time of the great expansion westward, did not recognise their claim to the land…”

Not so. If they didn’t recognise their claim they wouldn’t have awarded them compensation, which they did under the rules of the 5th.

“Quick question: Do you mind that a portion of your tax (pretend it’s that extra 6% at the top) goes towards paying for Waitangi Tribunal settlements?”

I think where Maori have been unfairly dispossessed of their land they should be fairly compensated — full and finally with no further claims after settlement — with past reparations subtracted including adjustments for inflation.

“Can I envisage a society that has given itself the right to confiscate the Chickawa Farmers lands? Yes, I can.”

Finally a straight answer! That’s precisely why there needs to be a black and white law against it, Vanilla, which does not exist in the system that Pascal advocates. In her system society determines how much property can be ceased, which could be a little or the lot. In the system I advocate society cannot determine what happens to property that does not belong to them. Under a libertarian flag the Chickawa land rights are safe. Under Pascal’s they are not.

“Amazingly, that same society is the one you hold up as the pinnacle of civilisation – the same one that wrote the Constitution of the United States.”

Not the pinnacle, Van, just the closest — as I’ve said on many times on this thread. I’m the first to admit their deficiencies.

“… you’re constantly shifting the terms of debate…”

I can see your confusion: property isn’t limited to land; it also includes the product of one’s mind and labour. I’ve used the Chickawa example to demonstrate the injustice of society being permitted to confiscate property.
G 235

28 July 2008 at 7:33 pm

Oh golly, I forgot you made an earlier post, Vanilla.

“Government takes the shape of whatever society determines at the time. If some sort of neo-fascist party took root in NZ and was voted in, it would be because we have a (hypothetically) neo-fascist society, hold neo-fascist ideals and want neo-fascist systems put in place.”

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Vanilla! That’s exactly why there needs to be immutable laws that protect the individual rights of every citizen no matter what Government gets elected; a constitution that prevents society from ever being able to vote in a state that has the power to confiscate property that does not belong to them.

Happy to answer any more (direct) questions you may have.
RedLogix 236

28 July 2008 at 7:38 pm

That’s exactly why there needs to be immutable laws that protect the individual rights of every citizen no matter what Government gets elected;

Oh… you want a religion. The one great thing about Divine Law is of course that ordinary mortals and the ordinary govts they elect don’t get to have any say about it. At least in principle.
cynic 237

28 July 2008 at 7:46 pm

“Happy to answer any more (direct) questions you may have.”

in your world person A is rich and B is starving to death. Which is better, confiscating some property from A and feeding B, or leaving A alone and watching B starve to death?
RedLogix 238

28 July 2008 at 8:14 pm

I wonder if G will spot the fact that on at least one level I am being perfectly serious.

If indeed all the peoples of the earth were to become sincere followers of one religion, and the vast majority of us strove throughout our lives to live up to the high ideals and standards that are embodied at the heart of all the major religions… then indeed his “liberatarian” paradise would be possible.

If only all people took genuine responsibility for their own lives, and served those in the community around them then the need for government as we currently know it would be much reduced. In such a world we would undertake voluntarily those services to others that we currently abdicate to government.

But of course the great paradox from a Libertarian point of view, is that such a society is pre-conditioned by the requirement that all submit to the Will of God.
G 239

28 July 2008 at 8:20 pm

“contains NO MECHANISM OF PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Sure it does dipshit. It’s called the Law.”

I’ll believe it when I see it, Pascal. Please cite the law or the principle, as I have done.

“That’s where rights come from, or do you think you can have rights that aren’t created and protected by society in some way or another.”

As I quoted above: “A right, by definition, is a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.” The Chickawa had a moral right to their land that was not created by the society that confiscated it.

“As we’ve seen, the Americans’ property rights (such as they are) are created and protected by their constitution, which they created. Is that why they are not an example of your system?”

Good god, P, how many times do I have to repeat myself? They protect property rights better than anyone, but they need to plug the loophole that permits society from confiscating land like the Chickawa’s. Don’t you agree?

“How would you compensate the Chickawa tribes G? Through Taxation? Then what about your private property rights?”

If I went back to America I would accept that the condition for my return would be a portion of tax for the debt outstanding to the Native Americans (if indeed there even is one).

“What about the nomadic tribes g? Are their hunting grounds and the like fair game?”

This goes back to the question: does America own the moon because it has periodically roamed around its surface? Should America own Antarctica because an American was first to land there?

In an ideal world, the European settlers should have negotiated with the Indians, rather than just annexing the entire region. The fact is, the Plains Indian’s way of life was tenuous, brutal and quite short, unable to even look after their old who were left out in the snow to die. Theirs was a savage martial culture that didn’t respect the property of tribes like the Chickawa, the likes from whom they stole, murdered and enslaved. They were so primitive they hadn’t even figured out the life-giving benefits of settling and farming. Had they done so, their bona fide claim to property would have been without question.

You keep mentioning my contradiction, Pascal, without actually substantiating it. Proof please.

Now, as I’ve been so forthcoming with you, would you please, once and for all, answer this question:

You say, “Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.’

Why not? According to you, “An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.’ What if society determined it would confiscate the Chickawa farmer’s land?

Would that be justified, Pascal?
Pascal's bookie 240

28 July 2008 at 8:44 pm

I’ll tell you what a society that constucted a system based on Pascal’s bookies ideas would do.

Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.

Dude, you are deeply confused about what we are talking about, as Vanilla explained.

Read the italicised phrase of the quote above. The bit you don’t quote. The bit that does all the work. The hypothetical bookiean society would be operating under hard and fast laws determined by my ideas. If those rules were to change, it would no longer be that society.

What you are stubbornly refusing to address is that you face the same problem that you perceive mine to face. In your hypothetical libertarian paradise the rules still need to be established and enforced. They can never be immutable. That is just a fact.

What do you think the DOI is about? This very fact. No matter how well a system is set up humans will eventually fnck it up. Power corrupts etc and a revolution of some form may need to take place. Or revolution / change may happen because the original system couldn’t account for some future need or desire of the people. Your immutable Laws would not only lead to a decaying, unresponsive and stagnant existence, they would deprive the citizens of the rights alluded to in the DOI. Which you claim to love.

How exactly would you stop people from ever wanting reform g? Psycho-tropic drugs perhaps? Education camps? Please don’t tell me they just won’t ever want change.

How would libertarians deal with a Hitler next door? Voluntary mobilisation and taxation? Good fucking luck.

Are you really suggesting that once you set things up no human will ever seek to change the system? Ever?

You think that your society would be an eternal utopia, and that is one of the things you have in common with the communists, who also sometimes make the same mistake that you are making. The idea that you are so damn clever that your system is perfect justice for all time and circumstance. (we’ll leave aside the fact that it’s never been attempted)

When I say that:

“An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers.’

I am explicitly and deliberately not making any judgment about what form the society takes. This is not in order to be evasive you twat. It’s in order to make sense. That statement is about how all societies actually operate in reality. How systems of rights come to be and function.

You are babbling away about hypothetical societies that don’t exist, and pretending that the only ‘real’ property rights are private ones. Just like communists assume the only ‘real’ property rights are communal ones. That’s the big thing you have in common.

I was wrong about one thing earlier, and by about an order or two of magnitude. You are not 17 different flavours of stupid.

The other mistake I may have made is in assuming you were :

a) arguing in good faith, and

b) not a troll.

But maybe it’s just the stupid thing. It’s one of the three though.
G 241

28 July 2008 at 8:50 pm

Red, I believe in the separation of church and state, so I have no idea where you’re going with this line. If the word ‘immutable’ has confused you, let me put you straight: it comes from the Latin immutabilis; in as in ‘not’, mutabilis as in ‘mutable’. In other words, something that cannot ever be changed, no matter how many people vote against it.

Cynic, I’ll answer your question when you answer the one that’s actually on topic:

Do you think society has the right to confiscate property (like the Chickawa’s land) if the majority so decides?
Pascal's bookie 242

28 July 2008 at 8:57 pm

“They protect property rights better than anyone, but they need to plug the loophole that permits society from confiscating land like the Chickawa’s. Don’t you agree?”

How do they protect them again g? Through the constitution right? The constitution that they wrote and ratified and which establishes those imperfect property rights. (but also allows the govt to interfere with property as per the 5th amendment).

That’s what the rights are based on. That’s what gets argued in court. It’s a construction of American society and would be so still, even if they closed the loopholes. Do you not see this?
G 243

28 July 2008 at 9:04 pm

Okay, Pascal, you said, “I’ll tell you what a society that constucted a system based on Pascal’s bookies ideas would do. Like you we wouldn’t have taken the land in the first place, we also wouldn’t have taken the land off the nomadic tribes.’

Why not? Why not? Why the fuck not?

(Honestly, the only one not acting in good faith here and behaving like a troll is you! Why won’t you give me your REASON, your PRINCIPLE, as to why you wouldn’t take it off them? Do you even know what a principle is?)
G 244

28 July 2008 at 9:09 pm

“They protect property rights better than anyone, but they need to plug the loophole that permits society from confiscating land like the Chickawa’s. Don’t you agree?’

You see, Pascal, that was a really straightforward question.

Yes or no?
cynic 245

28 July 2008 at 9:16 pm

“Cynic, I’ll answer your question when you answer the one that’s actually on topic: Do you think society has the right to confiscate property (like the Chickawa’s land) if the majority so decides?”

No – no one should confiscate from the dirt poor, only if disparity between rich and poor exists.

So answer my question – A is rich and won’t help B who is starving to death. Which is better
1. confiscating some property from A and feeding B or
2. leaving A alone and watching B starve to death

If you answer 2 congrats youre a true libertarian, if 1 congrats you just invented taxes.
Pascal's bookie 246

28 July 2008 at 9:20 pm

All sorts of reasons g. Sovereignty issues, the type of property and human rights my society would construct and so on and so forth.

You seem to think I am prevaricating by not answering these questions, and yet I keep telling you that I’m not answering because they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not rights are social constructs.

It’s a distraction g.

Now you are going to be tempted to ask me ‘what type of property rights, would you have and how would you justify them?”

Which is equally irrelevant.

It was to avoid that pointless sidetrack that I haven’t been answering. To keep focused on the question at hand. Which is would those property rights be a social construction, like they are in every society that has yet existed ( I say yes), or would they be something else and what might that be? (fuck knows)

The opposite of trolling if you like.
G 247

28 July 2008 at 9:23 pm

“No – no one should confiscate from the dirt poor, only if disparity between rich and poor exists.”

Hang on, Cynic, so your answer is in fact ‘yes’, society does have the right to confiscate property if the majority so decides.
Pascal's bookie 248

28 July 2008 at 9:34 pm

“They protect property rights better than anyone, but they need to plug the loophole that permits society from confiscating land like the Chickawa’s. Don’t you agree?’

You see, Pascal, that was a really straightforward question.

Yes or no?

sigh, yes g, it’s a simple question, and yes they should change the constitution or whatever to close the loophole. Why do think this is a difficult question that creates a problem for me? (I thought you were being rhetorical, and thought I’d already answered it in effect when I said that if I had my way they would still be sovereigns on their land.)

To me it’s easy, closing the loophole creates the right.

While the loophole is there there is no right in effect.

You can certainly argue that they have a moral right, but because it couldn’t be protected in reality, that moral right wasn’t worth the paper it wasn’t written on. See, you need to construct a system of rights to be able to say that people actually have them. That’s why I keep saying that if you think of rights as being independent of society, you are not making sense, because it is society that will be protecting them g. Always. Try and think of a counter example.

If society doesn’t construct them somehow, then they don’t exist in any useful way. Which is the only way that matters.

I start work early so I’m signing off now.
G 249

28 July 2008 at 9:45 pm

[edit: reviewing your latest entry]
cynic 250

28 July 2008 at 9:49 pm

“I’ll answer your question when you answer the one”

Liar.
G 251

28 July 2008 at 9:56 pm

Jesus! Pascal, I actually felt a wave of camaraderie wash over me. Maybe we’re not so far removed in our ideologies as I first imagined. 🙂

I must go and eat, and mull over your response. Converse tomorrow.

Regards,

G
G 252

28 July 2008 at 10:00 pm

No, Cynic, I always keep my word.

I will answer your question when you give me something that isn’t a yes/no answer. You can’t have it both ways.

I’ll simplify it for you:

“Do you think society has the right to confiscate property if the majority so decides?’
cynic 253

28 July 2008 at 10:07 pm

Under some circumstances yes. Under others no. It always has the ability to, but dont confuse the ability with the right.

if you want it in one word then yes.

your answer?
Vanilla Eis 254

28 July 2008 at 10:10 pm

Once more, just before bed:

I say: “However, society, at the time of the great expansion westward, did not recognise their claim to the land ‘

You say:

Not so. If they didn’t recognise their claim they wouldn’t have awarded them compensation, which they did under the rules of the 5th.

I emphasise:

“However, society, at the time of the great expansion westward, did not recognise their claim to the land ‘

We’re talking past each other. You read my post perfectly, and still missed the point: Society changes. You can’t legislate one perfect law that will last for all time and cover every possibility. This is the inherent greatness in the constitution – it allows for interpretation, ie it is not fixed in stone, which is what you want to do with your property rights.

Society changes. Society makes the rules. The rules change as society does. If you don’t like the rules in your society you can:

a) work to change them by gathering other like-minded citizens and raising awareness
b) go to a different society.

There are no immutable rights unless society says so. You do realise that, were they willing, the citizens of the United States could force a complete re-write of the constitution and throw out every single amendment? That is their right as a society.

There’s nothing stopping Society from changing the rules, and your idea of setting something in stone is not the solution because it is impossible to predict the wishes of society in the future. All you can do is create a framework for said society to action its wishes. Forcing a future society to adhere completely to your ethos is, well, unethical.

Anyway, I’m bowing out. This is just frustrating – you’re conflating the very different ideas of Society and Social Democracy. I never stated my political stance, yet you seem to think that when I talk of one I talk of the other (Perhaps because our current society seems to be Socially Democratic?) – you need to learn to separate the ideas before this is going to get any further.

Oh, read this before but forgot to comment:

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Vanilla! That’s exactly why there needs to be immutable laws that protect the individual rights of every citizen no matter what Government gets elected; a constitution that prevents society from ever being able to vote in a state that has the power to confiscate property that does not belong to them.

Again, read what I said above – the Constitution can be amended to remove the 5th amendment entirely. They could remove the entire Bill of Rights if there was the support for it in society. You cannot save society from itself. People have the right to inflict terrible rulers on themselves. (Shit, it seems like we’re about to ourselves. I hope the framework is strong enough to withstand Hurricane Key) Those rulers, however, are not society. Society can still decide what parameters a ruler gets to operate in. If the US were remove the 2-term limit then they would be well within their right to elect George 43 for as long as they want – that’s why the forefathers had the foresight to allow the constitution to be amended, because they knew that their society would change. Who could have predicted the rise and fall of prohibition?

Shit, I’m tired and rambling. Point stands: Societies change, and with them they change their shape and purpose. If a society feels that it is best for all property to belong to the government, it is not up to us to say that they are wrong as long as it is the decision of society. If you don’t like it, change society or leave.

I’m out. Night all.

Captcha: Domination on.
Pascal's bookie 255

28 July 2008 at 10:24 pm

“Maybe we’re not so far removed in our ideologies as I first imagined. ”

Oh I think we probably are 😉 I’m pretty influenced by guys like Rawls who I think are closer to being the heirs of Paine and Jefferson than the libertarians are, insofar as they built on the ideas rather than just putting them in a temple to worship.

Let me recalibrate your shakras a little by noting this:

“They protect property rights better than anyone, but they need to plug the loophole that permits society from confiscating land like the Chickawa’s. Don’t you agree?

The bolded bit begs the question !!10NE!

The US constitution makes a pretty good fist of protecting private property rights. But we should not assume that absolute private property rights are the only, or even the best form of property rights. That would be assuming the truth of that which is being attempted to show. The US constitution doesn’t protect communal property rights very well, or the property rights of nomadic tribes over their hunting and fishing grounds and tool making quarries etc.

Just saying. Don’t get distracted.

Are any rights worth having, rights that are constructed by society?
Pascal's bookie 256

28 July 2008 at 10:31 pm

Well said Vanilla.
travellerev 257

29 July 2008 at 9:26 am

Hum, about protecting property G,

Would that be protecting your property or that of the Maori when your ancestors arrived here and had no problem confiscating their “property”.
G 258

29 July 2008 at 12:00 pm

Holy crap, Cynic, I tell you I won’t accept a yes/no answer, so I simplify the question, and now you give me this?!:

“Under some circumstances yes. Under others no. It always has the ability to, but dont confuse the ability with the right. if you want it in one word then yes.”

So that’s a yes, a no, a yes, a maybe, and a definite yes.

Come back when you’ve sorted it out your principle. 🙂
cynic 259

29 July 2008 at 12:05 pm

If it must be in one word G then my answer is yes.

Your turn, stop dodging, in one word, option 1 or 2
G 260

29 July 2008 at 12:15 pm

Travellerev. And yet another opponent steps into the ring. 😉

I advocate protecting everybody’s property, T — that’s what libertarianism and Laissez-faire Capitalism is all about.

But a quick note on your revisionist history: most of the Europeans that came here (none of whom were my ancestors) did their level best o negotiate fair deals with the Maori for their land. Akaroa, for instance, was sold nine times, and a hundred and fifty years later they’re still not satisfied.

But all this goes back to the point I’m trying to make here: if it’s not okay for the European settlers to ‘confiscate’ property of those who rightfully own it, why is it A-Okay for Society to be doing that today?
G 261

29 July 2008 at 12:22 pm

“Shit, I’m tired and rambling. Point stands: Societies change, and with them they change their shape and purpose. If a society feels that it is best for all property to belong to the government, it is not up to us to say that they are wrong as long as it is the decision of society.”

Yes, I wish you could keep it a bit more pithy myself, Van.

And that’s the problem in a nutshell. In that final statement you have just ceded all your power (and mine) to the collective.

The people revolted when the royalty owned everything.

The people revolted when the aristocracy owned everything.

The people revolted when the state owned everything.

And when the people wake up and realise that society owns everything, there will be another revolution.

And that, Vanilla, is why we need to protect private property with a passion.
G 262

29 July 2008 at 12:43 pm

Cynic demands: “So answer my question –

A is rich and won’t help B who is starving to death. Which is better
1. confiscating some property from A and feeding B or
2. leaving A alone and watching B starve to death

If you answer 2 congrats youre a true libertarian, if 1 congrats you just invented taxes.”

Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy. I’m sure if you put on your thinking cap you’d be able to contrive an alternative scenario.

Having said that, you bring up a philosophical point which needs to be made here: do I have a right to exist for my own sake, or am I put on this planet to serve society?

Person A has no moral obligation to spend his entire fortune feeding all the starving B’s in Africa, does he Cynic? If you think he does, may I ask how much of your relative fortune are you giving away? Have you sold your unnecessary TV set yet? I’m sure you don’t really need that carbon-footprinting car of yours, do you? Or is that you only want to give away other people’s money?

[PS: like Rob you haven’t got the first clue about libertarians. We’re the civilised ones; you’re the barbarian at the gate.]
Pascal's bookie 263

29 July 2008 at 12:56 pm

“Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.

… do I have a right to exist for my own sake, or am I put on this planet to serve society?”

Idiot.

“We’re the civilised ones”

Except you’ve never actually built a civilisation even remotely based on your concepts. (And no, The US doesn’t count because according to your logic the constitution potentially gives society the ownership of everything.)

Good bye, fool.
djp 264

29 July 2008 at 1:13 pm

Hi again G…. good to see a robust defence of libertarianism.

Pascal,
You seem to have given up debating and taken up insults instead. The US seems to be the closest to the libertarian ideal (as it was founded) that I have seen (of course the people have let congress trample the constitution in the last 100 years).

There have been a few “civilisations” built on your principals I suppose but they tend to be marked by famines, pogroms, torture, extermination of minorities….. Actually redistribution, isnt that one of your principals, Zimbabwe would be a good example of that in action too

[lprent: Not really. The discussion from what I saw of it was long, involved, and ultimately fell into the agree to disagree category. Hardly unexpected, and I don’t consider personal insult to be personal attack. That is something that is pretty well reserved for the people with nothing to say (and the sysops and moderators who prey on them). ]
Pascal's bookie 265

29 July 2008 at 1:20 pm

djp, read the thread, every insult I’ve made is a conclusion to an argument.

The US might seem to be the closest, but that still means ‘no’ doesn’t it?

Alpha centauri is the closest star to our sun but it’s still a hefty walk.

If you were capable of following the thread you’d know that every society that has existed, (including the US), has been based on a set of rights constructed by the society.

g thinks this isn’t fair or something.

Apparently that’s a ‘robust defence of libertarianism.’

Says it all.

I’ll leave you two clowns to it.
cynic 266

29 July 2008 at 1:35 pm

“Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.”

No it isn’t – it is the real world. You are known as a liar – you promised to answer my question.

So answeer – 1 or 2. Bet you don’t.
djp 267

29 July 2008 at 1:36 pm

If you were capable of following the thread you’d know that every society that has existed, (including the US), has been based on a set of rights constructed by the society.

Actually the US founders acknowledged certain “unalienable rights” which they believed to be above govt/society. I am surprised that you dont know this.
G 268

29 July 2008 at 1:40 pm

Ah, Pascal, I’m missing you already. 🙂 Especially with numbnuts like our resident Commie crackpot, Mr. Cynic, who thinks society should have the right to dispossess people’s property. What he doesn’t get is that once that right is granted, nobody is safe: not the Chickawa; not the Maori; not you or I; and not even himself.

But onto your reply.

“sigh, yes g, it’s a simple question, and yes they should change the constitution or whatever to close the loophole. Why do think this is a difficult question that creates a problem for me? (I thought you were being rhetorical, and thought I’d already answered it in effect when I said that if I had my way they would still be sovereigns on their land.)

To me it’s easy, closing the loophole creates the right.

While the loophole is there there is no right in effect.

This is where you and I are on the same page, Pascal. Indeed, without that loophole being closed there is no right in effect. Where we part is the bit where you suddenly hand society the power to not only reopen the loophole, but allow them into your home to take whatever they so determine.

“You can certainly argue that [the Chickawa] have a moral right, but because it couldn’t be protected in reality, that moral right wasn’t worth the paper it wasn’t written on.”

Well that’s not entirely true. They were covered by the paper that had the 5th on it, and were awarded Just Compensation accordingly.

“See, you need to construct a system of rights to be able to say that people actually have them. That’s why I keep saying that if you think of rights as being independent of society, you are not making sense, because it is society that will be protecting them g. Always. Try and think of a counter example.”

The Chickawa farmer. He stopped roaming around the place, built a hut, plowed his field and raised a family. This was completely independent of the society burgeoning on the other side of his country. This is why the Chickawa example is a good one to use, because it identifies the natural right. Is there anyone among you who would deny him this ‘natural right’ to carry on in peace and liberty? Is there none among you who would defend his ‘natural right’ in the face of any law that might be written that would deny him his land and livelihood and way of life?

I think not. I believe all you Social Dems (or whatever you want to call yourself, P) are genuinely good at heart, and well meaning (with the exception of the malevolent Robinsod fellow). I believe all of you (even Mr. Cynic) think the Chickawa farmer should have been left alone in his private paradise.

Remember a ‘right’, by definition, is a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. Until the Constitution was written the Chickawa had no legal rights, but that doesn’t matter because he qualifies for the moral right; having determined with his own mind, to plow this unused natural resource with his own labour.

Libertarians believe he should be allowed the right to reap all that he sows.

Socialists and all their watered down variants believe that society has a right to take whatever they so determine.

“Are any rights worth having, rights that are constructed by society?”

Absolutely. The laws which convert a moral right into a legal right; the laws which prevent society picking on the individual who’s getting on with his life and not harming anyone else.
cynic 269

29 July 2008 at 1:50 pm

“I’ll answer your question when you answer the one’

Liar.

You hold property more sacred than life.

Or answer 1 or 2
G 270

29 July 2008 at 1:50 pm

Oh dear, Pascal, I didn’t get to your point fast enough it seems. Hope you do come back.

Just to clarify a misconception here:

“Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.

… do I have a right to exist for my own sake, or am I put on this planet to serve society?’

Idiot.

Yes, shame about the insults, but do I admire your passion! 🙂

It appears you think I’ve presented a false dichotomy. Not so. Either I’m allowed to live for my own sake, or I have to live for the sake of others. There’s no in-between, I’m afraid — like there’s no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.
G 271

29 July 2008 at 1:53 pm

Thank you, DJP, and right on the money!!: “Actually the US founders acknowledged certain “unalienable rights’ which they believed to be above govt/society. I am surprised that you dont know this.”
G 272

29 July 2008 at 2:10 pm

Cynic pouts: “Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.’

No it isn’t – it is the real world. You are known as a liar – you promised to answer my question.

So answeer – 1 or 2. Bet you don’t.”

No, that’s right, Cynic; I didn’t say “1” or “2”. And that’s because it’s a hole, which by the way, you fall right into yourself. How do I know this? Because a thousand people starved to death yesterday and you (a rich man in their eyes) did absolutely nothing about it.

“You hold property more sacred than life.”

See, Cynic, this is what you’ll never understand. Property is life. Every minute you spend in labour, earning your crust, your wages, your property, is your life. It’s not the only aspect of your life (as someone conflated earlier); everyone spends time doing things in their leisure — but that’s not what’s at stake here, is it?
cynic 273

29 July 2008 at 2:28 pm

“So answeer – 1 or 2. Bet you don’t.

No, that’s right, Cynic; I didn’t say “1â€³ or “2â€³.”

You said you would answer and you wont – liar.

Bully people into answering your questions, promise to answer theirs, then refuse to answer. Like most bullys you ar e also a coward.

You are a coward because you wont face the consequnences of your libertarian beliefs – that it values property more than life.

Are all libertarians liars and cowards or is that just you?

Answer the question.
G 274

29 July 2008 at 3:19 pm

National Socialists are holding guns to childrens’ heads. You can save one. Which one is better: the boy or the girl?

Cynic, you’re asking me to rule on something where neither of your so-called choices is particularly savoury — it’s a false dichotomy:

“A is rich and won’t help B who is starving to death. Which is better
1. confiscating some property from A and feeding B or
2. leaving A alone and watching B starve to death”

Your only remedy to help the starving is to steal from the rich, and you think I’m the bully?

“… it is the real world.”

Yeah?! You want to see how the real world works, pal? Ask Bill Gates this question. Or Ted Turner. Or how about Warren Buffet. Every one of these super-wealthy capitalists has voluntarily donated billions to the starving — without you having to steal it from them.

And what have you done, Cynic? Ask yourself why you have the luxury of a computer, a fully stocked fridge and a TV while millions sit on the brink of extinction.

Despite the fact your sidebar is a trolling sabotage, I’ve taken the time to provide a number of well thought-out replies to your question, Cynic, and if that’s not appreciated you can go fuck yourself.
cynic 275

29 July 2008 at 3:28 pm

My question illustrates a fundamental choice which distinguishes between different political philosophies, yours does not. My question has an answer that 99% of the world agrees on, yours does not.

The answer to my question is tax the rich A and feed the poor B. 99% of the world agress on this. You can’t give that answer because you love the property of the rich more than the lives of the poor.

You said you would answer my question and you wont – liar.

” you can go fuck yourself.”

Wassmater G – losing it?

Answer the question.
G 276

29 July 2008 at 5:32 pm

“99% of the world agress on this.”

Utter twaddle.
cynic 277

29 July 2008 at 5:39 pm

That the best you can do?

Face up to the consequences of your beliefs. Stop lying and evading and answer the question that you said you would answer.

But you cant. You’re not honest enough to do it.
DS 278

29 July 2008 at 7:02 pm

G, could you please answer my earlier question about me buying up land around your house and then stopping you leaving. What comes first under that scenario: my right to assert my property rights or your right to life?
G 279

29 July 2008 at 7:15 pm

“A is rich and won’t help B who is starving to death. Which is better
1. confiscating some property from A and feeding B
or
2. leaving A alone and watching B starve to death.’
or
3. Bill Gates. Ted Turner. Warren Buffet.
or (the best option by far)
4. Gates & Co. keep doing what they do best — and instead of just giving away all those billions, they pour it into creating even more economic wealth in undeveloped countries which will generate better infrastructure and more employment for starving people like B.

That is an answer, and it is final. But just so I never have to come back to this bullshit…

“A false dichotomy involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.”

I presented two alternate options, and *poof* goes your smarty-man dilemma. Now pull that tiny head in, Cynic.
G 280

29 July 2008 at 7:39 pm

“G, could you please answer my earlier question about me buying up land around your house and then stopping you leaving. What comes first under that scenario: my right to assert my property rights or your right to life?”

You’re not entitled to imprison someone, if that’s what you’re getting at. And if it was, by some stretch of the imagine, legal, then I’m sure the Westpac chopper would get to me before I expired.

It’s a bizzaro world dilemma, DS. Can you give me a practical example of where something like this has happened? I can only think of this one: http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/03/nail_house.html … and everyone survived. 🙂
Robinsod 281

29 July 2008 at 7:48 pm

Libertarians are funny.
G 282

29 July 2008 at 7:55 pm

Social Democrats aren’t. 🙂
Robinsod 283

29 July 2008 at 7:57 pm

I agree. But on occasions their cardigans have given me much mirth.
G 284

29 July 2008 at 8:14 pm

Now, that was actually funny. And here I was thinking you were just all hiss and spit, Mr. Sod! 🙂
DS 285

29 July 2008 at 8:46 pm

“You’re not entitled to imprison someone, if that’s what you’re getting at. And if it was, by some stretch of the imagine, legal, then I’m sure the Westpac chopper would get to me before I expired.”

I’m not imprisoning anyone. I’m enforcing my property rights by ensuring that you don’t have the right to cross my land without my permission. Similarly, I am not interfering with any of your property rights. As for the realism of the scenario, it doesn’t have to be based on anything – it’s simply a thought experiment that points out a scenario where property rights and right to life are incompatible.

I also think it’s kind of cute that you have to appeal to the Westpac heliocopter. Are you suggesting that Libertarianism is only viable if people have access to the Westpac Rescue Helicopter, and only if the helicopter is allowed to invade the airspace over my property?
G 286

29 July 2008 at 11:37 pm

“As for the realism of the scenario, it doesn’t have to be based on anything – it’s simply a thought experiment that points out a scenario where property rights and right to life are incompatible.”

Okay then, well luckily I’ve almost finished building my matter transporter, but in the meantime I have my atomic train (which Cullen didn’t get his stinky hands on) that tunnels directly through the Earth’s core and pops out in that other plot of land I have in Oxford, England, which has access to a road. Phew! You almost had me there, DS! 🙂

[Incidentally, what childhood trauma made you such a malevolent creep that you’d prefer to see me starve to death than allow me access out of my own property? Perhaps you and Cynic could get a couples therapy discount or something.]

I miss you, Pascal. You’ve buggered off and left me with the kids.
cynic 287

30 July 2008 at 12:16 am

“I presented two alternate options, and *poof* goes your smarty-man dilemma.”

You said you would answer my question and now you wont. Liar.

You hounded me to answer your question with a simple yes and now you refuse to answer. Hypocrite.

You can’t answer my question because you can’t acknowledge that the property of the rich means more to you than the lives of the poor. Libertarian. Why not just admit it G? What are you afraid of? That’s what liberariansm means G. That’s what it is.

” Now pull that tiny head in, Cynic.”

Make me.
G 288

30 July 2008 at 1:56 am

“cynic: from Latin cynicus, from Greek kunikos; popularly taken to mean â€˜doglike, churlish,’ kuÅn, kun- â€˜dog’ becoming a nickname for a Cynic.”

Woof, woof.
RedLogix 289

30 July 2008 at 6:26 am

But on occasions their cardigans have given me much mirth.

Wots so funny buster? My mum knits me lovely ones.
cynic 290

30 July 2008 at 9:40 am

“Woof, woof.”

G has gone barking mad. Too bad, the kid had some potential. He’s not a true libertarean because he cant answer with 2. He has enough of a vestigial conscience left that he just cant bring himself to do it. And that gives some hope for his salvation.

But he also cant answer with 1, because he’s a greedy selfish libertarian.

So all he can do is evade and lie and evade and posture. Sad.

You’re never going to answer the question G, so the second question you should ask yourself, quietly, in a private chat with that tiny corner of your conscience that you havc left, is WHY YOU CANT ANSWER THE QUESTION? Know thyself.

Go now, have the last word so that you win G. Knock yourself out.

Links to post

The Standard 2.01: The Standard Week: 18-25 July: posted on 25 July 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comments are now closed

Articles RSS

CommentsOpinions

FeedsPartyGovtMedia

Treasury warns deeper recession worsening Budget deficit

The gift that keeps giving: David Seymour has now opened a split in the coalition over the future of National’s promise to build a new medical school. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / TheKakaKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

2 hours ago
Weekly Roundup 22-November-2024

It’s another Friday and we’re inching closer to the end of the year. Here’s some of the stories that have caught our attention this week. This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and ...

Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland

3 hours ago
Beyond Question?

Record Numbers: The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, which began at the tip of the North, and the tail of the South, on 11 November, culminated outside Parliament on Tuesday, 19 November 2024, in one of the largest demonstrations in New Zealand’s political history.ACCORDING TO TE ARA, the Ministry of Culture ...

Bowalley Road

4 hours ago
The Rush To Blame “The Activists”

Activists are such easy scapegoats. The right and center have been conditioned for decades to roll their eyes at all protests. The left are easily aggravated over students leading movements they see as belonging to grownups, who have more important concerns like the economy and whether the trains come on ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

4 hours ago
Cutting Through An Inundation of Dipshit Racists

Hi,Watching New Zealand from afar offers a strange perspective. It can be a good thing — distance from Aotearoa helped keep me sane while I reported on abuse at New Zealand’s biggest megachurch over the course of a year. It helps fuel my silly podcast. But it can also be ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

5 hours ago
This is bad news

The speech yesterday by Treasury’s Chief Economic Advisor warning that the books are in worse shape than forecasted looks like it’s part of a softening-up process for either more cuts or a longer wait to get back into surplus. The speech was a highly unusual public preview of Treasury’s Half-Yearly ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

6 hours ago
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #47 2024

Open access notables Projected increase in the frequency of extremely active Atlantic hurricane seasons, Lopez et al., Science Advances: Future changes to the year-to-year swings between active and inactive North Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) seasons have received little attention, yet may have great societal implications in areas prone to hurricane ...

Skeptical Science

15 hours ago
Chicken Kiev

Chatting in the supermarket this morning, I found I needed to lunge for the chicken drumsticks.Coping mechanisms: who hasn’t felt a greater need for them lately?When it all gets too much, I turn to demonstrating handy butchery hacks.It wasn’t that she’d said anything wrong, our friend, not at all. We ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

19 hours ago
The year is 2024 and it’s 1984

This is written in response to the highly significant open letter from a group of economists that was today addressed to Christopher Luxon. The year is 2024, and it’s 1984. The country is reeling from a record Olympic medal gold haul, while the globe grapples with the choice of the ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

19 hours ago
The IPCA has failed

Back in 2022, RNZ took an in-depth look at the "Independent" Police Conduct Authority and its handling of killings by police. These are the most serious test of oversight, and you would expect the police's use of lethal force to receive the most severe scrutiny. But despite the police regularly ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

23 hours ago
Thursday 21 November 2024

The Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti arrived at Parliament on Tuesday – the size is being debated but estimates range from 42,000 to 100,000. The Prime Minister is defending not attending due to some of the organisers being affiliated with Te Pāti Māori. The national gang patch ban came into force ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

24 hours ago
‘These budget cuts are counter-productive and make no sense’

I spoke to former Productivity Chair Nana this morning about the letter he and a group of other economists sent to PM Christopher Luxon to urge the Government to urgently suspend cuts to spending and investment for the sake of the economy, struggling businesses and the wellbeing of vulnerable ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 day ago
ACT’s Astroturfing & A Co-ordinated Attack on Te Pati Māori

Unity on the Streets / Unity at the TableAfter the Hīkoi, all three right wing Coalition leaders came together to push the idea that the 42,000 - 50,000 + strong Hikoi was somehow less potent and brave, and more illegitimate than the energy and crowd displayed.Prime Minister Christopher Luxon 20-November: ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui

1 day ago
Durability of carbon dioxide removal is critical for stabilizing temperatures

This is a re-post from the Climate Brink The world is emitting over 40 gigatons of CO2 per year, contributing to an accelerating warming of the planet. The world needs to cut emissions rapidly to be remotely on track to meet our Paris Agreement goals of limiting warming to well-below 2C, and we ...

Skeptical Science

1 day ago
I Love My Leather Jacket

I wear my leather jacket like a great big hugRadiating charm - a living cloak of luckIt's the only concrete link with an absent friendIt's a symbol I can wear 'till we meet againOr it's a weight around my neck while the owner's freeBoth protector and reminder of mortalityIt's a ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

1 day ago
Throwback Thursday: Will “Auckland Transport” Survive?

With Auckland Transport’s future up in the air under Mayor Wayne Brown’s proposed CCO reform, we’ve dug way back into the archives, to unearth this post originally published in March 2010. As you’ll see, many of the debates that were being had when AT was first proposed continue to ...

Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland

1 day ago
Economists call on PM to suspend budget cuts for the sake of the economy

Nicola Willis’ budget cuts are under fire from economists for having no clear rationale and worsening the recession. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Thursday, November 21: The news at ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 day ago
The end of policing by consent

National has appointed a new police commissioner. And he explicitly rejects policing by consent: Asked if he subscribed to policing by consent, he said he did not. “I don’t talk about policing by consent. I talk about trust and confidence, and it is fundamentally important that the police have ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

2 days ago
The Treaty Principles Bill: A Who’s Who

David Horatio Waterbed SeymourFringe politician and dweeb transformed successfully by ThinkTank money into a well-oiled soundbite robot.Currently programmed to say: Equal rights for all New Zealanders Equal rights for all New Zealanders Equal rights for all New Zealanders Was previously programmed to say:I am a proud libertarian andI am a ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

2 days ago
Kinleith mill closure shows need for industrial strategy

NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi President Richard Wagstaff is calling on the Government to deliver an economic and industrial strategy for regional manufacturing, rather than just expressing sympathy for job losses, following the announced closure of Kinleith mill in Tokoroa. “The closure Kinleith mill in Tokoroa is not just devastating for ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

2 days ago
27% of kids going hungry, up from 21% in a year

One in four Kiwi children live in households where food runs out often or sometimes. Photo: Getty ImagesKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, November 20: The lead: The official annual Health Survey found sharp ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

2 days ago
Transport modelling is an illusion

This guest post by Tim Adriaansen, an advocate for accessibility and sustainable transport, originally published on LinkedIn and cross posted here with permission. People prefer cars, right? Probably not. Here’s why. Granted, most people in English-speaking countries use a car to get around. This simple reality underpins our transport ...

Greater AucklandBy Guest Post

2 days ago
Young Maori take over

Neither Wellington nor Parliament has ever seen anything like it before. The Police said there were more than 40,000 but however many there were, yesterday’s Hikoi to Parliament was a monumental event. It was almost three times the Foreshore and Seabed martch of 2004 and many,many times bigger than ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

2 days ago
Gordon Campbell On The Hikoi Aftermath

The euphoria from yesterday’s hikoi may be transitory, but is no less valuable for that. It is pretty rare for the left to feel itself to be in the overwhelming majority, and speaking as the voice of the people. Lest that momentum be lost, the organisers will no doubt be ...

WerewolfBy ScoopEditor

3 days ago
Sabin 33 #3 – Solar panels generate too much waste and will overwhelm landfills

On November 1, 2024 we announced the publication of 33 rebuttals based on the report "Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles" written by Matthew Eisenson, Jacob Elkin, Andy Fitch, Matthew Ard, Kaya Sittinger & Samuel Lavine and published by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia ...

Skeptical Science

3 days ago
What’s the time Mr Seymour?

Mr David Seymour crawling up to the ceilingThe sun don't shine the sun don't shine the sun don't shine at allMamma Pappa say you should go to school, I don't know what forNow that I've grown up and seen the world and all its liesSong: Southside of Bombay"Ake, ake, ake" ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

3 days ago
Submit to defend te Tiriti!

The Justice Committee has called for submissions on National's racist and constitutionally radical Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Submissions can be made at the link above or by post, and are due by Tuesday, 7 January 2025. But I'd get in quick, in case National grows a spine ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

3 days ago
We need to talk about Kevin

All happy families are alike; each unhappy family has a Drunk Uncle Kevin in there somewhere. If your Kevin is anything like the ones I know, he was getting along happily enough without having to think too much about the Treaty Principles Bill apart from bloody good job, onya guys ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

3 days ago
The hikoi

Like everyone else (everyone who wasn't there, anyway), I've spent the morning watching the hikoi march on Parliament. The pictures are astounding: parliament grounds and the surrounding streets are full, and there are still people backed up along Lambton Quay. The police are estimating 35,000 people, and that's a floor ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

3 days ago
Why Govt & NZ Inc should boycott & regulate Facebook

The CEOs of Westpac NZ and Kiwibank say Facebook is rife with fraud but reporting scam ads gets no response. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Tuesday, November 19: The ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

3 days ago
How should we talk about change?

A better world isn’t just possible, it’s desirable. And that’s how we should frame a lot of our conversations around making a greater Auckland. As an example take urban climate action. A climate friendly Auckland: Is free from congestion Enables people to travel how they choose Is filled with ...

Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp

3 days ago
AMA + Holiday Webworm Merch!

Hi,It’s AMA time again — so anything that’s on your mind that you wanna ask, ask away in the comments. This is one of my favourite things to do with full Webworm members, who are the heart of this community of Worms. Journalism? Documentary making? Short Poppies? Cats? Podcasting? What ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

3 days ago
Discount Code for Webworm Merch!

Hi,So there’s a bunch of new stuff on the Webworm store (www.webworm.store) — just in time for the Holidays. Read more ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

3 days ago
Trying to defuse the tension

There were urgent moves yesterday at Parliament to try and defuse the tension building up over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. The Bill’s author, ACT leader David Seymour, told reporters that he understood the Justice Select Committee met yesterday to discuss how long it should take to consider submissions on the ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

3 days ago
An Irritable NZ Pawn – David Seymour Admits Treaty Principles Bill will clear the way for deve...

This morning I discovered a post I’d written 10-11 months ago, lamenting how New Zealand’s ACT Party and their foreign and local surrogates would play out anti-Māori propaganda - which I believe they have long prepared for.At the time, it was a plea for action and readiness from my fellow ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui

3 days ago
Gordon Campbell On The Hikoi Arrival, And Tyler Childers

Politicians like to bang on all about the need to heal society’s racial/economic divisions, but in their actions they’re more keen on stoking those divisions, with the Treaty Principles Bill being the classic example. The Bill seeks to dilute the Crown’s responsibilities to Māori at the same time as it ...

WerewolfBy ScoopEditor

4 days ago
Socially Backwards and Fiscally Forwards: the False Ideological Divide and the “Conservative” Li...

Nearly two weeks on from the US election, and we are still mentally wrangling with the results. How did this happen? Which voter demographics went where? What did the Democrats do wrong? Meanwhile here in New Zealand, we’re left wondering how this will apply to us and what this means ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

4 days ago
Kaamos: Accepted

I appreciate that A Phuulish Fellow has been fairly quiet recently. That’s a combination of two things – comparatively little in the way of relevant material to discuss (at least until The War of the Rohirrim comes out next month), and my general work on The Secret Non-Fiction Writing Project. ...

A Phuulish FellowBy strda221

4 days ago
Here’s how governments could fix their Paris climate commitment failures

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections Governments around the world face a conundrum. Virtually none are on track to meet their Paris climate commitments. That includes the United States, which committed to cut its emissions at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 but is only on track for 32-43% cuts ...

Skeptical Science

4 days ago
Unstoppable.

Too Big To Fail: Forty-three years after the 1981 Springbok Tour protests, Maori defenders of te Tiriti, by their own efforts, and using their own resources, are poised to descend on the capital with upwards of 100,000 followers at their back, and no force in front of them even remotely ...

Bowalley Road

4 days ago
Katherine Trebeck – An Alternative Economic Narrative

The era of neoliberalism has been destructive on so many levels, with a huge growth in wealth and privilege for the one percent. A hollowing out of the state; fraying of the safety net; inadequate government investment in infrastructure; and continued environmental degradation has resulted in damage on a vast ...

Fabians

4 days ago
In a Manner of Speaking

In a manner of speakingI just want to sayThat I could never forget the wayYou told me everythingBy saying nothingOh, give me the wordsGive me the wordsThat tell me nothingOh, give me the wordsGive me the wordsThat tell me everythingSongwriter: Winston TongNext Tuesday, the subscription price for Nick’s Kōrero will ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

4 days ago
Monday 18 November 2024

The NZNO have announced a nationwide strike for December over its pay dispute with Health NZ, who have put a 1 per cent cap on pay rises. The Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti and Treaty Principles Bill remain front and centre in the media, with the impacts of the Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke-led ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

4 days ago
Shipley warns Seymour’s bill is ‘inviting civil war’

The divisive Treaty Principles Bill is not just a risk for the National Party, it’s a risk to civil order and unity, warns a National Party grandee. Photo: Getty ImagesKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

4 days ago
A clearer network for the City Rail Link?

This post was originally published on Linked In by Nicolas Reid. It is republished here with permission. Auckland is now just a year or so away from having the keystone of its urban rail network complete. As I wrote about here, the City Rail Link will be a literal game changer for ...

Greater AucklandBy Guest Post

4 days ago
National’s support base is wobbling

If ACT leader David Seymour intended the Treaty Principles Bill to drive a wedge into National’s support base, he may well already be succeeding. By midnight on Thursday after the Maori Party haka in Parliament, National MPs were being deluged with emails and messages from their members calling them out ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

4 days ago
2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46

A listing of 33 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, November 10, 2024 thru Sat, November 16, 2024. Story of the week Our Story of the Week is completely "meta" (no, not that Meta). It's about our exploring how ...

Skeptical Science

5 days ago
Grifter Eftpos Tamaki at it again

..Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Self-appointed “Bishop” and proto-fascist, Brian Tamaki was at it again on 16 November, blocking Auckland’s southern motorway, SH1.This time, the target of his ire wasn’t the Civil Unions Act; covid lock-downs; mask mandates; or ...

Frankly SpeakingBy Frank Macskasy

5 days ago
Rip up a bill, lead a haka are words to live by

I cannot stop grabbing people by the lapels, or shoulders, or similar, and raving at them about the tiny miracles in my ears.I can hear again! There could not be a more satisfied customer in all the world.In a noisy cafe I am even catching words that Karren cannot, she ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

5 days ago
Unintended Consequences

Take the baitYou pay the priceIt's much too lateFor good adviceYou know and I know that our good things' throughBecause there's consequences for what we doConsequences for me and youWriters: Kevin Robert Hayes, David Nagier, Bonnie Adele Hayes.Fallout from the first readingOne News began last night by saying that tens ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

6 days ago
Thank you, driver!

Today, Saturday 16th of November, is Auckland Transport’s Bus Driver Appreciation Day! Saturday 16 November marks the third annual Auckland Transport (AT) ‘Bus Driver Appreciation Day’, and this year we are encouraging all of New Zealand to thank their driver or let the bus go first if you are in ...

Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland

6 days ago
Totally Normal: Holiday Edition

Hi,If I was to accurately sum up my mental state over the week, I’d just say that I got a huge fright from my own shadow.I’d nipped out for an 11pm neighborhood stroll, just to calm down after a day of stress and screens. The Cure and Fazerdaze’s new record ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

6 days ago
We Are Not Listening

The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...

PunditBy Brian Easton

7 days ago
More lawlessness from National

On Tuesday, sick of government stonewalling, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a rare court order, ordering the Minister of Health to release unredacted documents within 48 hours showing its reasoning for disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The government's response to the lawful order of a court? Yeah, ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

7 days ago
National’s tyrannical “foreign interference” law

Yesterday, under cover the the biggest political fight of the year, National quietly - covertly, even - introduced anti-foreign interference legislation. The bill is the product of a years-long work-program aimed at countering shit like this and this, and there's unquestionably a need to do something to counter foreign states' ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

7 days ago
The Haka Represents The Best Of Us

A few months ago, I was in an audience watching a Haka-Kapa and as I watched children dance and sing and sway and shout and beat, I couldn’t help but think “The Haka represents the best of us.”Yes, yes - there will be a thousand voices that rush forth to ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui

7 days ago
Adding up the climate cost

St Mary’s Bay housing left hanging: Climate risk is systemically underestimated in the climate scenarios used by central banks, and a new report warns 10,000 houses are set to become uninsurable in Aotearoa. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, here’s the top six news items of note in ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago
Auckland chafing at Bishop’s housing intensification orders

One of the major problems the Government has in implementing its ‘going for housing growth’ strategy is that it isn’t giving much funding help to councils. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago
Friday 15 November 2024

The Treaty Principles Bill continues to dominate political news, with it passing its first reading in the House. Parliament was briefly suspended and Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for 24 hours after leading a haka that was joined by opposition MPs and the public in the gallery. Willie ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

1 week ago
Weekly Roundup 15-November-2024

Happy Friday, welcome to another round-up of interesting stories about what’s happening in Auckland and other cities. Feel free to add your links in the comments! This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers ...

Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland

1 week ago
Are We The Waiting?

And screamingAre we we are, are we we are the waitingAnd screamingAre we we are, are we we are the waitingForget me nots, second thoughts live in isolationHeads or tails and fairy tales in my mindAre we we are, are we we are the waiting unknownThe rage and love, the ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

1 week ago
The Hoon around the week to November 15

The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the week’s news with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent on the latest climate news, including from COP29 this week; on the US Presidential elections, Israel vs Gaza/Iran/Lebanon, Ukraine/Nato vs Russia/North ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago
First Tea and Toast, now Milo — why do NZ’s best beverages need so much defending?

Only two months ago, Nicola Willis had to step in to stop Health New Zealand cutting tea and toast for post-birth parents, and now Lester Levy is riding to the rescue with a welcome message for all: our health workers can once again drink Milo, and will no longer need ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

1 week ago
Gordon Campbell on the folly of making apologies in a social vacuum.

Day One of the Treaty Principles Bill…and everyone got what they wanted, and did what they liked. Heated words were exchanged. Culturally appropriate acts of outrage were performed. David Seymour got to play the victim card. Willie Jackson got kicked out of class. A comically red-faced Mr Speaker bellowed “Order, ...

WerewolfBy ScoopEditor

1 week ago
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #46 2024

Open access notables Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe, Peixoto et al., Nature Communications [comment]: The climate crisis is escalating. A multitude of microbe-based solutions have been proposed, and these technologies hold great promise and could be deployed along with other climate mitigation strategies. However, these solutions have ...

Skeptical Science

1 week ago
The PM gets some extremely valuable legal advice for free

You can pay a great deal of money for the services of a KC. So just what would some peerless legal writing from 40 or so of them be worth, do you reckon?Priceless, that’s what. It’s not even the half of it, but this is my favourite part of the ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

1 week ago
D-day for the government

The government's Treaty Principles Bill is up for its first reading today - bought forward in a rush in a desperate effort to avoid the hikoi which is currently marching on Wellington. But the Prime Minister won’t be there for it – he’s literally running away to Peru! But he ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

1 week ago
97% of submissions did not want no-cause evictions, Trump chooses a Russian spy for US Intelligence ...

Good morning, and I’m sorry I’ve been away for a couple of days.I’ve been focusing on the Hikoi, and also testing out sentiment on the Treaty Principles Bill. It’s complicated, and the Treaty Principles Bill will be debated in the House today. The Government’s own lawyers have told them the ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui

1 week ago
Government must vote down ACT Members Bill that would undermine workers’ rights

NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi President Richard Wagstaff is calling on the Government to vote down an ACT Party Members Bill that would undermine workers’ rights by making it easier for employers to fire workers. Last week ACT MP Laura Trask’s Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill was ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

1 week ago
Seymour causes thousands of unjustified absences by forcing kids to fight for their rights instead o...

The State would like to remind you that they are in control. They manage your employment prospects, and can destroy the job market you and yours rely on by mass-cancelling construction projects, cutting funding, and firing a good chunk of our public servants. They wield the mechanisms that provide scrutiny ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

1 week ago
The Weight of the World

As the weight of the world Hangs on your shoulders The weight of the world Starts to take over again And over again All that you once loved, now you hate So slowly relearn how to meditate To have and to hold And never let go Can you feel it ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

1 week ago
Thursday 14 November 2024

The Treaty Principles Bill is set to have its First Reading in the House today, as the Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti continues. More than 40 KCs have written to the Prime Minister and Attorney-General outlining their “grave concerns” about the substance of the Treaty Principles Bill, while an academic and ...

NZCTUBy Jeremiah Boniface

1 week ago
Trump’s return to White House brings the climate’s ‘find out’ phase closer

As we absorb the news of Trump's victory in the US Presidential election, here’s a wrap compiled just before the result of what it might mean for climate action: The UN Secretary General says the prospective departure of the United States would cripple the Paris Agreement, likening it to the ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago
Time and Space in the City Centre

Patrick Reynolds is deputy chair of the City Centre Advisory Panel. The header image is from Walthamstow, London The city centre now has a few stretches of street where the space has been repurposed to a people and place focused design from full time traffic use. These are a great ...

Greater AucklandBy Patrick Reynolds

1 week ago
An opportunity for a pro-growth tax switch

As the Hikoi against it swells into the tens of thousands, KCs call on National to kill off ACT’s divisive Treaty Principles Bill. Photo: Getty ImagesKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Thursday, November 14: The ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago

Release: Government should be transparent on live exports

Targeted consultation on reinstating live cattle exports by sea won’t allow the New Zealand public to have their say. ...

Labour Blog

3 hours ago
NZ’s global climate rankings plummet as Govt removes agriculture from ETS

The Government has passed legislation to remove agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) while Aotearoa’s reputation on climate action plummets. ...

Greens

17 hours ago
Failed boot camp experiment must end

As legislation to set up boot camps passed its first reading, the Green Party urged the Government to abandon this failed policy experiment for the good of our rangatahi. ...

Greens

18 hours ago
Gender-affirming care must centre evidence and health needs, not political posturing

The Ministry of Health has today released an evidence brief regarding the use of puberty blockers in gender-affirming healthcare, amid moves by the government to limit access. ...

Greens

19 hours ago
Release: National doesn’t care about manufacturing

The National Government is walking away from our manufacturing sector with constant reports of closures and job losses. ...

Labour Blog

20 hours ago
Release: David Parker speech – Piketty, Inequality and Climate Change

David Parker's speech from the University of Auckland's forum on Piketty, Inequality and Climate Change in September 2024. ...

Labour Blog

20 hours ago
Release: Youth mental wellbeing no longer a priority for Child Poverty Minister

Louise Upston has revealed her diminished vision for vulnerable youth against a backdrop of snubbed advice, scrapped priorities, shifted goal posts and thousands more children projected to fall into poverty. ...

Labour Blog

22 hours ago
Release: National’s lack of climate action taking NZ backwards

National Government’s backward-looking climate policy has seen New Zealand fall seven places on the Climate Change Performance Index to 41 out of 63 countries measured. ...

Labour Blog

22 hours ago
Release: Simple reason for drop in emergency housing

When the Government says it has reduced the number of people in emergency housing, what it means is it is stopping people from accessing it in the first place. ...

Labour Blog

1 day ago
Govt’s child wellbeing strategy ‘shallow and shameful’

The Government is turning its back on children by not only weakening child poverty reduction targets, but also removing child mental wellbeing as a priority focus in their Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. ...

Greens

1 day ago
Release: A historic win for Samoan communities

Labour warmly welcomes the Restoring Samoan Citizenship Bill as it passes its third reading, before becoming law. ...

Labour Blog

1 day ago
Government plan to reinstate live animal exports a “national disgrace”

The Government has taken a giant step backwards by reinstating live animal exports. ...

Greens

2 days ago
Pasifika justice as Member’s Bill passes final reading

Teanau Tuiono’s Member’s Bill, the Citizenship (Western Samoa Restoration) Amendment Bill, has passed its third reading and will become law. ...

Greens

2 days ago
Release: Minister of Education thinks New Zealand ends at the Bombay Hills

The Minister of Education has shown complete disregard for rural communities and their school bus routes in Question Time today. ...

Labour Blog

2 days ago
Economists sound alarm on Government’s slash-and-burn approach

A group of prominent economists has released an open letter to the Government, raising grave concerns about the far-reaching consequences of its fiscal policy. ...

Greens

2 days ago
Release: Smoking numbers up under Costello’s watch

National’s repeal of Labour’s smokefree legislation has taken New Zealand further away from achieving a Smokefree 2025 and a smokefree generation. ...

Labour Blog

2 days ago
Release: Call for Palestine recognition by NZ, Australian and Canadian MPs

Parliamentarians from Australia, Canada and New Zealand have written an open letter to their respective Prime Ministers calling on them to recognise Palestine. ...

Labour Blog

2 days ago
Justice Select Committee opens floor for Treaty Principles submissions

Today, the Justice Select Committee has decided to officially open submissions for the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Greens

3 days ago
Power of the people on full display as hīkoi approaches Parliament

Today, Hīkoi mō te Tiriti arrived in Wellington, with thousands gathering to march in unity against the divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Greens

3 days ago
Hypocrisy as Te Whatu Ora contractor bill balloons

Te Whatu Ora’s bill for contracting and consulting staff has ballooned by nearly 20 percent under the National Government, breaking a promise they made during the election campaign to cut contractors. ...

Labour Blog

4 days ago
Release: Growing pressure to scrap Section 7AA Repeal Bill

The newly released Section 7AA Repeal Bill's select committee report is further evidence that the Government should scrap it. ...

Labour Blog

5 days ago
Government’s move to monetise access to nature a slippery slope

The Green Party is voicing serious concerns over the Government’s proposal to charge for access to public conservation land, released today. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Green Party condemns the passage of Treaty Principles Bill

The Green Party condemns the passing of the Treaty Principles Bill at first reading, and is clear that the fight is not over. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Stand Up for Te Tiriti

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our country’s founding document. It forms the basis of the relationship between Māori and the Crown – and the Aotearoa New Zealand we live in today. ...

Labour Blog

1 week ago
Release: Over 15,000 sign Labour’s open letter to Luxon

As the hīkoi to Parliament continues, Labour has sent an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in a last-ditch attempt to get him to kill the Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Labour Blog

1 week ago
Fast Track Bill threatens environment, climate and reputation

The fast-track legislation passing its second reading in Parliament is another step towards environmental ruin. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Greens join King’s Counsel in calling for Treaty Principles Bill to be abandoned

The Prime Minister must answer the call from a group of senior lawyers of the King’s Counsel to abandon the divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Chris Hipkins’ apology statement to state and faith-based care survivors

...

Labour Blog

1 week ago
Release: Labour formally apologises to state and faith-based care survivors

Labour joins with the Government in unreservedly apologising for the abuse, neglect and trauma including torture in state and faith-based care and for ignoring the voices of survivors for too long. ...

Labour Blog

1 week ago
Green Party stands in support of survivors of abuse in care

Today, the Green Party stands alongside the survivors of abuse in state care and faith-based care as the Government issues an historic apology. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Green Party calls for conscience vote on Treaty Principles Bill

The Green Party has written to the Speaker of the House requesting he enable a personal vote on the Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Govt move to exclude journalist risks chilling effect

The Green Party is alarmed by the Government’s move to exclude a journalist from covering this week’s apology for the survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Without action, an apology will be empty air

For tomorrow’s apology to survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care to hold any water, the Government must not pursue the same policies that drove the abuse in the first place. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Release: Concerns remain over tobacco interference

Concerns about the tobacco industry’s ability to interfere in government policy making remain, despite the inability of the Office of the Auditor-General to investigate the Government’s decision to halve the excise tax on heated tobacco products. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
Urgent wake-up call on climate

The Climate Change Commission’s latest advice indicates Aotearoa needs to be stepping up on climate action. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Green MP’s Meme-ber’s Bill set to save the world

Break out the punchlines and dust off your meme folder: Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter’s Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill was pulled from the Ballot yesterday. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Release: Poroporoaki: Ta Robert (Bom) Gillies

Kua hinga te manawa kairākau o Te Rua Tekau Ma Waru Tiwhatiwha te po! Kakarauru i te po! Ka rapuhia kei hea koe kua riro! Haere e te Ika a Whiro ki o tini hoa kua ngaro atu ki te Pō ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori call on the Prime Minister to block the Treaty Principles Bill

The opposition parties stand united for an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are working together against the Government’s divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Release: Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori call on the Prime Minister to block the Treaty Principle...

The opposition parties stand united for an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are working together against the Government’s divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
NZ must pursue independent foreign policy

The Green Party says the need is greater than ever for Aotearoa New Zealand to pursue an independent foreign policy. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago

Appointments strengthen Predator Free 2050

The latest Predator Free 2050 Board appointments will help to strengthen biodiversity efforts across Aotearoa New Zealand, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says. Mr Potaka today announced two appointments to the Board of Directors of Predator Free 2050 Limited, a key player in the wider Predator Free 2050 Programme. “The Predator ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

1 hour ago
New facility in Christchurch will improve the lives of young New Zealanders

Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey today opened Kahurangi, an innovative and much-needed facility for Canterbury’s Child, Adolescent, and Family Mental Health Services. “The new state of the art outpatient facility opened today will be a gamechanger for the way mental health is delivered for young people in Canterbury,” says Mr ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

1 hour ago
Driver safety screens to be installed on Auckland buses

Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) that bus driver protection screens will be installed across Auckland’s bus fleet by 2026.“The Government is committed to improving the safety of working environments for bus drivers, and Budget 2024 allocated $15 million of Crown funding over ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 hours ago
Government action provides Southland farmers more time to meet plan requirements

The Government is taking action to ensure Southland farmers and growers are not affected by unreasonable regional farm plan deadlines, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard say.“Cabinet has agreed to provide more time for farmers and growers to comply with regional rules ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

18 hours ago
Bill reaffirms Government’s commitment to crack down on serious youth offending

The Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Bill had its first reading at Parliament today. The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to crack down on serious youth offending, Minister for Children Karen Chhour says. “In recent years we have seen an unacceptable spike in youth offending. “This Bill makes ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

19 hours ago
Critical milestones for earthquake buildings review

Fairer, more sensible rules about managing earthquake risks are a step closer with the passing of legislation and the appointment of an independent chair to provide expert advice, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The Government is committed to reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth, ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

19 hours ago
State of the art radiology machine for Auckland

People in Northland and Auckland will benefit from a new machine for cancer treatment installed at the Regional Cancer and Blood Service at Auckland City Hospital. The MV5 linear accelerator, or LINAC machine, officially opened today targets cancer tumours with pinpoint accuracy. Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says this new, ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

20 hours ago
Foreign Minister to visit Europe

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Europe for high-level talks with France, Germany and the United Kingdom next week. "Since taking office almost a year ago, the Coalition Government has emphasised the importance we place on New Zealand's traditional and likeminded diplomatic and ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

20 hours ago
First arrests made under gang patch ban

Police have made their first arrests under the new gang patch legislation, with two gang members arrested, says Police Minister Mark Mitchell. “Just before 11 this morning, Police in Wairoa apprehended a gang member for wearing a patch to the supermarket. He has been arrested and will now face enforcement ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

22 hours ago
Better support for victims of sexual violence

The Government is proposing two major changes to name suppression laws that will put the views of victims of sexual violence first, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “We are committed to restoring law and order and these two proposed changes will help ensure the victims of crime are put at ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

22 hours ago
Government moving forward with Regional Deals

Cabinet has agreed to invite all regions to submit proposals for Regional Deals between central and local government that drive economic growth and deliver the infrastructure our country needs, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop say. Inviting all regions to propose a Regional Deal that boosts ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

23 hours ago
MSA pilot participant update

One of the ten young men selected to participate in the Military-Style Academy Pilot has allegedly reoffended. Children’s Minister Karen Chhour is disappointed but says it would be naïve to think that none of these young men would reoffend. “I’m saddened that this young person has not taken this opportunity ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

23 hours ago
Fighting for Kiwis in Trade

Delivered at Auckland Trade and Economic Policy School Good morning and thank you Deputy Vice Chancellor Lithander for your warm welcome and for inviting me to open Auckland Trade and Economic Policy School today. A Special thanks to the University of Auckland, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

1 day ago
Attendance rates increase, again

Associate Education Minister David Seymour says that school attendance is continuing to rise. In Term 3 of 2024 51.3 per cent of students attended school regularly, an increase of 5.3 percentage points from 46 per cent in Term 3 of 2023. “This Government has prioritised student attendance and it is ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

1 day ago
Improving the lives of young New Zealanders

Ensuring New Zealand is the best place in the world for children and young people is the vision at the heart of the Government’s new Child and Youth Strategy, Child Poverty Reduction Minister Louise Upston says. “Childhood represents a huge opportunity to set people on a positive path towards living ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

1 day ago
Government continues work to reinstate livestock exports by sea

The Government is reinstating the trade of livestock exports by sea while ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare, says Associate Minister of Agriculture Andrew Hoggard.“The Government will introduce legislation changes to reinstate the trade, enhance oversight, and strengthen requirements for exporters to identify risks and manage the welfare of ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
Speech to the National Quality Forum 2024

Tēnā koutou katoa – it is a pleasure to be here today. I would like to begin by acknowledging the important leadership role you all play in ensuring a quality health system New Zealanders can trust. There is enormous clinical expertise in this room covering a wide range of disciplines. ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
New Zealand’s COP29 National Statement

Tēnā koutou katoa. Mr President, Excellencies, Delegates. New Zealand, and all nations represented here today, are already dealing with the impacts of climate change. Our households, businesses, and economies are bearing the costs of its effects. The choices we make now will shape the severity of these impacts for generations ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
Latest Quarterly Investment Report released

The Government has released its second Quarterly Investment Report (QIR) which shows substantial work still to be done by agencies to improve investment reporting and meet the Government’s expectations, Infrastructure and Acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “New Zealand has significant infrastructure and investment needs. The Government is determined to get ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
New Zealand supporting loss and damage fund

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced New Zealand will contribute NZ$10 million to the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage while at the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. “New Zealand is joining the global effort to address the significant challenge of responding to ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
Gang crackdown begins at stroke of midnight

The free ride for gangs is over when the clock strikes midnight tonight, with tough new laws officially coming into effect, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Police Minister Mark Mitchell say. “Gang patches will no longer be able to be worn in public. To earn the right to wear a ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
LGFA increases borrowing capacity to support high growth councils

The Government is welcoming the decision by the Local Government Funding Agency to increase access to financing tools for fast growing councils to support greater investment in critical infrastructure, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says.“Communities across the country are facing an infrastructure deficit and significant population growth is projected in ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
Temporary Traffic Management costs revealed

The Government has revealed that over the past three years, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has spent an eyewatering $786 million of taxpayers’ money on road cones and temporary traffic management (TTM), Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“When I became Minister, I was surprised to learn that that NZTA did ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

2 days ago
Jurisdiction of Disputes Tribunal to double

Legislation that will double the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000 has passed first reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. “We need to improve court timeliness and access to justice so that Kiwis and get on with their lives. Court delays affect everyone, the ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Protecting New Zealand from foreign interference

Legislation that will specifically criminalise foreign interference and strengthen espionage offences has passed first reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “It is normal and appropriate for states to interact and work to influence one another. This encourages cooperation and can have mutually beneficial outcomes. “However, the reality ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Significant milestone for Canterbury Road of National Significance

Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news that the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Board has approved funding towards pre-implementation and early works on the State Highway 1 (SH1) Belfast to Pegasus Motorway and Woodend Bypass Road of National Significance (RoNS). “Reaching this significant milestone is a reflection of our Government’s ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Health survey results to help drive change

Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says findings from the annual Health Survey highlight the need to continue driving better health outcomes for New Zealanders. The New Zealand Health Survey is an annual snapshot of key metrics measured from July 2023 – July 2024. Findings released this morning include: In 2023/24, ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Final push needed to get to Smokefree 2025

A renewed effort to get people to quit smoking will build on what has worked to date and target the groups who most need support, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said today. “The latest New Zealand Health Survey results show the daily smoking rate at 6.9 per cent and we ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
New diplomatic appointments

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced four new diplomatic appointments. “Our diplomats play an important role in ensuring New Zealand’s interests are maintained and enhanced across the world,” Mr Peters says. “It is a pleasure to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Next steps for Regulatory Standards Bill

Regulation Minister David Seymour has today announced the next steps in the Government’s plan improve the quality of regulation by opening consultation on a proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. “New Zealand's low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation,” says Mr Seymour. ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Red Tape Tipline goes live

Minister for Regulation David Seymour has today announced that the Ministry for Regulation’s Red Tape Tipline is now live. “We want to hear about your red tape horror stories. From today, New Zealanders will have a say on how they are regulated through an online portal,” says Mr Seymour. The ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Youth Parliament 2025 announced

The Minister for Youth Matt Doocey has today announced the eleventh Youth Parliament will be taking place in 2025. “Youth Parliament offers a unique youth development opportunity to young people from across New Zealand to experience the political process and learn about how government works,” says Mr Doocey. “The two-day ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Police stats show promising change

After nearly a year in Government, Kiwis have seen significant change across law and order with promising early results shown across some Police statistics, says Police Minister Mark Mitchell. “In August 2023, I told New Zealanders that if they had not started to see a change in public safety within ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Better coordination of anti-scam efforts

With the launch of Fraud Awareness Week, the Government is committing to new coordination efforts across industry and government to combat online scams, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says. “Online financial scams are a growing problem for New Zealand. New data released today shows that Kiwis lost nearly ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Minister to consider 7AA select committee report

Minister for Children Karen Chhour will consider the recommendations made by the Social Services and Community Committee in its report back to Parliament on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. “I want to thank the people who made submissions and those who appeared before the committee in ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Defence Minister to attend ASEAN meeting

Defence Minister Judith Collins will this week attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus in Vientiane, Laos. “We need to take every opportunity to engage with our international partners, given the increasingly unstable geo-political situation,” Ms Collins says. “New Zealand has a long-standing commitment to this ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Launching the White Ribbon Ride

The Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Karen Chhour, was on hand to wish riders well at the start of the North Island leg of the White Ribbon Ride in Whakatāne this morning. The ride helps mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Construction to begin on next stage of Papakura to Drury

Construction on the next stage of the SH1 Papakura to Drury project will begin early next month, with the contract for works awarded to Fulton Hogan, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. "SH1 Papakura to Drury is a key project that will drive economic growth and productivity, reduce congestion, and enable people ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

6 days ago
NZ signs trade deal with Costa Rica, Iceland and Switzerland

Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay has signed a pioneering trade agreement that prioritises New Zealand’s sustainable exports at a ceremony during APEC in Peru today. “The Agreement on Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), between Costa Rica, Iceland, and Switzerland was concluded in July of this year and opens up significant ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

6 days ago
Government and iwi work together on aquaculture

Five new Aquaculture Settlement Areas will help ensure Ngāi Tahu shares in the opportunities aquaculture offers for Southland’s economy, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. “The Aquaculture Settlement Areas (ASAs) I’m announcing today set aside space so the Crown and Ngāi Tahu can assess their potential for aquaculture development. ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

7 days ago

Justice Committee Makes Further Decisions About Submissions Process For The Principles Of The Treaty...

The committee plans to hold hearings in the week starting Monday, 27 January and the weeks starting 10, 17 and 24 February 2025. ...

Scoop politics

24 minutes ago
Watch live: Christopher Luxon faces questions during power station visit

It comes as Labour accuses National of not listening to evidence about boot camps. ...

Radio NZ – political

34 minutes ago
Survivors of abuse in care know how redress should work – will the government finally listen?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Winter, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Getty Images When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stood in Parliament last week to apologise to survivors of abuse in care, his words were among many fine speeches by ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

48 minutes ago
Review: The Day of the Jackal is a riveting and ridiculous ride

Eddie Redmayne’s globe-trotting assassin thriller on TVNZ is worth putting your phone down for. This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. This is a vulnerable thing to say as someone who often writes about television for a job, but boy am I really ...

The SpinoffBy Alex Casey

50 minutes ago
RNA editing is the next frontier in gene therapy – here’s what you need to know

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne IoanaB/Shutterstock The United States Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first-ever clinical trial that uses CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing. Its ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
Yes, you still need to use sunscreen, despite what you’ve heard on TikTok

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Lee, PhD Candidate, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Karolina Grabowska/Pexels Summer is nearly here. But rather than getting out the sunscreen, some TikTokers are urging followers to chuck it out and go sunscreen-free. They claim it’s healthier ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
Humans are killing off the old and wise animals that hold nature together. Here’s what must change

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keller Kopf, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Charles Darwin University Laxmikant Ameenagad, Shutterstock In humans and other animals, ageing is generally associated with a decline in biological function. But scientists are now discovering older animals perform vital roles in populations and ecosystems. ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
A man scouring Google Earth found a mysterious scar in the Australian outback – and now scientists...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matej Lipar, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University Author provided/Google Earth Earlier this year, a caver was poring over satellite images of the Nullarbor Plain when he came across something unexpected: an enormous, mysterious scar etched ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
Design as a movement: how First Nations people take ownership of their cultural stories through fash...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney Once located 250 metres to the east of the Art Gallery of South Australia, the grand beaux-arts style Jubilee Exhibition Building was constructed to house the ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
‘We need more doctors’ – Support for new Waikato medical school

The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists says a third medical school and more students in Auckland and Otago are both needed. ...

Radio NZ – political

3 hours ago
Cricket balls can concuss and even kill batters – at all levels, helmet use must be taken seriousl...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annette Greenhow, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University Linda George/Shutterstock The ten-year anniversary of the death of much-loved Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes falls on November 27. The 25-year-old’s life was tragically cut short in 2014 when a bouncer ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

3 hours ago
Hold the roosters, no economic dawn yet

Treasury likely to downgrade economic forecast while Chris Bishop says the government won’t be ‘a slave to a surplus’, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this extract from The Bulletin. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here. Recession will be deeper and last longer — Treasury At a recent Spinoff ...

The SpinoffBy Anna Rawhiti-Connell

4 hours ago
Knowing superstitions aren’t real doesn’t stop us behaving superstitiously – why?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Senior Lecturer of Psychology, Auckland University of Technology Getty Images Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his “massively superstitious” habit of repeating “white rabbits” three times at ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

5 hours ago
Government slammed for pushing ahead with boot camps while trial still under way

The coalition has "absolutely no intention of listening to the evidence that comes out of their experiment", Labour MP says. ...

Radio NZ – political

6 hours ago
Smoke and mirrors in heated tobacco debate

Labour claims Government is ‘cherry-picking’ smoking trends data to hide decade-first increase in daily smokers The post Smoke and mirrors in heated tobacco debate appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Fox Meyer

6 hours ago
Smoke and mirrors in tobacco debate

Labour claims Government is ‘cherry-picking’ smoking trends data to hide decade-first increase in daily smokers The post Smoke and mirrors in tobacco debate appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Fox Meyer

6 hours ago
Treasury bangs the drum on ‘unsustainable’ superannuation

The Government’s economic adviser is sending a message it doesn’t want to hear – superannuation is increasingly unaffordable The post Treasury bangs the drum on ‘unsustainable’ superannuation appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Tina Morrison

6 hours ago
Victims of sex offending welcome shift on name suppression laws

A man abused by a former political figure is "immensely relieved" at a government proposal to end secrecy around sex offenders' identities. ...

Radio NZ – political

6 hours ago
This week three parties stood together – can they withstand the storm to come?

There is plenty yet to play out, but the next election is at this rate shaping up as trio versus trio, writes Toby Manhire. A subplot of this week’s historic hīkoi mō te Tiriti has been the sight of the three opposition parties presenting a unified front. Te Pāti Māori ...

The SpinoffBy Toby Manhire

6 hours ago
All 33 malls in Auckland ranked from worst to best

From the low lows of abandon empires to the high highs of a mall done just right. This is the second in the Malls of New Zealand series, where we rank the malls in major centres. Next week: Wellington. A note from the editor: This is the hardest ranking we’ve ...

The SpinoffBy Group Think

6 hours ago
The cost of being: A clothes-mad 20-something who walks everywhere

As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, a 27-year-old apartment-dwelling marketing exec explains her approach to spending and saving. Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here. Gender: Female. Age: 27. Ethnicity: Pākehā. Role: Marketing exec at ...

The SpinoffBy The Cost of Being

6 hours ago
Burma the flying elephant

After about two and a half years of planning and waiting, New Zealand’s last elephant has moved to her new home at Monarto Safari Park in South Australia.Burma and her “human herd”, that is, her keepers, arrived last week, and she’s settling in well, according to Auckland Zoo’s Andrew Coers.“Something ...

NewsroomBy Gwen McClure

6 hours ago
NZ’s membership of Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance in jeopardy

Senior ministers in the coalition suggested NZ’s membership will be re-evaluated if it restarts offshore oil and gas drilling The post NZ’s membership of Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance in jeopardy appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Marc Daalder

6 hours ago
Raw Politics: Six months in a leaky Bill

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not meet the Treaty Principles Bill hikoi crowd, sees “nothing” of merit in the Act-proposed law but the Parliament his Government dominates will spend six months debating a “divisive” measure.That’s because he has accepted there needs to be “aeration” of people’s views on the Treaty, ...

NewsroomBy Newsroom Staff

6 hours ago
Taken to the brink, Govt is now close to selling big Whakapapa ski field

Bidder Whakapapa Holdings walked away from the sales process last year, but says it’s now ‘95% there’ on a purchase agreement – so who blinked first? The post Taken to the brink, Govt is now close to selling big Whakapapa ski field appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Andrew Bevin

6 hours ago
Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 22 November

Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp');Got a good quiz question? Send Newsroom your questions.The post Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 22 November appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Newsroom Puzzles

6 hours ago
Daily crossword, Friday 22 November

The post Daily crossword, Friday 22 November appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Newsroom Puzzles

6 hours ago
China likely to strengthen regional relationships in response to another Trump term

Opinion: Recent discussions in Shanghai provide some insight into what’s likely to be on the table The post China likely to strengthen regional relationships in response to another Trump term appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Jason Young

6 hours ago
Nuclear winters know no borders

Opinion: The immediate horror of nuclear weapon explosions – the blinding flash, crushing blast wave, and radioactive inferno – is well documented.But what nuclear-armed nations either don’t grasp or won’t admit, is far more chilling: how their weapons could devastate even countries thousands of kilometres from any mushroom clouds.The collapse ...

NewsroomBy Nick Wilson and Matt Boyd

6 hours ago
This week’s bestselling books – November 22

FICTION1 Kāwai: Tree of Nourishment by Monty Soutar (David Bateman, $39.99)Sample dialogue, all from one chapter:“That can’t be,” replied Taona doubtfully.“You were right. The pā is unnervingly quiet,” Taona murmured.“The Hākuwai,” Motukia breathed. “Our grandfathers told us they rarely saw the Hākuwai in daylight,” Motukia muttered.“Their fight would have been futile ...

NewsroomBy Steve Braunias

6 hours ago
Watts nears a landmark deal on global carbon trading

A framework for global carbon trading under the Paris Agreement is finally nearing completion at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan after years of halting talks.Climate Change Minister Simon Watts is one of two ministers tasked by the COP29 hosts with landing a long-sought deal on Article 6 of the climate accord, ...

NewsroomBy Marc Daalder

7 hours ago
Grattan on Friday: Marles plays a defensive bat on nuclear as the government rushes to get though la...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Richard Marles is an ambitious man who hasn’t given up the dream of one day reaching the top job. But, despite being deputy prime minister, his profile is much lower than that of Treasurer Jim ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

12 hours ago
Fears Māori will pay heaviest price if police carry guns

"Overwhelmingly, those people who die will be young Māori men," the spokesperson for People Against Prisons Aotearoa says. ...

Radio NZ – political

13 hours ago
NEW POLL: Kiwis Overwhelmingly Support MPs’ Expenses Transparency Law Change

62% of respondents support the extension of the OIA to cover MPs’ spending, compared to just 13% opposed and 24% were unsure. ...

Scoop politics

14 hours ago
The House: Meanwhile, a week of passing law

The political week has been packed with worthy distractions, but all week Parliament has focused on passing new laws. Here are the highlights. ...

Radio NZ – political

14 hours ago
The biggest difference between Hīkoi mō te Tiriti and past hīkoi: More support from non-Māori

Analysis - The diversity of voices during the hīkoi was noticeable - from tangata moana to young immigrants to elderly Pākehā from the South Island. ...

Radio NZ – political

15 hours ago
The House: Samoan citizenship restoration – ‘It means we belong to this land’

When the bill to restore NZ citizenship to some Samoans passed this week, Parliament's galleries were full to the brim with members of the community. ...

Radio NZ – political

16 hours ago
More Delays In Action On Use Of Puberty Blockers With Children

Women’s Rights Party Co-leader Jill Ovens says the Ministry has put New Zealand children at risk by continuing to allow “off-label” prescribing of puberty blockers at far higher rates than other similar countries. ...

Scoop politics

16 hours ago
Police Minister adamant he wasn’t aware of gang members training at gun clubs

That is despite two papers from police that raised the matter with him. ...

Radio NZ – political

17 hours ago
Shorten declares himself ‘a proud moderate’, saying Australians ‘in the middle’ shouldn’t ...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Bill Shorten has declared himself “a proud moderate” in a valedictory speech declaring parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of left and right do not set the terms of political debate. Shorten, ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

17 hours ago

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.

Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole?

Related Posts

291 comments on “Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole? ”

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole?

Share this:

Related Posts

291 comments on “Would Nats introduce work-for-the-dole? ”

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Share this:

Related Posts

Share this:

Related Posts

Share this:

Related Posts

Share this:

Related Posts