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

The 1 Good Thing Left In Journalism

Hi,It’s almost Christmas Day which means it is almost my birthday, where you will find me whimpering in the corner clutching a warm bottle of Baileys.If you’re out of ideas for presents (and truly desperate) then it is possible to gift a full Webworm subscription to a friend (or enemy) ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

2 hours ago
Bernard’s Picks ‘n’ Mixes for Monday, December 23

This morning’s six standouts for me at 6.30am include:Rachel Helyer Donaldson’s scoop via RNZ last night of cuts to maternity jobs in the health system;Maddy Croad’s scoop via The Press-$ this morning on funding cuts for Christchurch’s biggest food rescue charity;Benedict Collins’ scoop last night via 1News on a last-minute ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

3 hours ago
2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #51

A listing of 25 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, December 15, 2024 thru Sat, December 21, 2024. Based on feedback we received, this week's roundup is the first one published soleley by category. We are still interested in ...

Skeptical Science

11 hours ago
Dance Magic

Well, I've been there, sitting in that same chairWhispering that same prayer half a million timesIt's a lie, though buried in disciplesOne page of the Bible isn't worth a lifeThere's nothing wrong with youIt's true, it's trueThere's something wrong with the villageWith the villageSomething wrong with the villageSongwriters: Andrew Jackson ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

23 hours ago
Government Forces Universities to Enforce “Free Speech” While Limiting Universities&#821...

ACT would like to dictate what universities can and can’t say. We knew it was coming. It was outlined in the coalition agreement and has become part of Seymour’s strategy of “emphasising public funding” to prevent people from opposing him and his views—something he also uses to try and de-platform ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

23 hours ago
Fact brief – Are we heading into an ‘ice age’?

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Are we heading ...

Skeptical Science

1 day ago
As Our Power Lessens: Published

So the Solstice has arrived – Summer in this part of the world, Winter for the Northern Hemisphere. And with it, the publication my new Norse dark-fantasy piece, As Our Power Lessens at Eternal Haunted Summer: https://eternalhauntedsummer.com/issues/winter-solstice-2024/as-our-power-lessens/ As previously noted, this one is very ‘wyrd’, and Northern Theory of Courage. ...

A Phuulish FellowBy strda221

2 days ago
By Any Other Name.

The Natural Choice: As a starter for ten percent of the Party Vote, “saving the planet” is a very respectable objective. Young voters, in particular, raised on the dire (if unheeded) warnings of climate scientists, and the irrefutable evidence of devastating weather events linked to global warming, vote Green. After ...

Bowalley Road

2 days ago
Bernard’s last Saturday Soliloquy for 2024

The Government cancelled 60% of Kāinga Ora’s new builds next year, even though the land for them was already bought, the consents were consented and there are builders unemployed all over the place. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

2 days ago
Bernard’s Picks ‘n’ Mixes for Saturday, December 21

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on UnsplashEvery morning I get up at 3am to go around the traps of news sites in Aotearoa and globally. I pick out the top ones from my point of view and have been putting them into my Dawn Chorus email, which goes out with a podcast. ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

2 days ago
2024 OIA stats

Over on Kikorangi Newsroom's Marc Daalder has published his annual OIA stats. So I thought I'd do mine: 82 OIA requests sent in 2024 7 posts based on those requests 20 average working days to receive a response Ministry of Justice was my most-requested entity, ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

3 days ago
Climate Change: A perverse incentive

The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report under the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which have been good, but will likely get worse thanks to ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

3 days ago
Economic Bulletin December 2024

Welcome to the December 2024 Economic Bulletin. We have two monthly features in this edition. In the first, we discuss what the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update from Treasury and the Budget Policy Statement from the Minister of Finance tell us about the fiscal position and what to ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

3 days ago
NZCTU make submission in opposition to Treaty Principles Bill

The NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi have submitted against the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, slamming the Bill as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and an attack on tino rangatiratanga and the collective rights of Tangata Whenua. “This Bill seeks to legislate for Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles that are ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

3 days ago
ZB’s Power Couple

I don't knowHow to say what's got to be saidI don't know if it's black or whiteThere's others see it redI don't get the answers rightI'll leave that to youIs this love out of fashionOr is it the time of yearAre these words distraction?To the words you want to hearSongwriters: ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

3 days ago
Austerity thumps GDP most since 1991

Our economy has experienced its worst recession since 1991. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, December 20 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast above and the daily Pick ‘n’ Mix below ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

3 days ago
Weekly Roundup 20-December-2024

Twas the Friday before Christmas and all through the week we’ve been collecting stories for our final roundup of the year. As we start to wind down for the year we hope you all have a safe and happy Christmas and new year. If you’re travelling please be safe on ...

Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland

3 days ago
The Hoon around the year to December 20, 2024

The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the year’s news with: on climate. Her book of the year was Tim Winton’s cli-fi novel Juice and she also mentioned Mike Joy’s memoir The Fight for Fresh Water. ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

3 days ago
The baby-boomers’ last gasp

The Government can head off to the holidays, entitled to assure itself that it has done more or less what it said it would do. The campaign last year promised to “get New Zealand back on track.” When you look at the basic promises—to trim back Government expenditure, toughen up ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

3 days ago
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #51 2024

Open access notables An intensification of surface Earth’s energy imbalance since the late 20th century, Li et al., Communications Earth & Environment: Tracking the energy balance of the Earth system is a key method for studying the contribution of human activities to climate change. However, accurately estimating the surface energy balance ...

Skeptical Science

4 days ago
Join us at 5pm for 2024’s last Hoon

Photo by Mauricio Fanfa on UnsplashKia oraCome and join us for our weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm today.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream for our chat about the week’s news with myself , plus regular guests and , ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

4 days ago
Christmas Gifts: Ageing Boomers, Laurie & Les, Talk Politics.

“Like you said, I’m an unreconstructed socialist. Everybody deserves to get something for Christmas.”“ONE OF THOSE had better be for me!” Hannah grinned, fascinated, as Laurie made his way, gingerly, to the bar, his arms full of gift-wrapped packages.“Of course!”, beamed Laurie. Depositing his armful on the bar-top and selecting ...

Bowalley Road

4 days ago
GDP Figures No Christmas Present for New Zealand

Data released by Statistics New Zealand today showed a significant slowdown in the economy over the past six months, with GDP falling by 1% in September, and 1.1% in June said CTU Economist Craig Renney. “The data shows that the size of the economy in GDP terms is now smaller ...

NZCTUBy Stella Whitfield

4 days ago
Cheeseburgers and Stunt Monkeys

One last thing before I quitI never wanted any moreThan I could fit into my headI still remember every single word you saidAnd all the shit that somehow came along with itStill, there's one thing that comforts meSince I was always caged and now I'm freeSongwriters: David Grohl / Georg ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

4 days ago
MSD rejecting 220 pleas for food grants each day

Sparse offerings outside a Te Kauwhata church. Meanwhile, the Government is cutting spending in ways that make thousands of hungry children even hungrier, while also cutting funding for the charities that help them. It’s also doing that while winding back new building of affordable housing that would allow parents to ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

4 days ago
The Wing Parties’ Economic Policies.

It is difficult to make sense of the Luxon Coalition Government’s economic management.This end-of-year review about the state of economic management – the state of the economy was last week – is not going to cover the National Party contribution. Frankly, like every other careful observer, I cannot make up ...

PunditBy Brian Easton

4 days ago
Back on Track

This morning I awoke to the lovely news that we are firmly back on track, that is if the scale was reversed.NZ ranks low in global economic comparisonsNew Zealand's economy has been ranked 33rd out of 37 in an international comparison of which have done best in 2024.Economies were ranked ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tūī

4 days ago
Book Review: How Big Things Get Done

This is a guest post by George Weeks, reviewing a book called How Big Things Get Done by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner Want to know how to do something big? Ask someone who has done it before! Professor Bent Flyvbjerg has spent his career studying megaprojects. In 2023, ...

Greater AucklandBy Guest Post

4 days ago
Gordon Campbell On Why We Can’t Survive Two More Years Of This

Remember those silent movies where the heroine is tied to the railway tracks or going over the waterfall in a barrel? Finance Minister Nicola Willis seems intent on portraying herself as that damsel in distress. According to Willis, this country’s current economic problems have all been caused by the spending ...

WerewolfBy ScoopEditor

4 days ago
Dragging our way towards the finish line, the end of this year can’t come soon enough for many…

Similar to the cuts and the austerity drive imposed by Ruth Richardson in the 1990’s, an era which to all intents and purposes we’ve largely fiddled around the edges with fixing in the time since – over, to be fair, several administrations – whilst trying our best it seems to ...

exhALANtBy exhalantblog

5 days ago
Handling Democracy.

String-Pulling in the Dark: For the democratic process to be meaningful it must also be public. WITH TRUST AND CONFIDENCE in New Zealand’s politicians and journalists steadily declining, restoring those virtues poses a daunting challenge. Just how daunting is made clear by comparing the way politicians and journalists treated New Zealanders ...

Bowalley Road

5 days ago
Open letter to the Minister of Dwindling Finances

Dear Nicola Willis, thank you for letting us know in so many words that the swingeing austerity hasn't worked.By in so many words I mean the bit where you said, Here is a sea of red ink in which we are drowning after twelve months of savage cost cutting and ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

5 days ago
Open Government: The joke ends

The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral organisation committed to advancing open government. Countries which join are supposed to co-create regular action plans with civil society, committing to making verifiable improvements in transparency, accountability, participation, or technology and innovation for the above. And they're held to account through an Independent ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

5 days ago
An unusual sort of press conference

Today I tuned into something strange: a press conference that didn’t make my stomach churn or the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Which was strange, because it was about the torture of children. It was the announcement by Erica Stanford — on her own, unusually ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

5 days ago
This substack has talked about this government’s seeming corruption & pro-corporate issues...

This is a must watch, and puts on brilliant and practical display the implications and mechanics of fast-track law corruption and weakness.CLICK HERE: LINK TO WATCH VIDEO Our news media as it is set up is simply not equipped to deal with the brazen disinformation and corruption under this right wing ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tūī

5 days ago
NZCTU: Minister needs to listen to the evidence on engineered stone ban

NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi Acting Secretary Erin Polaczuk is welcoming the announcement from Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety Brooke van Velden that she is opening consultation on engineered stone and is calling on her to listen to the evidence and implement a total ban of the product. “We need ...

NZCTUBy Stella Whitfield

5 days ago
Wednesday 18 December

The Government has announced a 1.5% increase in the minimum wage from 1 April 2025, well below forecast inflation of 2.5%. Unions have reacted strongly and denounced it as a real terms cut. PSA and the CTU are opposing a new round of staff cuts at WorkSafe, which they say ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

5 days ago
Can the government change its mind on the ferries?

The decision to unilaterally repudiate the contract for new Cook Strait ferries is beginning to look like one of the stupidest decisions a New Zealand government ever made. While cancelling the ferries and their associated port infrastructure may have made this year's books look good, it means higher costs later, ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

5 days ago
Notes from Afar: Will Luxon Attend Waitangi Day? And Opposition Calls Out Nicola Willis for “C...

Hi there! I’ve been overseas recently, looking after a situation with a family member. So apologies if there any less than focused posts! Vanuatu has just had a significant 7.3 earthquake. Two MFAT staff are unaccounted for with local fatalities.It’s always sad to hear of such things happening.I think of ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tūī

5 days ago
Member’s morning

Today is a special member's morning, scheduled to make up for the government's theft of member's days throughout the year. First up was the first reading of Greg Fleming's Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill, which was passed unanimously. Currently the House is debating the third reading of ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

5 days ago
Going Backwards

We're going backwardsIgnoring the realitiesGoing backwardsAre you counting all the casualties?We are not there yetWhere we need to beWe are still in debtTo our insanitiesSongwriter: Martin Gore Read more ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

5 days ago
Blaming Treasury & Labour, Willis looks for even more Austerity

Willis blamed Treasury for changing its productivity assumptions and Labour’s spending increases since Covid for the worsening Budget outlook. Photo: Getty ImagesMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, December 18 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast above ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

5 days ago
December-24 AT Board Meeting

Today the Auckland Transport board meet for the last time this year. For those interested (and with time to spare), you can follow along via this MS Teams link from 10am. I’ve taken a quick look through the agenda items to see what I think the most interesting aspects are. ...

Greater AucklandBy Matt L

5 days ago
The Making of a Mental Health Rockstar

Hi,If you’re a New Zealander — you know who Mike King is. He is the face of New Zealand’s battle against mental health problems. He can be loud and brash. He raises, and is entrusted with, a lot of cash. Last year his “I Am Hope” charity reported a revenue ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

5 days ago
It could have been worse

Probably about the only consolation available from yesterday’s unveiling of the Half-Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) is that it could have been worse. Though Finance Minister Nicola Willis has tightened the screws on future government spending, she has resisted the calls from hard-line academics, fiscal purists and fiscal hawks ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

5 days ago
The Deep Divisions of Local Government

The right have a stupid saying that is only occasionally true:When is democracy not democracy? When it hasn’t been voted on.While not true in regards to branches of government such as the judiciary, it’s a philosophy that probably should apply to recently-elected local government councillors. Nevertheless, this concept seemed to ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

5 days ago
Willis’ austerity strategy just isn’t working

Long story short: the Government’s austerity policy has driven the economy into a deeper and longer recession that means it will have to borrow $20 billion more over the next four years than it expected just six months ago. Treasury’s latest forecasts show the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s fiscal strategy of ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

6 days ago
Sabin 33 #7 – Are solar projects hurting farmers and rural communities?

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

6 days ago
Join us for a pop-up Hoon at 5pm on HYEFU

Come and join myself and CTU Chief Economist for a pop-up ‘Hoon’ webinar on the Government’s Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) with paying subscribers to The Kākā for 30 minutes at 5 pm today.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream to watch our chat. Don’t worry if ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

6 days ago
‘Ideas Worth Saving’: A Call for Papers

Some years ago, I found myself pondering the power of literature to endure. Or at least the power of some of it to endure, while the rest vanishes in mere decades: https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/look-on-my-works-ye-mighty-and-despair-the-literary-future/. I have similarly had fun with the subject in some of my short stories, such as Another Alexandria ...

A Phuulish FellowBy strda221

6 days ago
Corrections is torturing prisoners again

In 1998, in the wake of the Paremoremo Prison riot, the Department of Corrections established the "Behaviour Management Regime". Prisoners were locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day, with no fresh air, no exercise, no social contact, no entertainment, and in some cases no clothes and ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

6 days ago
HYEFU and BPS data shows New Zealand is way off track

New data released by the Treasury shows that the economic policies of this Government have made things worse in the year since they took office, said NZCTU Economist Craig Renney. “Our fiscal indicators are all heading in the wrong direction – with higher levels of debt, a higher deficit, and ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

6 days ago
“Better economic management”

At the 2023 election, National basically ran on a platform of being better economic managers. So how'd that turn out for us? In just one year, they've fucked us for two full political terms: The government's books are set to remain deeply in the red for the near term ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

6 days ago
Shameless, clueless

AUSTERITYText within this block will maintain its original spacing when publishedMy spreadsheet insists This pain leads straight to glory (File not found) Read more ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

6 days ago
Minimum wage ‘increase’ is an effective cut

The NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi are saying that the Government should do the right thing and deliver minimum wage increases that don’t see workers fall further behind, in response to today’s announcement that the minimum wage will only be increased by 1.5%, well short of forecast inflation. “With inflation forecast ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

6 days ago
Crazy ’bout a Sharp-dressed Man

Oh, I weptFor daysFilled my eyesWith silly tearsOh, yeaBut I don'tCare no moreI don't care ifMy eyes get soreSongwriters: Paul Rodgers / Paul Kossoff. Read more ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

6 days ago
How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Bob Henson In this aerial view, fingers of meltwater flow from the melting Isunnguata Sermia glacier descending from the Greenland Ice Sheet on July 11, 2024, near Kangerlussuaq, Greenland. According to the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE), the ...

Skeptical Science

6 days ago
8% ACT Party Creates One Ring To Rule Them All

In August, I wrote an article about David Seymour 1 with a video of his testimony, to warn that there were grave dangers to his Ministry of Regulation:David Seymour's Ministry of Slush Hides Far Greater RisksWhy Seymour's exorbitant waste of taxpayers' money could be the least of concernThe money for Seymour ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tūī

6 days ago
When austerity worsens public debt & cuts GDP

Willis is expected to have to reveal the bitter fiscal fruits of her austerity strategy in the HYEFU later today. Photo: Lynn Grieveson/TheKakaMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Tuesday, December 17 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

6 days ago
Govt to double number of toll roads

On Friday the government announced it would double the number of toll roads in New Zealand as well as make a few other changes to how toll roads are used in the country. The real issue though is not that tolling is being used but the suggestion it will make ...

Greater AucklandBy Matt L

6 days ago
Luxon’s pre-emptive strike

The Prime Minister yesterday engaged in what looked like a pre-emptive strike designed to counter what is likely to be a series of depressing economic statistics expected before the end of the week. He opened his weekly post-Cabinet press conference with a recitation of the Government’s achievements. “It certainly has ...

PolitikBy Richard Harman

6 days ago
Gordon Campbell On The Coalition’s Empty Gestures, And Abortion Refusal As The New Slavery

This whooping cough story from south Auckland is a good example of the coalition government’s approach to social need – spend money on urging people to get vaccinated but only after you’ve cut the funding to where they could get vaccinated. This has been the case all year with public ...

WerewolfBy ScoopEditor

6 days ago
More public service contempt of parliament

Back in 2023 the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties raised concerns about the inherent conflict of interest involved in public service agencies supporting parliamentary select committees. Our parliament is run on a shoestring, so depends on the public service for advice. But public service agencies work for Ministers, not ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

7 days ago
If There Is A God

And if there is a GodI know he likes to rockHe likes his loud guitarsHis spiders from MarsAnd if there is a GodI know he's watching meHe likes what he seesBut there's trouble on the breezeSongwriter: William Patrick Corgan Read more ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

7 days ago
A Lipstick Government

Here’s a quick round up of today’s political news:1. MORE FOOD BANKS, CHARITIES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS AND YOUTH SOCIAL SERVICES SET TO CLOSE OR SCALE BACK AROUND THE COUNTRY AS GOVT CUTS FUNDINGSome of Auckland's largest foodbanks are warning they may need to close or significantly reduce food parcels after ...

Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tūī

7 days ago
NZCTU open letter to Treasury on undue restrictions on restricted briefings

Iain Rennie, CNZMSecretary and Chief Executive to the TreasuryDear Secretary, Undue restrictions on restricted briefings This week, the Treasury barred representatives from four organisations, including the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi, from attending the restricted briefing for the Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update. We had been ...

NZCTUBy Jack McDonald

7 days ago
Why you won’t hear me advocate for electric cars

This is a guest post by Tim Adriaansen, a community, climate, and accessibility advocate. I won’t shut up about climate breakdown, and whenever possible I try to shift the focus of a climate conversation towards solutions. But you’ll almost never hear me give more than a passing nod to ...

Greater AucklandBy Guest Post

1 week ago
Coalition forced to back down on tolling Pahiatua track

A grassroots backlash has forced a backdown from Brown, but he is still eyeing up plenty of tolls for other new roads. And the pressure is on Willis to ramp up the Government’s austerity strategy. Photo: Getty ImagesMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy ...

The KakaBy Bernard Hickey

1 week ago
Thank You

Hi all,I'm pretty overwhelmed by all your messages and emails today; thank you so very much.As much as my newsletter this morning was about money, and we all need to earn money, it was mostly about world domination if I'm honest. 😉I really hate what’s happening to our country, and ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

1 week ago
2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50

A listing of 23 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, December 8, 2024 thru Sat, December 14, 2024. Listing by Category Like last week's summary this one contains the list of articles twice: based on categories and based on ...

Skeptical Science

1 week ago
Making Gravy

I started writing this morning about Hobson’s Pledge, examining the claims they and their supporters make, basically ripping into them. But I kept getting notifications coming through, and not good ones.Each time I looked up, there was another un-subscription message, and I felt a bit sicker at the thought of ...

Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel

1 week ago
Nothing here but the shadows

Once, long before there was Harry and Meghan and Dodi and all those episodes of The Crown, they came to spend some time with us, Charles and Diana. Was there anyone in the world more glamorous than the Princess of Wales?Dazzled as everyone was by their company, the leader of ...

More Than A FeildingBy David Slack

1 week ago
The United Right: the FSU’s Continued Efforts to Undermine Academia

The collective right have a problem.The entire foundation for their world view is antiscientific. Their preferred economic strategies have been disproven. Their whole neoliberal model faces accusations of corporate corruption and worsening inequality. Climate change not only definitely exists, its rapid progression demands an immediate and expensive response in order ...

Sapphi’s SubstackBy Sapphi

1 week ago
Showing the Americans how to do it

Just ten days ago, South Korea's president attempted a self-coup, declaring martial law and attempting to have opposition MPs murdered or arrested in an effort to seize unconstrained power. The attempt was rapidly defeated by the national assembly voting it down and the people flooding the streets to defend democracy. ...

No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant

1 week ago
2 Men, 1 Haircut

Hi,“What I love about New Zealanders is that sometimes you use these expressions that as Americans we have no idea what those things mean!"I am watching a 30-something year old American ramble on about how different New Zealanders are to Americans. It’s his podcast, and this man is doing a ...

David FarrierBy David Farrier

1 week ago

National’s Greatest Misses 2023-4

National has only been in power for a year, but everywhere you look, its choices are taking New Zealand a long way backwards. In no particular order, here are the National Government's Top 50 Greatest Misses of its first year in power. ...

Labour Blog

3 days ago
Release: Minister’s plan for tertiary sector a backwards step

Returning to the model that was failing for most polytechnics and Institutes of Technology is not the answer. ...

Labour Blog

3 days ago
Release: National buries 1019 planned homes

It’s been revealed that National has cancelled 60 percent of its housing projects planned before mid-2025 amidst housing woes. ...

Labour Blog

3 days ago
Release: Rule-Czar bill a right-wing power grab

The Government is quietly undertaking consultation on the dangerous Regulatory Standards Bill over the Christmas period to avoid too much attention. ...

Labour Blog

3 days ago
Release: Why not both? Luxon shuns Waitangi celebrations

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is running away from problems of his own creation, with his decision not to go to Waitangi. ...

Labour Blog

4 days ago
Govt’s ‘free speech’ legislation stokes fear, not freedom

The Government’s planned changes to the freedom of speech obligations of universities is little more than a front for stoking the political fires of disinformation and fear, placing teachers and students in the crosshairs. ...

Greens

4 days ago
Release: Nicola Willis spirals country deeper into recession

The economy shrank 1% this quarter and New Zealand has tumbled into the depths of a recession of Nicola Willis’ making. ...

Labour Blog

4 days ago
Release: Hikes for company directors but not ordinary Kiwis

Working people are going backwards while company directors are being given huge pay hikes. ...

Labour Blog

5 days ago
ECE no place to cut corners

The Ministry of Regulation’s report into Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Aotearoa raises serious concerns about the possibility of lowering qualification requirements, undermining quality and risking worse outcomes for tamariki, whānau, and kaiako. ...

Greens

5 days ago
Release: Strengthening Justice Services for New Zealanders

A Bill to modernise the role of Justices of the Peace (JP), ensuring they remain active in their communities and connected with other JPs, has been put into the ballot. ...

Labour Blog

5 days ago
Release: Labour will continue fight against destructive projects

Labour will continue to fight unsustainable and destructive projects that are able to leap-frog environment protection under National’s Fast-track Approvals Bill. ...

Labour Blog

6 days ago
Green Government will revoke dodgy fast-track projects

The Green Party has warned that a Green Government will revoke the consents of companies who override environmental protections as part of Fast-Track legislation being passed today. ...

Greens

6 days ago
Government for the wealthy keeps pushing austerity

The Green Party says the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update shows how the Government is failing to address the massive social and infrastructure deficits our country faces. ...

Greens

6 days ago
Release: Visa changes let migrant workers be paid less

The Government’s latest move to reduce the earnings of migrant workers will not only hurt migrants but it will drive down the wages of Kiwi workers. ...

Labour Blog

6 days ago
Release: Nightmare before Christmas for Nicola Willis

With more debt and a larger deficit, Nicola Willis’ reputation is in tatters after her failure to return the Government’s books to surplus. ...

Labour Blog

6 days ago
Warning to Fast-Track Applicants – ‘Exploit the Whenua, Face the Consequences’

Te Pāti Māori has this morning issued a stern warning to Fast-Track applicants with interests in mining, pledging to hold them accountable through retrospective liability and to immediately revoke Fast-Track consents under a future Te Pāti Māori government. This warning comes ahead of today’s third reading of the Fast-Track Approvals ...

Māori Party

6 days ago
Release: Govt cuts wages for lowest paid NZers… again

For the second year running, the government has effectively cut wages for the lowest paid workers in New Zealand. ...

Labour Blog

6 days ago
Govt’s miserly 1.5% minimum wage will take workers backwards

The Government’s announcement today of a 1.5 per cent increase to minimum wage is another blow for workers, with inflation projected to exceed the increase, meaning it’s a real terms pay reduction for many. ...

Greens

6 days ago
Release: Govt shirking responsibility for rate hikes

All the Government has achieved from its announcement today is to continue to push responsibility back on councils for its own lack of action to help bring down skyrocketing rates. ...

Labour Blog

6 days ago
Luxon’s ‘localism’ strikes again

The Government has used its final post-Cabinet press conference of the year to punch down on local government without offering any credible solutions to the issues our councils are facing. ...

Greens

7 days ago
Release: Govt breaks promise on EV chargers

The Government has failed to keep its promise to ‘super charge’ the EV network, delivering just 292 chargers - less than half of the 670 chargers needed to meet its target. ...

Labour Blog

7 days ago
Greens call for end to subsidies for Methanex

The Green Party is calling for the Government to stop subsidising the largest user of the country’s gas supplies, Methanex, following a report highlighting the multi-national’s disproportionate influence on energy prices in Aotearoa. ...

Greens

7 days ago
Govt child poverty targets allow for increase in poverty

The Green Party is appalled with the Government’s new child poverty targets that are based on a new ‘persistent poverty’ measure that could be met even with an increase in child poverty. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Release: Four weeks annual leave under threat

The Government’s attack on workers continues with news it is scrapping work on the Holidays Act. ...

Labour Blog

1 week ago
Govt’s emissions plan for measly 1% reduction

New independent analysis has revealed that the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) will reduce emissions by a measly 1 per cent by 2030, failing to set us up for the future and meeting upcoming targets. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Greens stand in solidarity with Whakaata Māori on sad day

The loss of 27 kaimahi at Whakaata Māori and the end of its daily news bulletin is a sad day for Māori media and another step backwards for Te Tiriti o Waitangi justice. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Sanctions regime to create more hardship for families

Yesterday the Government passed cruel legislation through first reading to establish a new beneficiary sanction regime that will ultimately mean more households cannot afford the basic essentials. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Govt gifts renters housing anxiety for Christmas

Today's passing of the Government's Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill–which allows landlords to end tenancies with no reason–ignores the voice of the people and leaves renters in limbo ahead of the festive season. ...

Greens

1 week ago
Release: National Party urged to support modern slavery legislation

Labour is urging the Prime Minister to walk the talk and support legislation combating modern slavery. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
Release: Labour has lost confidence in the Speaker

The Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament made an unprecedented decision on the government amendment to the Fast Track Approvals Bill last night. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
One year on, still no progress on new ferries

Today’s announcement from the Government on its plan for new ferries throws more uncertainty on the future of the country’s rail network. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Release: Nicola Willis’ smaller ferries will cost more

After wasting a year, Nicola Willis has delivered a worse deal for the Cook Strait ferries that will end up being more expensive and take longer to arrive. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
Bill to sanction unlawful occupation of Palestine

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has today launched a Member’s Bill to sanction Israel for its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as the All Out For Gaza rally reaches Parliament. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Release: Labour fully supports greyhound racing ban

The Government has done the right thing in moving to ban greyhound racing. ...

Labour Blog

2 weeks ago
Greyhound racing industry ban marks new era for animal welfare

After years of advocacy, the Green Party is very happy to hear the Government has listened to our collective voices and announced the closure of the greyhound racing industry, by 1 August 2026. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Rangatahi voices must be centred in Government’s Relationship and Sexuality Education refresh

In response to a new report from ERO, the Government has acknowledged the urgent need for consistency across the curriculum for Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) in schools. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Govt introduces archaic anti-worker legislation

The Green Party is appalled at the Government introducing legislation that will make it easier to penalise workers fighting for better pay and conditions. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
Winston Peters – Kinleith Mill Speech

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you tonight on behalf of the political party I belong to - which is New Zealand First. As we have heard before this evening the Kinleith Mill is proposing to reduce operations by focusing on pulp and discontinuing “lossmaking paper production”. They say that they are currently consulting on the plan to permanently shut ...

NZ First Press Release

2 weeks ago
Swarbrick calls on Auckland Mayor to end delay of revival of St James Theatre

Auckland Central MP, Chlöe Swarbrick, has written to Mayor Wayne Brown requesting he stop the unnecessary delays on St James Theatre’s restoration. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago
He Ara Anamata: Greens launch Emissions Reduction Plan

Today, the Green Party of Aotearoa proudly unveils its new Emissions Reduction Plan–He Ara Anamata–a blueprint reimagining our collective future. ...

Greens

2 weeks ago

Internationally-trained doctors jump at chance to boost health workforce

Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says Health New Zealand will move swiftly to support dozens of internationally-trained doctors already in New Zealand on their journey to employment here, after a tripling of sought-after examination places. “The Medical Council has delivered great news for hardworking overseas doctors who want to contribute ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

23 hours ago
PM appoints business leader to APEC Business Advisory Council

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has appointed Sarah Ottrey to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). “At my first APEC Summit in Lima, I experienced firsthand the role that ABAC plays in guaranteeing political leaders hear the voice of business,” Mr Luxon says. “New Zealand’s ABAC representatives are very well respected and ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
New intelligence oversight appointments

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced four appointments to New Zealand’s intelligence oversight functions. The Honourable Robert Dobson KC has been appointed Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, and the Honourable Brendan Brown KC has been appointed as a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. The appointments of Hon Robert Dobson and Hon ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
New housing developments able to progress more quickly

Improvements in the average time it takes to process survey and title applications means housing developments can progress more quickly, Minister for Land Information Chris Penk says. “The government is resolutely focused on improving the building and construction pipeline,” Mr Penk says. “Applications to issue titles and subdivide land are ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Actions to speed up air travel delivering results

The Government’s measures to reduce airport wait times, and better transparency around flight disruptions is delivering encouraging early results for passengers ahead of the busy summer period, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Improving the efficiency of air travel is a priority for the Government to give passengers a smoother, more reliable ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Ending contracted emergency housing in Rotorua

The Government today announced the intended closure of the Apollo Hotel as Contracted Emergency Housing (CEH) in Rotorua, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. This follows a 30 per cent reduction in the number of households in CEH in Rotorua since National came into Government. “Our focus is on ending CEH in the Whakarewarewa area starting ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Vocational education and training decisions support return to regions

The Government will reshape vocational education and training to return decision making to regions and enable greater industry input into work-based learning Tertiary Education and Skills Minister, Penny Simmonds says. “The redesigned system will better meet the needs of learners, industry, and the economy. It includes re-establishing regional polytechnics that ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Reducing the environmental impact of synthetic refrigerants

The Government is taking action to better manage synthetic refrigerants and reduce emissions caused by greenhouse gases found in heating and cooling products, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds says. “Regulations will be drafted to support a product stewardship scheme for synthetic refrigerants, Ms. Simmonds says. “Synthetic refrigerants are found in a ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Ngāruawāhia section of Waikato Expressway back to 4 lanes for Christmas

People travelling on State Highway 1 north of Hamilton will be relieved that remedial works and safety improvements on the Ngāruawāhia section of the Waikato Expressway were finished today, with all lanes now open to traffic, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“I would like to acknowledge the patience of road users ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

3 days ago
Appointments to the ENZ board

Tertiary Education and Skills Minister, Penny Simmonds, has announced a new appointment to the board of Education New Zealand (ENZ). Dr Erik Lithander has been appointed as a new member of the ENZ board for a three-year term until 30 January 2028. “I would like to welcome Dr Erik Lithander to the ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Government to celebrate Waitangi Day around NZ

The Government will have senior representatives at Waitangi Day events around the country, including at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, but next year Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has chosen to take part in celebrations elsewhere. “It has always been my intention to celebrate Waitangi Day around the country with different ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
More gangs added to Gangs Act list

Two more criminal gangs will be subject to the raft of laws passed by the Coalition Government that give Police more powers to disrupt gang activity, and the intimidation they impose in our communities, Police Minister Mark Mitchell says. Following an Order passed by Cabinet, from 3 February 2025 the ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Judicial appointment announced

Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Justice Christian Whata as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Justice Whata’s appointment as a Judge of the Court of Appeal will take effect on 1 August 2025 and fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon Justice David Goddard on ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
GDP data highlights importance of growth

The latest economic figures highlight the importance of the steps the Government has taken to restore respect for taxpayers’ money and drive economic growth, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. Data released today by Stats NZ shows Gross Domestic Product fell 1 per cent in the September quarter. “Treasury and most ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Strengthening Free Speech in Universities

Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Minister of Education David Seymour today announced legislation changes to strengthen freedom of speech obligations on universities. “Freedom of speech is fundamental to the concept of academic freedom and there is concern that universities seem to be taking a more risk-averse ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Launch of Emergency Cellular Priority Service

Police Minister, Mark Mitchell, and Internal Affairs Minister, Brooke van Velden, today launched a further Public Safety Network cellular service that alongside last year’s Cellular Roaming roll-out, puts globally-leading cellular communications capability into the hands of our emergency responders. The Public Safety Network’s new Cellular Priority service means Police, Wellington ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Minister reopens Mangamuka Gorge

State Highway 1 through the Mangamuka Gorge has officially reopened today, providing a critical link for Northlanders and offering much-needed relief ahead of the busy summer period, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“The Mangamuka Gorge is a vital route for Northland, carrying around 1,300 vehicles per day and connecting the Far ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Funding confirmed for second Ashburton Bridge

The Government has welcomed decisions by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and Ashburton District Council confirming funding to boost resilience in the Canterbury region, with construction on a second Ashburton Bridge expected to begin in 2026, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Delivering a second Ashburton Bridge to improve resilience and ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Government boosts support for avian influenza response

The Government is backing the response into high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Otago, Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard says. “Cabinet has approved new funding of $20 million to enable MPI to meet unbudgeted ongoing expenses associated with the H7N6 response including rigorous scientific testing of samples at the enhanced PC3 ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

4 days ago
Levelling the playing field for media advertising

Legislation that will repeal all advertising restrictions for broadcasters on Sundays and public holidays has passed through first reading in Parliament today, Media Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “As a growing share of audiences get their news and entertainment from streaming services, these restrictions have become increasingly redundant. New Zealand on ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Inspector-General of Defence appointed

Today the House agreed to Brendan Horsley being appointed Inspector-General of Defence, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “Mr Horsley’s experience will be invaluable in overseeing the establishment of the new office and its support networks. “He is currently Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, having held that role since June 2020. ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Fire and Emergency New Zealand final levy rates confirmed

Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says the Government has agreed to the final regulations for the levy on insurance contracts that will fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand from July 2026. “Earlier this year the Government agreed to a 2.2 percent increase to the rate of levy. Fire ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
More AML relief on the way for Kiwi businesses

The Government is delivering regulatory relief for New Zealand businesses through changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. “The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which was introduced today, is the second Bill – the other being the Statutes Amendment Bill - that ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Hawke’s Bay Expressway moving at pace

Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed further progress on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Road of National Significance (RoNS), with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Board approving funding for the detailed design of Stage 1, paving the way for main works construction to begin in late 2025.“The Government is moving at ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Government seeks partnerships to plant trees on Crown-owned-land

The Government today released a request for information (RFI) to seeking interest in partnerships to plant trees on Crown-owned land with low farming and conservation value (excluding National Parks) Forestry Minister Todd McClay announced. “Planting trees on Crown-owned land will drive economic growth by creating more forestry jobs in our regions, providing more wood ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Wide ranging legislation to make justice system more efficient

Court timeliness, access to justice, and improving the quality of existing regulation are the focus of a series of law changes introduced to Parliament today by Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee. The three Bills in the Regulatory Systems (Justice) Amendment Bill package each improve a different part of the ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Diverse skills in community trust appointments

A total of 41 appointments and reappointments have been made to the 12 community trusts around New Zealand that serve their regions, Associate Finance Minister Shane Jones says. “These trusts, and the communities they serve from the Far North to the deep south, will benefit from the rich experience, knowledge, ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Torture redress for survivors of the Lake Alice Unit

The Government has confirmed how it will provide redress to survivors who were tortured at the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit (the Lake Alice Unit). “The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care found that many of the 362 children who went through the Lake Alice Unit between 1972 and ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
A busy year in the House

It has been a busy, productive year in the House as the coalition Government works hard to get New Zealand back on track, Leader of the House Chris Bishop says. “This Government promised to rebuild the economy, restore law and order and reduce the cost of living. Our record this ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Consultation opens on working with engineered stone

“Accelerated silicosis is an emerging occupational disease caused by unsafe work such as engineered stone benchtops. I am running a standalone consultation on engineered stone to understand what the industry is currently doing to manage the risks, and whether further regulatory intervention is needed,” says Workplace Relations and Safety Minister ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Greater reporting on Treaty settlement commitments

Mehemea he pai mō te tangata, mahia – if it’s good for the people, get on with it. Enhanced reporting on the public sector’s delivery of Treaty settlement commitments will help improve outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders, Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka says. Compiled together for the ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
New appointments to the Charities Registration Board

Mr Roger Holmes Miller and Ms Tarita Hutchinson have been appointed to the Charities Registration Board, Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Louise Upston says. “I would like to welcome the new members joining the Charities Registration Board. “The appointment of Ms Hutchinson and Mr Miller will strengthen the Board’s capacity ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Building consent processing times improve

More building consent and code compliance applications are being processed within the statutory timeframe since the Government required councils to submit quarterly data, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “In the midst of a housing shortage we need to look at every step of the build process for efficiencies ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Faster access to support through Innovation Fund

Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey is proud to announce the first three recipients of the Government’s $10 million Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund which will enable more Kiwis faster access to mental health and addiction support. “This fund is part of the Government’s commitment to investing in ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
New Zealand to assist Vanuatu on earthquake response

New Zealand is providing Vanuatu assistance following yesterday's devastating earthquake, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says. "Vanuatu is a member of our Pacific family and we are supporting it in this time of acute need," Mr Peters says. "Our thoughts are with the people of Vanuatu, and we will be ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Government takes steps to reduce card fees for Kiwis

The Government welcomes the Commerce Commission’s plan to reduce card fees for Kiwis by an estimated $260 million a year, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says.“The Government is relentlessly focused on reducing the cost of living, so Kiwis can keep more of their hard-earned income and live a ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Review recommends ECE regulation shakeup

Regulation Minister David Seymour has welcomed the Early Childhood Education (ECE) regulatory review report, the first major report from the Ministry for Regulation. The report makes 15 recommendations to modernise and simplify regulations across ECE so services can get on with what they do best – providing safe, high-quality care ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Offshore Renewable Energy Bill passes first reading

The Government‘s Offshore Renewable Energy Bill to create a new regulatory regime that will enable firms to construct offshore wind generation has passed its first reading in Parliament, Energy Minister Simeon Brown says.“New Zealand currently does not have a regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy as the previous government failed ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

5 days ago
Local Government (Water Services) Bill passes first reading

Legislation to enable new water service delivery models that will drive critical investment in infrastructure has passed its first reading in Parliament, marking a significant step towards the delivery of Local Water Done Well, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly say.“Councils and voters ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

6 days ago
Gene Technology Bill passes first reading

New Zealand is one step closer to reaping the benefits of gene technology with the passing of the first reading of the Gene Technology Bill, Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins says. "This legislation will end New Zealand's near 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab and is ...

BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz

6 days ago

From smaller homes to screen time, backyard cricket is facing challenges in modern Australia

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kasey Symons, Lecturer of Communication, Sports Media, Deakin University We are well and truly in cricket season. The Australian men’s cricket team is taking centre stage against India in the Border Gavaskar Trophy series while the Big Bash League is underway, as ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

39 minutes ago
Hitting the beach? Here are some dangers to watch out for – plus 10 essentials for your first aid ...

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Woods, Lecturer, Nursing, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University FTiare/Shutterstock Summer is here and for many that means going to the beach. You grab your swimmers, beach towel and sunscreen then maybe check the weather forecast. Did you think to ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

39 minutes ago
You could be stress eating these holidays – or eating your way to stress. 5 tips for the table

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saman Khalesi, Senior Lecturer and Discipline Lead in Nutrition, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity Australia Dean Clarke/Shutterstock The holiday season can be a time of joy, celebration, and indulgence in delicious foods and meals. However, for many, it ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

39 minutes ago
I was asked to come up with my top 5 Aussie films of 2024. It was a difficult task

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia Late Night With The Devil. Maslow Entertainment Marketing is critical to the success of commercial films, and companies will often spend half as much again on top of the ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

39 minutes ago
Interactive: What Earth’s 4.54 billion-year history would look like in a single year

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francisco Jose Testa, Lecturer in Earth Sciences (Mineralogy, Petrology & Geochemistry), University of Tasmania The Conversation As a kid, it was tough for me to grasp the massive time scale of Earth’s history. Now, with nearly two decades of experience as ...

Evening ReportBy The Conversation

54 minutes ago
Public service cuts: ‘Rough’ months ahead for those out of work

Laid-off public servants have been slogging it out on a months-long job hunt, and for some that will continue into 2025. ...

Radio NZ – political

2 hours ago
Māori ‘under siege’ in 2024, must fight back in 2025 – Ngarewa-Packer

Te Pāti Māori has had to adopt a new way of debating, operating and even thinking in Parliament in response to the Government’s “onslaught” against te ao Māori, co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says.In an end-of-year interview with Newsroom, the Te Tai Hauauru MP reflected on how 2024 has differed from her ...

NewsroomBy Marc Daalder

3 hours ago
The real story behind the Government’s maths narrative

Opinion: The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science report was announced earlier this month, yet it didn’t get the flurry of media attention and political hand-wringing that typically accompanies these announcements. This might be because it presented good news, or you could argue, no news; the results paint a ...

NewsroomBy Dr Lisa Darragh, Dr Raewyn Eden and Dr David Pomeroy

3 hours ago
Pretty much every common nut in Aotearoa, reviewed and ranked

At long last, The Spinoff shells out for a nut ranking. The Spinoff needs to double the number of paying members we have to continue telling these kinds of stories. Please read our open letter and sign up to be a member today. It recently came to The Spinoff’s attention ...

The SpinoffBy Shanti Mathias

4 hours ago
What it’s like to be made redundant by the Ministry of Education

I was one of hundreds of people who lost my government job this week. Here’s exactly how it played out. The Spinoff needs to double the number of paying members we have to continue telling these kinds of stories. Please read our open letter and sign up to be a ...

The SpinoffBy Anonymous

4 hours ago
Why can’t I pick up my own dropped phone on a plane?

Summer reissue: One anxiously attentive passenger pays attention to an in-flight safety video, and wonders ‘Why can’t I pick up my own phone?’ The Spinoff needs to double the number of paying members we have to continue telling these kinds of stories. Please read our open letter and sign up ...

The SpinoffBy Gabi Lardies

4 hours ago
Juggernaut: The ghosts of 1984

Summer reissue: Why do those Lange-Douglas years cast such a long shadow 40 years on? The Spinoff needs to double the number of paying members we have to continue telling these kinds of stories. Please read our open letter and sign up to be a member today. First published June ...

The SpinoffBy Toby Manhire

4 hours ago
Newsroom daily quiz, Monday 23 December

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, Monday 23 December appeared first on Newsroom. ...

NewsroomBy Newsroom Puzzles

4 hours ago
Govt walks away from infrastructure alliance

The Government’s social housing agency has backed out of a billion-dollar infrastructure alliance that would have built about 6000 new homes in Auckland – less than 18 months after signing a five-year extension.Labour says the decision to rip up the contract and sell off existing state houses could lead to ...

NewsroomBy Sam Sachdeva

4 hours ago
Daily crossword, Monday 23 December

.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-title { font-size: 1.2em; } .wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .entry-meta { display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; align-items: center; margin-top: 0.5em; } .wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-meta { font-size: 0.8em; } .wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .avatar { height: 25px; width: 25px; } .wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail{ margin: 0; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } .wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail img { height: auto; width: 100%; ...

NewsroomBy Newsroom Puzzles

4 hours ago
Vanuatu quake: Warnings as bad weather threat looms for Port Vila

By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor New Zealand’s Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) says impending bad weather for Port Vila is now the most significant post-quake hazard. A tropical low in the Coral Sea is expected to move into Vanuatu waters, bringing heavy rainfall. Authorities have issued warnings to people ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

10 hours ago
Signs of the hīkoi: More than just ‘words on cardboard’

The placards seen at the Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti conveyed "huge kōrero with immediacy", expert says: "People know the power of the word." ...

Radio NZ – political

19 hours ago
A final Ode to .. King Luxon

Cosmic CatastropheThe year draws to a close.King Luxon has grown tired of the long eveningsListening to the dreary squabbling of his Triumvirate.He strolls up to the top floor of the PalaceTo consult with his Astronomer Royal.The Royal Telescope scans the skies,And King Luxon stares up into the heavensFrom the terrestrial ...

NewsroomBy Victor Billot

1 day ago
A hater and an enthusiast review The Royal Free by Carl Shuker

Spinoff editor Mad Chapman and books editor Claire Mabey debate Carl Shuker’s new novel about… an editor. Claire: Hello Mad, you just finished The Royal Free – overall impressions? Mad: Hi Claire, I literally just put the book down and I would have to say my immediate impression is ...

The SpinoffBy Claire Mabey

1 day ago
Survive to 25 (December, that is)

Christmas and its buildup are often lonely, hard and full of unreasonable expectations. Here’s how to make it to Jesus’s birthday and find the little bit of joy we all deserve. Have you found this year relentless? Has the latest Apple update “fucked up your life”? Have you lost two ...

The SpinoffBy Anna Rawhiti-Connell

1 day ago
All I want for Christmas is modern day slavery legislation

Despite overwhelming public and corporate support, the government has stalled progress on a modern day slavery law. That puts us behind other countries – and makes Christmas a time of tragedy rather than joy, argues Shanti Mathias. Picture the scene on Christmas Day. Everyone replete with nice things to eat, ...

The SpinoffBy Shanti Mathias

1 day ago
Israeli-American historian describes attacks on Gaza as ‘war of annihilation’

Asia Pacific Report “It looks like Hiroshima. It looks like Germany at the end of World War Two,” says an Israeli-American historian and professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University about the horrifying reality of Gaza. Professor Omer Bartov, has described Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza as an ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

1 day ago
NZ govt plans to make ‘heavy handed’ change to free speech rules for universities

The New Zealand government coalition is tweaking university regulations to curb what it says is an increasingly “risk-averse approach” to free speech. The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues. Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

1 day ago
Caitlin Johnstone: Where does the aggression really begin?

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone New York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione with “murder as an act of terrorism” in his alleged shooting of health insurance CEO Brian Thompson earlier this month. This news comes out at the same time as ...

Evening ReportBy David Robie

1 day ago
OECD Report Highlights That More Is Needed

This report reflects that gap in our dealings overseas, and it shows that legislators, the public sector and businesses need to walk the talk. ...

Scoop politics

2 days ago
Government quietly scraps waste minimisation policies

The government has quietly cancelled plans to improve recycling and roll out a kerbside food scraps composting scheme. ...

Radio NZ – political

2 days ago
MEAA welcomes News MAP funding ‘leg up’ for Australian journalism

Pacific Media Watch The union for Australian journalists has welcomed the delivery by the federal government of more than $150 million to support the sustainability of public interest journalism over the next four years. Combined with the announcement of the revamped News Bargaining Initiative, this could result in up to ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

2 days ago
Transmission Gully partnership breakdown will not hurt future public-private partnerships, Infrastru...

The roads partnership unravelled under a confidential settlement this week, meaning NZTA will now finish off what it had said was incomplete work. ...

Radio NZ – political

2 days ago
Funding cuts to charity particularly felt over Christmas period

The number of people seeking help from Lifeline is expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent over Christmas. ...

Radio NZ – political

2 days ago
Nelson Hospital conditions ‘unbearable’ – staff

One worker says the building is decrepit and falling down around them. ...

Radio NZ – political

2 days ago
The Secret Diary of .. Luxon at Xmas

MONDAY“Merry Xmas, and praise the Lord,” said Sheriff Luxon, and smiled for the camera. There was a flash of smoke when the shutter pressed down on the magnesium powder. The sheriff had arranged for a photographer from the Dodge Gazette to attend a ceremony where he handed out food parcels to ...

NewsroomBy Steve Braunias

2 days ago
Stand by for cricket’s Smash Palace

It’s a little under two months since the White Ferns shocked the cricketing world, deservedly taking home the T20 World Cup. Since then the trophy has had a tour around the country, five of the squad have played in the WBBL in Australia while most others have returned to domestic ...

NewsroomBy Aiden McLaughlin

2 days ago
Early-onset dementia under the microscope

Comment: If we say the word ‘dementia’, many will picture an older person struggling to remember the names of their loved ones, maybe a grandparent living out their final years in an aged care facility. Dementia can also occur in people younger than 65, but it can take time before ...

NewsroomBy Shruti Sharma and Dr Brigid Ryan

2 days ago
Keeping the pirates at bay: Should the Australian ‘Blocking Order’ case prompt a discussion in N...

Piracy is a reality of modern life – but copyright law has struggled to play catch-up for as long as the entertainment industry has existed. As far back as 1988, the House of Lords criticised copyright law’s conflict with the reality of human behaviour in the context of burning cassette ...

NewsroomBy Tania Goatley and Oscar Zambuto

2 days ago
‘We were as famous as Tom Cruise’: Craig Parker on 90s Shortland St fandom

As he makes a surprise return to Shortland Street, actor Craig Parker takes us through his life in television. Craig Parker has been a fixture on television in Aotearoa for nearly four decades. He had starring roles in iconic local series like Gloss, Mercy Peak and Diplomatic Immunity, featured in ...

The SpinoffBy My Life in TV

2 days ago
‘I prioritise the mission, not my health’: Adam McGrath’s perfect weekend playlist

The Ōtautahi musician shares the 10 tracks he loves to spin, including the folk classic that cured him of a ‘case of the give-ups’. When singer-songwriter Adam McGrath returns to Kumeu’s Auckland Folk Festival from January 24-27, he’s not planning on simply idling his way through – he wants the late ...

The SpinoffBy Weekend playlist

2 days ago
The rescue dog bringing joy to Christchurch retirement homes

Alex Casey spends an afternoon on the job with River, the rescue dog on a mission to spread joy to Ōtautahi rest homes. Almost everyone says it is never enough time. But River the rescue dog, a jet black huntaway border collie cross, has to keep a tight pace to ...

The SpinoffBy Alex Casey

2 days ago
Fiji pro-Palestine nativity scene exposes Gaza as ‘hell on earth’ at Christmas

Asia Pacific Report Fiji activists have recreated the nativity scene at a solidarity for Palestine gathering in Fiji’s capital Suva just days before Christmas. The Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre and Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network recreated the scene at the FWCC compound — a baby Jesus figurine lies amidst the ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

2 days ago
Vanuatu quake: ‘Our shop was flattened like a deck of cards’

By 1News Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver and 1News reporters A number of Kiwis have been successfully evacuated from Vanuatu after a devastating earthquake shook the Pacific island nation earlier this week. The death toll was still unclear, though at least 14 people were killed according to an earlier statement from ...

Evening ReportBy Asia Pacific Report

2 days ago
How diplomats have broken the law in NZ – and what happened next

A handful of foreign diplomats have misbehaved during their time here - and not all of them have been brought to justice. ...

Radio NZ – political

3 days ago

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