Jacinda Ardern to lead IUSY

71 comments on “Jacinda Ardern to lead IUSY ”

• Comments are now closed

1. redbus 1

   31 January 2008 at 3:03 pm

   YAY
2. Askewed 2

   31 January 2008 at 5:47 pm

   Awesome! But uh what’s Chippy got to do with it? lol
3. frank 3

   31 January 2008 at 7:19 pm

   just curious, is that her?
4. frank 4

   31 January 2008 at 7:20 pm

   is that her?
5. Askewed 5

   31 January 2008 at 8:23 pm

   its half her head in the first pic (the main dude is Chris Hipkins – labour’s rimutaka candidate – but it is her in the second one.
6. Michele Cabiling 6

   31 January 2008 at 11:24 pm

   Boy are you leftards ever dumb.

   Call this woman what she is: a communist.
7. Policy Parrot 7

   31 January 2008 at 11:40 pm

   “Boy are you leftards ever dumb.

   Call this woman what she is: a communist.”

   Time to respond in kind:

   Call this woman what she is: a McCarthyist.
8. r0b 8

   31 January 2008 at 11:48 pm

   Michele, you lack any semblance of grace.

   Do you think it adds to your arguments to call people “leftards”? Have you ever noticed that here at The Standard no one calls right wingers “rightiots” or whatever?

   Same with the whole “Liarbore” thing. No one replies with “Natzianal” or whatever.

   Grow up, eh?
9. the bean 9

   1 February 2008 at 9:04 am

   it was me…actually…
10. Phil 10

    1 February 2008 at 9:36 am

    “Ms Ardern is just the second female IUSY president in 101 years.”

    Just out of interest, when was the first female president elected?
    Is sexism alive and kicking in the realm of solialist youth?
11. Phil 11

    1 February 2008 at 9:40 am

    “Natzianal”

    Hehehe, that one would get right up Ms Cablings… nose
12. Michele Cabiling 12

    1 February 2008 at 9:45 am

    Policy Parot wrote: “Call this woman what she is: a McCarthyist.’

    Predictable leftard slur on anyone who “outs” [sic] a Communist.

    McCarthy has been vindicated by history. The Venoma Transcripts disclose that in the 1940s and 1950s there were a raft of embedded Communists at all levels of the US Government, education system and entertainment industry.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401
13. Michele Cabiling 13

    1 February 2008 at 9:50 am

    Rob wrote:

    “Same with the whole “Liarbore’ thing. No one replies with “Natzianal’ or whatever.”

    Funny how you leftards always accuse opponents of your own greatest failings.

    I have already demonstrated that Liabour’s view of property rights is identical to that set out by Hitler in the Nazi Party’s political program.

    It’s not National that’s censoring free speech both in the public square and at times on this blog.

    No jackboots in National.
14. Robinsod 14

    1 February 2008 at 9:55 am

    Hey Michele, I think you’re just jealous that Jacinda is hotter, smarter and more successful than you. Don’t worry mate, you’ll get over it just keep updating your notebook of self improvement and I’m sure you’ll get out of that temp job and find a decent man.
15. r0b 15

    1 February 2008 at 10:00 am

    Funny how you leftards always accuse opponents of your own greatest failings.

    Sigh.

    I have already demonstrated that Liabour’s view of property rights is identical to that set out by Hitler in the Nazi Party’s political program.

    Have you indeed?

    No jackboots in National.

    Will there be jackboots in their Bootcamps?
16. Phil 16

    1 February 2008 at 10:48 am

    “Hey Michele, I think you’re just jealous that Jacinda is hotter, smarter and more successful than you”

    I didn’t want to be the first to say it Sod, but you are right; she is rather yummy…
17. Insolent Prick 17

    1 February 2008 at 10:55 am

    You guys could have done a much better job with the picture. I did a double take when I saw it. I thought: “Christ! Is that HER?” No offence, but when I saw the picture I thought she was the ugliest woman ever to aspire to political office anywhere. And this is from a country that specialises in unattractive female politicians.

    It was only later that I realised that she was a man, which suddenly made a lot of sense. And from the second picture, she’s actually pretty tidy. In fact, I’d go so far as to say she’s pretty enough to not remain a socialist for very long.
18. r0b 18

    1 February 2008 at 11:12 am

    Say IP, did you ever stop to ask yourself why right wing parties don’t do so well with female voters?
19. The PC Avenger 19

    1 February 2008 at 11:17 am

    r0b, Michele has explained previously that she refers to people has ‘leftards’ and the like as retaliation for their slurs against her.

    Problem is, she does this prior to anyone even responding to a post she’s made.

    Perhaps she has some type of persecution complex, related to her insistence (in the face of reality) that anything left of her own political view is communism.

    I guess when you hold extreme, irrational, and impractical moral, ethical, epistemological, and political views, you begin to assume that everyone else does too.

    I wonder what she thinks of Libertarian Socialism…
20. Insolent Prick 20

    1 February 2008 at 11:18 am

    I’m not sure how that’s relevant, r0b. I’m basically chastising the Standard for putting up a picture of a guy which people have interpreted as the chick written about in the article. I’ve also complimented the pinkos for having a girl who’s pretty tidy on their side, and observed that she’s unlikely to remain a pinko for very long.
21. r0b 21

    1 February 2008 at 11:20 am

    OK IP, I’ll take that as a “no”. Carry on.

    PCA – no doubt Michele will tell us in due course!
22. Insolent Prick 22

    1 February 2008 at 12:17 pm

    To be fair, r0b, your question shouldn’t be why women don’t support National, because they do, but why men don’t support Labour. And if you don’t mind my saying so, putting up a picture of a guy, saying: “This is the new chick face of the Labour Party!”, that’s going to dissuade guys from going near the place.
23. AncientGeek 23

    1 February 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Much as I hate to say it, in a weird way, IP is right.

    I was wondering when I read

    Ms Ardern is just the second female IUSY president in 101 years

    and there was an obvious guy staring out of the screen..

    Perhaps someone should do the obvious and ask Ms Ardern for the photo she’d like put up?
24. Michele Cabiling 24

    1 February 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Robinsodomite wrote:

    “Hey Michele, I think you’re just jealous that Jacinda is hotter, smarter and more successful than you.”

    Can’t see it myself …

    Spoken like a true ugly, stupid, unsuccessful trade unionist.

    The PC Avenger says:

    “I wonder what she thinks of libertarian socialism …”

    That’s called an oxymoron.

    Libertarianism aka classical liberalism accepts a role for limited government to uphold the equal rights of sovereign individuals to be protected against force or fraud. This means an equal opportunity for all to succeed or fail on their merits.

    Socialism proposes that there are no sovereign individuals. The state rules over all. As Hitler said: “We socialise human beings … The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers.”

    This means state-enforced equality of outcome … the antithesis of libertariansm.

    “Libertarian socialism” simply proposes an unachievable reversion to a mythical Rousseauian golden age of “primitive communism.

    The libertarian socialist ideal belongs to a prehistoric social stage based on the simple economy of small groups, a stage that had to be overcome to realise the wealth-generating potential of the market economy.

    But an economic model that works for small tribal groups is self-defeating and disastrous when applied to complex economies, dependent on factors of production that are geographically dispersed and on trade exchanges often global in scope.

    So in a market economy, the only way people will share a common goal is if they are forced to it by coercive Big Gummint. Remove the coercion and people just go back to doing what they did before: interacting with the market to maximise their own personal utility.

    And through the “invisisble hand” of the market (as noted in previous posts) obliged to be OTHER-CENTRED if they want to get paid for adding value for others.

    Libertarian socialism is a utopian self-delusion buddy.
25. r0b 25

    1 February 2008 at 1:11 pm

    To be fair, r0b, your question shouldn’t be why women don’t support National, because they do, but why men don’t support Labour

    I’m sure there have been several learned theses written on sex differences in support for left wing and right wing parties, but I must admit that I’ve never got round to reading them.

    And yes, it was an odd choice of leading photo.
26. Phil 26

    1 February 2008 at 1:13 pm

    “Perhaps someone should do the obvious and ask Ms Ardern for the photo she’d like put up?”

    I’ll be you $10 that within five minutes of posting, someone with a juevenile sense of humour (but not me, this time…) puts it up on “hot or not”
27. r0b 27

    1 February 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Libertarian socialism is a utopian self-delusion buddy.

    Right on cue.
28. outofbed 28

    1 February 2008 at 1:15 pm

    I don’t think it was an odd choice of Photo It pretty much exposed Ip et al for the objectifier of women he undoubtedly is
29. Insolent Prick 29

    1 February 2008 at 1:20 pm

    outofbed:

    I don’t know what you mean. Suffice to say if you had the proper photo, and there were more people like Jacinda, you’d have a lot more guys voting for the socialists. She’s obviously bright, ambitious, works her arse off, is photogenic, and has the political instinct to make it to internationally elected office.

    It begs the question, really. Why is it that Judith Tizard is a Labour MP, but Jacinda isn’t?
30. Santi 30

    1 February 2008 at 1:46 pm

    “It pretty much exposed Ip et al for the objectifier of women he undoubtedly is”

    What’s wrong with having good taste in women and saying so? Objectifier? Can you be called an objectifier when you admire and declare the good looks and features of a woman?

    Outofbed (no pun intended): Are you a feminazi or sexually repressed man/woman?
31. AncientGeek 31

    1 February 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Urrgghhh doing my usual quick browse around blogs. Saw that DPF had a piece on Ms Arden – quite good to. Then I looked at the comments…… an unfortunate mistake.

    Sometimes there is quite a disgusting bunch over there.. More importantly I think that they see slogans as discussion and maybe even fact. Lets repeat the same crap over and over again – maybe it will become real.

    As bad as the communists in russia in stalins time.
32. Psycho Milt 32

    1 February 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Do the rest of you think Michele can keep a straight face when she writes “utopian self-delusion?” I’m picking she can, given that she seems to lack even rudimentary self-perception.
33. Michele Cabiling 33

    1 February 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Put simply, you are a twat, buddy. Ad hominem I know, but it’s the only description that will suffice.

    What else but “utopian” can you call a political movement that promises to make everyone “equal,” can only accomplish this outcome through coercive state power, and as soon as you remove the coercion all the natural inequalities between people reassert themselves.

    Those of us who live in the REAL world can see this, I don’t know what kind of retarded universe you inhabit ….
34. Insolent Prick 34

    1 February 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Ancient Geek:

    Evidently you haven’t read the comments. Sure, the same old crowd jumps in and has a go at socialism–and why not? She has been elected head of junior socialist international. But nothing unkind is said about her personally–a couple of commenters seem to suggest that she has very positive qualities, and are merely puzzled that she’s applying those qualities to the socialist cause, as opposed to something worthwhile.
35. Michele Cabiling 35

    1 February 2008 at 2:27 pm

    IrishBill says: dull and offensive Michele.
36. Michele Cabiling 36

    1 February 2008 at 2:43 pm

    My guess is that women primarily vote Liarbour because the ephemeral inter-personal relationships promoted by the political and lifestyle left over the last 40 years render them fearful of being left “holding the baby” and needing Nanny State as substitute husband.

    All Liarbour has to do it depict their opponents as being “heartless” and “mean spirited” for our more perception-bound sisters to cast a vote their way.

    Under the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 the franchise was restricted to property owning males or those leasing pastoral leasehold interest above a certain value.

    The purpose of this was (rightly) to prevent non-property owners clubbing together and voting themselves to property and income of others.

    While I’m glad to now have the opportunity to vote, I think it’s ridiculous that those who work and save can be plundered through the political system by those who don’t work and don’t save.

    My suggestion:

    [1] university grads, anyone owing property or shares valued at $500k plus, business proprietors whose businesses turns over $500k plus per annum in the financial year immediately preceding the election = 4 votes

    [2] university grads, anyone owing property or shares valued at $250k plus, business proprietors whose businesses turn over $100k plus per annum in the financial year immediately preceding the election = 3 votes

    [3] wage workers or retired people not meeting the property owning or educational criteria = 2 votes

    [4] Unemployed, sickness, invalid, or domestic purposes benefit.

    It’s not perfect but a helluva lot better than the system of legalised plunder we have now. For those content to stay where they are, let them stay there. For those who want more say in the running of their country, the incentive is to improve both oneself and one’s personal circumstances.
37. Michele Cabiling 37

    1 February 2008 at 2:45 pm

    oops category 4 above = one vote
38. AncientGeek 38

    1 February 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Yeah? They’re just looking at the word socialist and ascribing a abstract set of principles, policies, and ideas that they assume she would support or agree with. To take a few contextless comments…
    Redbaiter:
    Jacinda is happy to sacrifice such progress to the socialists great ideal, power power power, and ultimately, totalitarian world government.
    PhilBest:

    I agree absolutely, these propagandised-up-to-the-eyeballs youth socialists are a curse on the future of mankind, and are like a Quisling movement in the free western world.

    SMF:

    She will enjoy the UN an EU

    This is like saying that all people who are in the army are baby-killers. That all rentiers are slumlords. etc…

    You notice that the two people who know her, DPF and helmet are saying that she’s not like that at all.

    It is using slogans and preset opinions to substitute for thinking. Frankly it is just simple stupid bigotry.
39. Robinsod 39

    1 February 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Nah ‘chele, it should by done by IQ, nah by how much people can benchpress, nah I know we should allocate votes by skillz. I got lotsa skillz ‘chele. You got skillz?
40. AncientGeek 40

    1 February 2008 at 3:13 pm

    ‘cheles interesting voting scheme would have almost all of my immediate family (parents, siblings) voting 4 votes each for either labour or the greens. If ‘chele allowed me 4 votes per category in section 1, then’d I would vote at least 8 and so would my sister and mother.

    If I got 4 votes per university degree, then I’d be a really fat voter…

    There is another person that has a typical bigoted set of assumptions. Maybe she should have a look at the history of the liberals in NZ when they were operating under the 1852 Act. Apart from anything else they voted to extend the franchise.

    captcha: that American
    go figure
41. Insolent Prick 41

    1 February 2008 at 3:13 pm

    Ancient Geek:

    You’re being overly precious. I haven’t once see you stick up for the Exclusive Brethren when Standard authors make bigoted comments about them as a group. I haven’t heard you once complain about Trevor Mallard labelling them “chinless scarf-wearers”. I haven’t read your complaint about Helen Clark maligning golfers.

    Nothing personal was expressed about Jacinda. DPF said he hasn’t met her, but he gave her the benefit of the doubt that she is a good person, and spoke of the way people around her seem to rate her very highly. No personal comments were made about her at kiwiblog. The only comments you can point to are a general dislike of socialism, and at best a sense of sadness from kiwiblog’s commenters that a talented young individual is being wasted on a pointless cause.

    I’m more optimistic than them, Ancient Geek. I haven’t met Jacinta either, but she seems very talented, and no doubt at some point soon she will see the light and renounce the socialist cause.
42. AncientGeek 42

    1 February 2008 at 3:16 pm

    IP Yeah right….

    You also have to ask yourself what type of socialist – there is quite a range of ideas stuffed under that banner..
43. Michele Cabiling 43

    1 February 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Ancient Geek wrote:

    “You also have to ask yourself what type of socialist – there is quite a range of ideas stuffed under that banner…”

    The linking idea is that they all advocate state coercion, and despise voluntarism and consent as the means for achieving social and political goals.

    AG the rationale behind my voting proposition is that those who stand to be plundered the most have the most say in electing political representatives.

    If a handful of three- and four-vote voters want to vote against their class interest, that of no moment — their ill-advised ballots would be diluted by the votes of those capable of exercising commonsense.
44. Psycho Milt 44

    1 February 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Put simply, you are a twat, buddy.

    You’re not the first to say so and probably won’t be the last. But as long as it’s not people I respect saying it, I don’t really care.

    I’m sorry for the opacity of my earlier comment, I’d forgotten how simplistic your world view is. I’ll try a simpler approach:

    Yes, you’re correct that Marxism involves utopian self-delusion. It may even be that Jacinda Ardern suffers from it, for all I know. But relatively few lefties on this blog appear to suffer from it.

    The fact that prompted me to snigger metaphorically at you in such a rude fashion was this: Libertarianism also involves hefty doses of utopian self-delusion. You, Michele, seem to be an intense and chronic sufferer. And yet you constantly fling charges of it at your opponents on these threads, without seeming to notice the glaring irony.

    Again, I’m sorry. It’s rude to laugh at another’s failings and I’d normally attempt to restrain myself. But you’re not exactly a sympathetic character – restraint seems hardly justifiable.
45. Michele Cabiling 45

    1 February 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Sucko Milt wrote: “Libertarianism also involves hefty doses of utopian self-delusion.”

    Utopia means “place that does not exist.” In other words a leftist pipe dream. All attempts by statists to create utopias have required brutal state coercion to compel the unwilling to accept the social plan of the “know betters.” In practice they are Dystopias (look that one up!)

    You continue to display your complete ignorance of the philosophy of classical liberalism. There’s nothing “utopian” about it. Classical liberals recognise that human nature is human nature, whether this is derived from the Biblical Fall, or from empirical observation.

    For this reason they accept that there must be constraints on individual freedom, but only to the extent necessary to allow society to function properly. This means LIMITED (as opposed to no) government.

    The role of government is protect private property rights and to operate a system of laws guarding citizens against force or fraud.

    State coercion in confiscating the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others means the government becomes the thief it is meant to be protecting citizens against.

    When America operated according to such principles from its founding until the FDR New Deal, it experienced the greatest period of sustained economic growth and innovation of any society in history.

    Practical proof this prescription works and therefore, by definition, can’t be “utopian.”

    Dumbass!
46. Psycho Milt 46

    1 February 2008 at 4:49 pm

    The constant assertion of one’s own educational superiority, despite all evidence to the contrary, is of course another indicator of an extreme lack of self-perception.

    Utopia means “place that does not exist.’ In other words a leftist pipe dream.

    I usually enjoy pointing out non sequiturs, but this one leaves me flabbergasted. Suffice to say – it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Rather than the above nonsense, let’s stick with Wikipedia’s version: “The name has come to mean, in popular parlance, an ideal society.”

    Utopians are characterised by their conviction that social relationships are essentially simple, and can therefore be optimised through the application of simplistic rules, such as:

    The role of government is protect private property rights and to operate a system of laws guarding citizens against force or fraud.

    Sadly, social relationships are anything but simple, and the real, actually-existing universe, as opposed to the theoretical one posited by “classical liberals,” is sufficiently complex to damn any attempts at simplifying it to failure.

    Equally sadly, those with more conviction than knowledge often tend to begin imagining that events in the real, actually-existing universe correspond to features of their utopian ideal – such as:

    When America operated according to such principles from its founding until the FDR New Deal, it experienced the greatest period of sustained economic growth and innovation of any society in history.

    That is such a bizarre over-simplification of American history that a better illustration of utopians’ shortcomings as social commentators is hard to imagine.

    Having had my say, I shall attempt to restrain myself from sniggering at your disability in future. Dumbass.
47. Michele Cabiling 47

    1 February 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Sucko Milt takes issue with my statement:

    “The role of government is protect private property rights and to operate a system of laws guarding citizens against force or fraud.”

    He says:

    “Sadly, social relationships are anything but simple, and the real, actually-existing universe, as opposed to the theoretical one posited by ‘classical liberals,’ is sufficiently complex to damn any attempts at simplifying it to failure.”

    Did someone step on the air hose to your brain?

    We’re not talking about “social relationships” we’re talking about the protection of property rights, and the right of sovereign individuals to go about their lawful business without being subjected to force or fraud.

    Your idea that these constitute “social relationships” that need to be regulated by a third party (Nanny State) is merely indicative of your collectivist (and essentially Marxist) habits of mind.

    In a FREE society, sovereign individuals are free (within the law) to enter into their own social and economic relationships. That’s the fundamental difference between a free society and a statist society.

    Sucko takes further issue with my statemenet below in the following terms:

    [Sucko] “Equally sadly, those with more conviction than knowledge often tend to begin imagining that events in the real, actually-existing universe correspond to features of their utopian ideal – such as:

    [Michele] “When America operated according to such principles from its founding until the FDR New Deal, it experienced the greatest period of sustained economic growth and innovation of any society in history.”

    {Sucko again] “That is such a bizarre over-simplification of American history that a better illustration of utopians’ shortcomings as social commentators is hard to imagine.”

    Successful free market capitalist societies have lifted more people out of poverty than any other form of socio-political arrange ever invented.

    That’s FACT not assumption.

    Dumbass!
48. Robinsod 48

    1 February 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Successful free market capitalist societies have lifted more people out of poverty…

    As opposed to unsuccessful ones? Really ‘chele are you even trying?
49. r0b 49

    1 February 2008 at 5:17 pm

    If a handful of three- and four-vote voters want to vote against their class interest, that of no moment

    Speaking as one of those, I suggest that this statement highlights the essence of your bleak, narrow world view.

    My “class interest” is only one of many factors I choose to consider when voting. I also like to consider the state of my planet, and the state of the fellow human beings that I share the planet with.

    Michele, your world view seems to boil down to nothing more than personal greed. It is the ideology of a 2 year old. Gimme gimme gimme!
50. Michele Cabiling 50

    1 February 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Nah, Rob, you just like to engage in moral preening.

    In a free, as opposed to statist society, you’d have to do that with your own money, not mine.

    My world view is that if YOU want to “save the planet” etc, you have no MORAL right to compel me to do the same, or in the same manner.

    sod an unsuccessful capitalist society, as copiously illustrated in previous posts, is a CRONY capitalist society, rather than a true free market.
51. r0b 51

    1 February 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Nah, Rob, you just like to engage in moral preening.

    Ahh, is that what it is. You’ve dispensed with moral preening I take it.

    In a free, as opposed to statist society, you’d have to do that with your own money, not mine.

    Once again the 2 year old doesn’t want to share her toys. Or participate in a democracy.
52. Michele Cabiling 52

    1 February 2008 at 5:46 pm

    I’m not into moral preening. I donate (anonomously) to several charities in my home country of the Philippines. I don’t do this so I can make a song and dance about it but because I know that they actually make a difference in what they do.

    I’m quite happy to “share my toys” as long as I retain the freedom to do this as I see fit, not as you and any mob you can command feel I ought to do.

    For example, if a slatternly looking 15 year old girl showed up on my doorstep saying: “I’m pregnant, I don’t know which one of four guys I mashed with in the last month is the father, and you’re going to be supporting me and my kid for the next 18 years plus whatever others I want to pop during my reproductive life, I’d tell her to fuck off.

    Yet Nanny, through the welfare system, forces me to support the little skank and insulates her from corrective reality, by allowing her to socialise the cost of her actions onto others.

    Her kids will grow up to be parasites on MY kids and so on and so on ad inifnitum …

    As I get tired of pointing out, YOUR version of “democracy” is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

    Mine is LIMITED GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

    Two very different beasts …
53. Santi 53

    1 February 2008 at 5:50 pm

    “Successful free market capitalist societies have lifted more people out of poverty”

    Michele is 100% correct. Her statement is true and in stark opposition to the misery created by tribalism, fascism, socialism and communism, which have killed hundreds of millions.

    The victory of Western civilisation over obscurantism is undeniable.

    Capitalism rules the world, so Michael Porton, what the hell are you talking about?
54. Psycho Milt 54

    1 February 2008 at 6:58 pm

    We’re not talking about “social relationships’ we’re talking about the protection of property rights, and the right of sovereign individuals to go about their lawful business without being subjected to force or fraud.

    Your idea that these constitute “social relationships’ that need to be regulated by a third party (Nanny State) is merely indicative of your collectivist (and essentially Marxist) habits of mind.

    Yeah, ya see, this is where an “education” in property management sells you short. The relationships between people in a society are social relationships, regardless of whether there’s a govt in there somewhere or not. The fact that you personally, influenced by the utopian delusions you constantly read, have filed “social relationships” as some kind of socialist code for bureaucratic control over the individual, doesn’t alter its actual meaning.
55. Psycho Milt 55

    1 February 2008 at 7:29 pm

    D’oh! Forgot this earlier rash promise:

    Having had my say, I shall attempt to restrain myself from sniggering at your disability in future.

    Damn! That was the sorriest-assed attempt in recorded history. OK – will try harder from now on.
56. r0b 56

    1 February 2008 at 10:52 pm

    As I get tired of pointing out, YOUR version of “democracy’ is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

    Mine is LIMITED GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

    So Michele, are there any actual examples of LIMITED GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED in the world? This is a enuine request for information, please try and reply without abuse or excess sarcasm. I’m just trying to understand what you mean by this. Are there any actual examples?
57. Michele Cabiling 57

    2 February 2008 at 9:57 am

    Sucko Milt you continue to post as an idiot in here.

    I have economic relationships with a number of people I’d have no intention of engaging with socially. If you had something useful to sell, I’m sure you’d fall into that category.

    A free society is based on the voluntary institutions of civil society, which are crowded out and ultimately eradicated by BIG GUMMINT of the type you espouse.

    The difference between my kinda society and yours is that social and economic relationships are VOLUNTARY in mine. For example, in your kind of society, a conservative Christian who owned an investment property will find it illegal to tell two gay men he’s unprepared to rent them his flat because he finds their lifestyle immoral. He is effectively FORCED into compulsory association with them.

    Although sodomy and its attendent perversions are indeed repugnant behaviour, my position as a property manager who has dealt with residential tenancies in the past is that gay men are usually quiet, houseproud tenants who pay their rent promptly etc. In other words I’ve no personal problem with having sodomites as tenants, I just wouldn’t want to be a fly on their bedroom wall.

    However, in a free society, the conservative Christian who OWNS a property should be able to deal with it as he sees fit. It belongs to HIM not to NANNY STATE. The role of gevernment is not to protect adults from having their feelings hurt, nor is it in COMPELLING people to associate with those they wouldn’t wish to if left to their own devices.
58. Michele Cabiling 58

    2 February 2008 at 11:30 am

    This is a long post and probably only you, Rob will bother to read it.

    “Limited government” is the servant of the people not their master. It has clearly enunumerated powers and duties (usually set out in a written constitution), and cannot exceed these without consitutional change that requires a high threshold mandate from its citizens.

    The USA under its original Constitution provides the best example of “limited government democratically elected.” It was a federation of independent states, and the Federal Government had clearly defined powers. The Constitution provides for an intentional separation of powers between the executive, legislature, judiciary and member states intended to ensure that no branch usurps the other, thus causing the country to descend into tyranny.

    The Founding Fathers created a free society grounded on the moral sovereignty of the individual. They recognised that the only legitimate function of government is to protect each individual’s right to act on his own judgment —- so long as he does not violate the equal right of others to do the same.

    Accordingly, they established a government limited to the protection of individual rights —- limited to making and enforcing objective (i.e., rights-respecting) laws, resolving civil disputes, protecting private property, and enforcing contracts. Wealth redistribution was seen as a violation of rights, i.e. state-sponsored theft.

    Things started to become unstuck when Abraham Lincoln deployed the US army against the Southern states who wished to secede from the Union, something thatthey were Constitutionally entitled to do, no matter how misguided they were in seeking to continue with slavery.

    In order to pay for the Civil War, the Federal Government imposed an income tax, the thin edge of the wedge in terms of subsequent Federal excursions in this area. This established a precedent. Other income taxes followed, though in 1913 the tax rate was one percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of seven percent on incomes above $500,000.

    Three individuals had a major destructive impact on individual rights in America: Herbert Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    In 1909, Croly’s “The Promise of Americal Life” was first published. For Croly, progress meant “increased conscription of the people into a national consciousness and collective undertakings” including “increasing control over property in the public interest.” Croly bragged that his political philosophy was “flagrantly socialistic both in its methods and its objects.’

    Teddy Roosevelt [POTUSA 1901 -1909] adopted Croly as an adviser after reading his book while on safari and later said that “every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.’ [Hitler said much the same thing you will remember] His cousin FDR [POTUSA 1933 -1945] insisted that all Americans must act “as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of the common discipline.’

    FDR’s New Deal — a massive tax-and-spend welfare programme — was a further nail in the coffin of freedom. A number of attempts to put this in place were struck down by legal positivists on the [then] four-member Supreme Court, who seeing the Constitution as black letter law, held that “Promoting the General Welfare” was not the same as “promoting Welfare Generally.”

    Im order to ram through his New Deal, FDR simply expanded the number of Supreme Court judges to nine by executive decree, while making sure the additional apointees shared his political agendas. The pro-welfare majority then rubber-stamped the New Deal, and government became the thief rather than the protector against theft, with the top rate of taxation jacked up to 75%.

    Liberal activist judges began to promote the view that rather than being “black letter law” subject to amendment only by a two-thirds majority of Congress, the Constitition was a “living document” subject to reinterpretation by judicial fiat.

    This is why Supreme Court judicial appointments are so hotly contested by the Dimmocrats: judges are appointed for life, meaning if you can procure a permanent liberal majority, agendas that would never pass the voters chug on quietly through the Courts, irrespective of whether the Dims or the Repubs control the legislature.

    So, Rob, though the USA is founded on the principle of “Limited Government democratically elected” this principle has been subjected to decades of unrelenting attack by the political and lifestlye left.
59. Pascal's bookie 59

    2 February 2008 at 11:43 am

    Michele, if the federal govt had a duty to protect the rights of the individual, what right did the southern states have to enforce slavery?

    Unless you agree with them that (black) people are property and thus have no rights themselves.
60. Psycho Milt 60

    2 February 2008 at 12:29 pm

    The answer to your question appears to be “No,” R0b.

    In keeping with my promise above, the following is offered in the spirit of friendly assistance to someone whose education is in a different field to mine:

    I have economic relationships with a number of people I’d have no intention of engaging with socially.

    You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of the term “social relationship.” Any interaction between people in a society is a social relationship. These are various in nature, eg they can be economic, familial, even criminal (eg, the mugger and his victim). The economic relationships you mention are a subset of social relationships, as are your relationships with the govt depts you despise so much.

    On another matter, you continue to make assertions about what I supposedly espouse, seemingly without the slightest regard to accuracy. Admittedly, given the general nature of your posts I shouldn’t be surprised at this, but please make the attempt to actually read my comments if you’re going to respond to them.
61. The PC Avenger 61

    2 February 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Michele, yet again you ignore what PM actually wrote, and prance off on a tangent, ranting about B’G G’VNT and homosexuals (a bit of a perverse obsession you have there).

    Any interaction between two or more people is a social interaction, regardless of whether or not it is for the purposes of a business transaction or not.

    Even individualistic philosophies recognize that when you interact with other people, you are observing them and adjusting your behaviour in order to reach the best outcome.

    Like it or not, when you have anything to do with anyone, you are participating in a social interaction. Every single post you’ve made here has been a social interaction. Your responses to obvious baiting, hilarious as they have been, were social interactions that you misjudged.

    If you can’t get your head around that then, well, you’re not as smart as you think.
62. r0b 62

    2 February 2008 at 2:37 pm

    This is a long post and probably only you, Rob will bother to read it.

    This is a long reply, and probably only you Michele need bother to read it.

    The USA under its original Constitution provides the best example of “limited government democratically elected.’

    OK, so no current examples, but a historical one. I notice that you also made this claim upthread:

    When America operated according to such principles from its founding until the FDR New Deal, it experienced the greatest period of sustained economic growth and innovation of any society in history.

    Practical proof this prescription works and therefore, by definition, can’t be “utopian.’

    Interesting to consider the history of America over this time. It included:
    (1) the near annihilation of Native Americans and the annexation of their lands,
    (1) slavery,
    (2) civil war,
    (3) post civil war oppression of Black Americans,
    (4) the 18th amendment and prohibition (a Big Government attack on individual rights if ever there was one),
    (5) repressive labour laws and practices that gave rise to a violent labour movement,
    (6) the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression.

    So the economic success of America was based on stolen land and slave labour. The period included violent and divisive social upheaval, and big government prohibition. It ended when the instability of unfettered capitalism collapsed inwards on itself in a crash so severe that it took 50 years (and a lot of Big Government intervention) for it to recover. The Great Depression is still a byword for hard times and misery.

    This is your best example of limited government? Really?

    I will also take issue with your claim that America in this period represented “the greatest period of sustained economic growth and innovation of any society in history”. Although I’m not sure how one would quantify such things, other contenders seem to me to include the growth of the Roman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Ming Dynasty, the Republic of Venice, development in Renaissance Italy, the British Empire, the growth of post WW2 Japan, and the current growth of China (and to a lesser extent, India). There are probably historical examples to be drawn from Africa and South America too, but I know less about them.

    On other minor matters:

    The Founding Fathers created a free society grounded on the moral sovereignty of the individual. They recognised that the only legitimate function of government is to protect each individual’s right to act on his own judgment —- so long as he does not violate the equal right of others to do the same.

    That is one interpretation. Good old Founding Fathers, espousing personal freedom (though many of them were slave owners). But its not all as clear and simple as you portray it. The meaning of concepts like “democracy” and “republic” were endlessly debated. Some of those Founding Fathers sounded awfully Big Government:

    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.”

    Jefferson also wrote: “I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”.

    Hmmmmmmmm. Seems to me that there were various interpretations at the time as to what the great American Republic was all about.

    So in short then, the American experiment limited government, if it ever even existed, ended in disaster. Are you able to cite any current successful examples of limited government? If not, why not? I’m hoping for a genuine answer, like last time (thanks for that).
63. Michele Cabiling 63

    3 February 2008 at 12:22 am

    Pascal’s bookie wrote:

    “Michele, if the federal govt had a duty to protect the rights of the individual, what right did the southern states have to enforce slavery?

    “Unless you agree with them that (black) people are property and thus have no rights themselves.”

    Yes, the federal government had a duty to uphold the civil rights of blacks in accordance with the Constitution — as long as the southern states remained part of the Union.

    Equally, the southern states were Constitutionally at liberty to secede from the Union if they found being asked to accord civil rights to blacks unduly onerous.

    My point is that Lincoln’s selective application of the Constitution is both hypocritical and undermining of its integrity. This opened the door for later presidents like FDR to trample on the Constitution if they thought they were doing good.

    Rob, you cite a number of examples (usually recounted by the “Hate America Left” as part of a moral equivalence argument designed to place the USA on the same level as murderous totalitarian dictatorships) of occasions where America has got things wrong.

    However, the beauty of America is that it has a dynamic and self-correcting system. So I disagree with your assertion that “the American experiment limited government, if it ever even existed, ended in disaster.”

    Your quotes are reproduced below with some comments:

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

    Yes, subject to the constitutional limitations on mob rule.

    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.’

    The purpose of government is to uphold individual rights which apply equally to all citizens, not to establish group entitlements, whereby which one group is plundered for the unearned benefit of another, with government as the broker in the middle. Noble sentiments indeed from JQA!

    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.’

    Limited government and the classical liberal vision depends on the majority of individuals being possessed of civic virtue and “self-policing” in terms of respecting the laws and the rights of others. If citizens have no such internal system of values, you will need a policeman on every street corner.

    It might interest you to read De Tocqueville’s observations of the early operation of the Founders’ vision.

    Jefferson also wrote: “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country’.

    He means corporations making an alliance with self-interested elements in the government, i.e crony capitalism. Perhaps “challenge our government” could be better phrased “challenge our Constitution” i.e its equal protection of individual rights, rather than elevating corporate or any other kind of collective interest to an improper pre-eminence.
64. r0b 64

    3 February 2008 at 9:10 am

    Rob, you cite a number of examples […] of occasions where America has got things wrong.

    Are any of those examples wrong Michele?

    However, the beauty of America is that it has a dynamic and self-correcting system.

    How then, has it deviated so far from what you imagine is its ideal LIMITED GOVERNMENT origins? Why did that end (according to you) with FDR and the new deal? Was America self-correcting its earlier mistake?

    So I disagree with your assertion that “the American experiment limited government, if it ever even existed, ended in disaster.’

    Why? The period you cite ends in the Great Depression. How was that not a disaster?

    Your quotes are reproduced below with some comments:

    You can’t explain away the meaning of the original words, Michele, and you seem to be completely unaware of the debates surrounding the foundation of America. What is so hard to understand about the primacy of “the rights of society”?

    Oh and by the way – good luck with your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ideal government. You wouldn’t have got to vote for them. Women only got the vote in 1920. In your ideal society DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED means elected by white men. (And let’s not even start on the “gerrymander” of the Electoral College).

    Your ideal society, LIMITED GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, does not exist now and probably never existed. You are on a one woman crusade for a fairy story.
65. Pascal's bookie 65

    3 February 2008 at 11:43 am

    Yes, the federal government had a duty to uphold the civil rights of blacks in accordance with the Constitution — as long as the southern states remained part of the Union.

    Equally, the southern states were Constitutionally at liberty to secede from the Union if they found being asked to accord civil rights to blacks unduly onerous.

    My point is that Lincoln’s selective application of the Constitution is both hypocritical and undermining of its integrity.

    How trite. You claim that the constitution was contradictory, and that Lincoln had to select which aspect to apply. Either way the constitution would be fncked.

    I’m not sure how this saves you Michele. You have said previously that governments have no rights that are not held by the private citizen. If therefore the slave states had the right to secede from the union because they found the constitution to be too onerous, then a citizen has the right to withdraw from the constitution if they find it’s laws to be too onerous.

    So a thief who finds your legal rights to property to be unhelpful in his career is just as free to ignore those rights as the southern states were to commit treason in defence of slavery. If the government should step in and protect your right to your property they would be acting in the same way that Lincoln did when he responded to the traitors attack on Fort Sumpter.

    You are claiming here that Lincoln had no right to enforce the constitution. Agreed, the issue in debate had never been enforced, but according to your own definition of good government, that had been a failing that Lincoln was redressing.

    For the record, where in the constitution is your claimed ‘right of seccession’? Under the constitution the sole decider of constitutional interpretation is the Supreme Court.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

    Q65. “Where in the Constitution does it mention states’ right to secede from the union?”

    A. The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. The Supreme Court added its opinion in Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]). It said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into “an indissoluble relation.” It said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union (it is interesting to note that Texas benefited from the decision that it had unconstitutionally attempted to leave the Union).

    You will note that they have the ability to secede through revolt, which means only that they can declare war against the government. This is a natural right rather than a legal one. By declaring war through the attack on Ft Sumpter the treasonous slave states were rejecting and attempting to overthrow the constitution that Lincoln had sworn to defend. In order to uphold that constitution the president’s hand was forced.

    Obviously the court case above is post civil war, but the point reamains that the slave states did not follow any legal route. They simply objected to the fact that the Republican Party won the election. So they revolted. They did not wait for any emancipation acts to be passed, and challenged in the courts, indeed there were none on the horizon,(this only happened after the treason of the southern states). They objected to the fact that the northern sates were outlawing slavery in their own borders.

    As you said, the President had a duty to uphold the civil rights of southern slaves as long as the states were a part of the union. Their revolution failed and they remained a part of the union. No amount of blathering by revisionist traitors about “Wars of Northern Aggression” and the like will change this.
66. AncientGeek 66

    3 February 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Pascal’s bookie: great summary of the legal position on seccession. I remember some of that (vaguely) from some of the old course work.

    Seccession wasn’t part of the US constitution, and never handled by the supreme court prior to the civil war.

    From memory, amongst other things, Lincoln had few choices after the Fort Sumpter was seized. I seem to remember that one of the grounds for impeaching a president was to do with their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

    Having your forces seized either by a rebel faction, or by a hostile state (depending on your viewpoint) and Lincoln not doing anything about defending the army, would have certainly got him impeached.

    It is a crazy constitution – lots of holes
67. AncientGeek 67

    3 February 2008 at 12:12 pm

    rOb on ‘chele

    You are on a one woman crusade for a fairy story.

    She has never mentioned it – but who would ‘chele vote for in NZ in 2008. We have extensive documentation of views of ‘chele here. I thought it would be easy, but it isn’t.

    For instance, it is obvious that the nats are far too socialist for her to vote for them.

    I thought that the Libertanz would be possible. But then I remembered her rectal obsession. That wouldn’t fit too well.

    Ummm……. probably she doesn’t vote for anyone
68. Pascal's bookie 68

    3 February 2008 at 12:34 pm

    AG. Thanks for your comments. It is strange that Michele seems to think that Lincoln destroyed the constitution by defending the written aspect of it against a nebulous, untested claim of secession in defence of an asserted right to own humans.

    On her voting pref’s she did say that there are no jackboots in the National party, or something along those lines. It was tied to her silly little Hitler quote about the state being the final owner of property.

    Apparently the National Party repeals the Public Works Act every time they take power. Who knew?

    Enjoy your day. I’m off to take Master bookie (16 mnths) down to the botanical gardens that have been so cruelly provided and maintained by our oppressive fascist overlords.
69. BigPoppaPump 69

    3 February 2008 at 2:56 pm

    What are socialism’s deepest philosophic roots?

    The politics of “compassion” were designed rhetorically to rely on and appeal to traditional Christian virtues. As Mickey Savage said in selling the Welfare State to the electorate: “The Welfare State is nothing but applied Christianity”.

    In fact, it was most inspired by the moral writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau —- the Prophet of Compassion. It was this Frenchman’s glorification of compassion first in his Discourse on Inequality, and then in Emile, that first elevated a minor sentiment into a major virtue.

    For Rousseau and his intellectual descendents, compassion -—the desire to relieve the pain and suffering of others —- is a pre- or sub-rational sentiment that serves man as an automatic, immediate, authentic and infallible moral guide.

    It is a strictly perceptual-level phenomenon of seeing and feeling the pain and suffering of others, of being overwhelmed by a catastrophic sense of shame and guilt, and of then reacting on one’s range-of-the-moment feelings.

    According to this sentimental ideology, needs-as-claims are the fundamental human reality; “intuitions’ or “feelings’ are the way to know, evaluate, and judge such facts; and compassion is the virtue of feeling and acting accordingly.

    Rousseau’s elevation of compassion to the center of ethical discourse launched a moral revolution in the West that has been injected by socialists into the very fabric of our culture. Thanks to Rousseau, compassion is the moral leitmotif of Western culture.

    The delivery method adopted by today’s pushers of compassion is bang on constantly about those who fail and suffer. Their goal is to induce in the masses an arrested, perceptual-level mentality, a mentality that processes all moral and political matters emotionally and then acts accordingly.

    Rousseau’s ghost now oversees a nation of social workers. The moral ideal to which our culture aspires is the moist eyes of the wet nurse. To lack compassion in this new world is to be morally deprived if not morally depraved.

    Compassion is now the standard by which we judge whether men are good or bad, and so leftards today feel compelled to constantly display their sensitivity and to show that their “heart is in the right place.’

    The so-called “love’ advocated by the proponents of compassion is not directed toward human virtue but toward human vice. It is not for their achievements that the weak are admired but for their failures. On the one hand, this is an utter inversion of morality; on the other hand, it is the annihilation of morality.

    To treat compassion as a virtue promotes a kind of moral relativism -— a non-judgmental, no-fault morality that takes people just as they are. “Don’t judge people,’ its proponents say, “just accept their plight and help them.’ Fundamentally speaking, this is an attempt to negate the law of causality -— to sever consequences from their causes.

    Forget about what caused a jobless person to be jobless; just give him a job. Forget about why a person has saved nothing for retirement; just give him some money. Personal responsibility or lack thereof (the cause) is irrelevant to the compassionate.

    A moral code that upholds compassion as a virtue is the antipode of a morality of justice. It paralyses one’s ability to evaluate and judge the ideas and actions of individuals; it demands that one suspend moral judgment -—that one not discriminate between the suffering caused by elements beyond one’s control and that caused by irrationality, sloth, evasion.

    The moral relativism promoted by this weepy sentiment naturally leads to political egalitarianism. Rousseau believed that politics -— particularly democratic politics —- is intimately connected to the people’s mores or manners, and that the formation of mores likewise turns on the training of the sentiments.

    By heralding sensitivity to the suffering of others as the height of virtue, Rousseau sought to overcome what he saw as the rational self-interest, the radical individualism, and the economic inequality unleashed by Lockean liberalism. Rousseau’s goal was to ennoble the sentiment of compassion in the hopes of transforming Western man from self-regarding to other-regarding, thereby ushering in a new socio-political order — the Therapeutic State.

    Rousseau’s ideas took hold, and today we have a new politics of compassion that comes in both liberal and conservative forms. In the world of Rousseau and Clark and Key, suffering and need represent man’s essential metaphysical condition, and those who suffer less should be sacrificed for the sake of those who suffer more. The redistribution of wealth is, therefore, a central tenet of the politics of compassion.

    At the heart of compassionate conservatism is the altruist-collectivist code, which holds that man must live in selfless servitude to the needs of others —- which means that rational, productive men must sacrifice (or be sacrificed) for the sake of irrational, unproductive men. Man as not the rightful owner of his own life, but as a sacrificial animal.

    Socialism accepts the collectivist premise that solving the problems of the poor is the “duty’ of society as a whole. Thus neoconservative writer David Brooks, speaking in language that would have warmed Rousseau’s heart, describes compassionate conservatism as: “an across-the-board effort to revive responsible citizenship,’ which Brooks defines as “sacrifice for the greater good.’

    Compassion is now regarded as the cardinal virtue in Western politics. Political “wisdom’ is measured by, and attributed to, those who feel and satisfy the needs of the greatest number of people. “He who feels the most pain, wins,’ as it were, and we are all suffering because of it.
70. AncientGeek 70

    3 February 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Oh boy – another troll who hasn’t learnt how to use links when they quote.

    Obviously by someone that has never looked at the monastery movement through the middle ages, or ever had a looked at the calls for compassion all the way through the new testament. Both formed a substantial basis of western culture and politics.

Links to post

1. Kiwiblog » Blog Archive » Congratulations to Jacinda Ardern: posted on 1 February 2008 at 9:13 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS