The Standard line: Photoshop

132 comments on “The Standard line: Photoshop ”

• Comments are now closed

1. sweetd 1

   24 October 2008 at 10:15 am

   to refute
   1.Its politics, get used to it.
   2.Can you explain to me how make-up and lighting straighten teeth?
   3.Very subjective.
   4.No, they are made because the photo looks very unlike the actual subject.
   5.No, these attacks are all about trust
   6.Pot, kettle, black.
2. Strings 2

   24 October 2008 at 10:15 am

   Interesting perspective.

   I would suggest that this picture was taken some time ago, and reflects Helen before she was hit by Female Pinnochio syndrome.

   Male Pinnochio syndrome is where telling pork pies results in long nostril and inner ear hair; Female Pinnochio syndrome is where telling pork pies results in a snaggletooth.
3. higherstandard 3

   24 October 2008 at 10:21 am

   – These attacks are ony being made on Clark because she is a woman, a strong and confident one whose leadership and political skills has seen her defeat a number of conservative men – like Cullen and Goff ?
4. yl 4

   24 October 2008 at 10:35 am

   Strings.

   “Female Pinnochio syndrome is where telling pork pies results in a snaggletooth”.

   lol

   i dont know where you righty’s get this stuff from
5. vidiot 5

   24 October 2008 at 10:39 am

   It’s false advertising. Much like the ‘wonder bra’, you select the goods based on their appearance, get them home, take the wrapping off and go wtf, fine print reads: contents may differ for image shown. Same applies to our politicians – and they have the audacity to cry ‘secret agenda’.
6. appleboy 6

   24 October 2008 at 10:43 am

   yl…they get it from gutter minds
7. Pat 7

   24 October 2008 at 10:47 am

   This is a frequent topic of conversation. I even hear children talking about it to their friends as you drive past the billboards. And it all comes down to one thing:

   The teeth.

   If Labour wanted this to go away, they should have shown Helen with her real teeth. Instead, it has become a unintended symbol for the Trust campaign.

   Even SP’s post has failed to tackle this one, simple, issue head on – it’s the teeth.

   In contrast John Key’s billboards show an unflattering, but honest image of his pasty white face. They could have photoshopped a nice tan, or more hair, or a stornger jaw, but they didn’t.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   24 October 2008 at 10:48 am

   vidiot, strings, your view of politics disgusts me – so petty and hollow. you’re not buying Clark’s physical appearance, you’re being asked to vote for her party’s policies and skills.

   sweetd. pathetic. Next you’ll be promoting anti-semitic remarks about Key because ‘that’s politics’
9. Steve Pierson 9

   24 October 2008 at 10:49 am

   Pat. if you think the major issue of this campaign is a picture of Helen Cark’s teeth you’re pathetic.

   get a grip on reality.
10. Daveski 10

    24 October 2008 at 11:05 am

    I thought I’d logged on to the Dim Post by mistake.

    So let’s try an analogy.

    I’m a bankrobber. I rob banks. The problem is not me (not my choices) but the banks because they had all the money!

    Seriously, let’s agree it’s a trivial matter.

    Second, it’s only a matter because Labour’s spin doctors choose to make it one. I won’t even stoop to the trust line because that would be pathetic.

    But so is trying to defend the extent to which this has been airbrushed.

    Let’s put it this way – what message does this send to other women?

    Don’t lead with your chin, SP, when National continues to offer easiest targets (much to my chagrin).
11. Pat 11

    24 October 2008 at 11:08 am

    Of course it is not a major issue of the campaign. But symbolism is important.

    Everyday Helen Clark reminds us that this election is about Trust. And everyday people drive past her billboards.
12. Dom 12

    24 October 2008 at 11:12 am

    I’m very eye for an eye rather than turn the other cheek on this one.

    Anyone who has seen Key for real knows that has blotchy skin, a bigger nose and less hair than his ‘official’ picture. Pat, I don’t agree with you that his image hasn’t been touched – he is made up and they’ve coloured in some hair on that pic – or at the very least combed and lit him in such a way to minimise his flaws.

    Bill English’s skin is rougher than his pictures.

    The right wing are simply throwing stones through the panes of their own glass house here. Who doesn’t want to look their best?

    Bottom line, who votes because of sex appeal? If we did I’d be voting for Simon Power…it pains me to admit that but he’s hot.
13. Steve Pierson 13

    24 October 2008 at 11:13 am

    Pat, and you can’t trust a woman who wears makeup and has some airbrushing? You would be disappointed if you ever met any of those ladies in your ‘lad’s mags’
14. rjs131 14

    24 October 2008 at 11:14 am

    Well at least Bill English doesnt support the stoning of homosexuals like a Labour party MP. When are you going to criticise those comments? Has anyone in the Laboru party denounced those comments, or dont you think people are offended by them?
15. Steve Pierson 15

    24 October 2008 at 11:19 am

    Daveski. the point of this series is posts is to provide counter-arguments to the rubbish people are hearing from the Right.. that means I can’t shy away from National’s supposed strong lines like ‘oh, you can’t trust her look at her teeth!’
16. Steve Pierson 16

    24 October 2008 at 11:25 am

    rjs131. i’ve got more important things to do than critique your intentional mis-construction of backbenchers’ comments.
17. Felix 17

    24 October 2008 at 11:25 am

    SP:
    “You would be disappointed if you ever met any of those ladies in your ‘lad’s mags'”

    I think you might have stumbled onto something here – perhaps it’s not just “faux-outrage”. Maybe something more subconscious is driving it.

    Any psychiatrists around who would like to comment?
18. sweetd 18

    24 October 2008 at 11:26 am

    “sweetd. pathetic. Next you’ll be promoting anti-semitic remarks about Key because ‘that’s politics'”

    Peirson, you bought this topic up, not me. Seems to me that you haven’t answered my points. The photos do not resemble to a close degree Clark, the teeth are photoshoped, makeup and lighting does not straighten teeth. This goes to the heart of the election, trust. If the photo is not a good likeness of Clark, then it stuffs the premise of trust doesn’t it? All your other points are easily answered, as I have done.
19. Pat 19

    24 October 2008 at 11:34 am

    ‘oh, you can’t trust her look at her teeth!’

    SP has got this pretty much spot on. This line is often trotted out by people I discuss the election with – even though I have not even brought up the subject of the billboards.

    So (as with all good sales techniques when handling objections) what is The Standard Line to directly counter this? Without personally attacking whomever as raised the topic – that won’t engender more votes.
20. Joe Blogger 20

    24 October 2008 at 11:37 am

    “If you’ve actually seen Clark in person close-up, you’ll know she projects the same radiance as is evident in the picture.”

    Sorry Steve but if anybody honestly made that suggest that person to me I would be wondering what drugs they had been taking. I’ve Meet her twice in the past 12 months and radiant isn’t a word that has come to mind on either occasion, as for:

    “These attacks are ony being made on Clark because she is a woman, a strong and confident one whose leadership and political skills has seen her defeat a number of conservative men.”

    I’m sorry but thats a crock. The reason these attacks are being made is that the photo looks nothing like reality. It would be like me advertising a car I’ve just crashed and written off on Trade Me using a photo from the manufacturers sales brochure.
21. rjs131 21

    24 October 2008 at 11:42 am

    Well SP if i have miscontrused the comments of Mr Choudary maybe you can enlighten us to what he actually meant?

    I also note that people (including Labour MPS on gaynz.com) were quick to criticise a National candidate in New Plymouth for stupid comments, why cant the same standard be applied to a sitting MP.
22. Tane 22

    24 October 2008 at 11:45 am

    rjs – piss off and stop trolling. No one here is responsible for comments made by some backbencher for a party they didn’t vote for, made before this blog was even in existence. Of course no one here supports stoning homosexuals, or any comments to that effect.

    I take this as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the thread. Any more trolling and you’re banned.
23. Dom 23

    24 October 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Hey, as a gay man I’ll take those advocating stoning over the whole JK ‘I’m gay friendly…to their faces’ line. I like to see my enemies coming!

    Anyway, Mr Choudary voted FOR civil unions…something neither English nor Key did…so they can’t walk the talk…

    Come on you right wingers – tell me how Key looks like his pictures…the nose especially. I swear they’ve unethnicised him by shrinking his nose – I must study that one…
24. rjs131 24

    24 October 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Why is it trolling? You specifically referred to a lack of scrutiny over Bill English’s homophobia and trying to allege that the National party will full of bigots. even if that is true, I then wanted to know why similar scrutiny was being applied to teh Labour party. Of course some comments by some backbench MP are unimportant in teh wider scheme of things, but Charles Chauvel was very critical of teh comments from teh NAt candidate in New Plymouth therefore making it an issue but it appears his party are happy to have a bigot on their list who made far worse comments .
25. higherstandard 25

    24 October 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Dom

    Nah I really don’t think you’d like it in some of those countries with rather odd views of what is “normal” and “abnormal” sexual preferences.

    I remember arriving into a large provincial town in the middle east and wondering what all the commotion was about only to find out that there’d just be a public hanging give me a country with a few bigots here and there in preference to that any day of the week.
26. Matthew Pilott 26

    24 October 2008 at 12:37 pm

    “I remember arriving into a large provincial town in the middle east”

    The middle-east of the North or South Island?
27. Dom 27

    24 October 2008 at 12:42 pm

    hs – my dad’s family are from a small village in Lebanon where both the Muslim and Christian communities treated me just fine, not a rock or lynching in sight – but thanks for the heads up anyways.

    By the way – sexual preference always annoys me. It’s not a ‘preference’ per se. Would Bill English say he prefers men to women? This implies that he would do both but likes one more…

    Sexual orientation will do just fine…
28. higherstandard 28

    24 October 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Does the South Island have a middle east – s’pose Gisborne could fit the bill in the Nth.

    No however I was in Syria at the time – although that’s going back a couple of decades now.
29. higherstandard 29

    24 October 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Dom – It doesn’t surprise me that you found Lebanon to be fine I didn’t feel unsafe there at all either.

    I don’t know what Bill English would say? – No offence was meant by the preference/orientation.
30. Dom 30

    24 October 2008 at 12:55 pm

    hs – so you were talking about Iraq or Iran or Egypt? You just said Middle East…and of course those of us who are of ME descent know it’s like saying ‘Asians’ – each country is different.

    No, I know about the preference thing – I’m just venting – pet peeve and all!
31. higherstandard 31

    24 October 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Sorry my mistake – yep
32. vidiot 32

    24 October 2008 at 1:24 pm

    …your view of politics disgusts me – so petty and hollow. you?re not buying Clark?s physical appearance, you?re being asked to vote for her party?s policies and skills.

    I guess I hit a raw nerve there then ? So you like buying a Chicken pie, getting home taking a big bite and discovering it’s Steak & Kidney then ? The point you missed was that both of the major parties of guilty of ‘overselling/marketing’ themselves and that falsifying images are the start of it.

    OK, so I am voting for her parties policies, yet if I look back at the last 3 years of this government I see ‘controversial’ policies/initiatives implemented that weren’t ‘her parties’ policies, instead they are the policies of the fringe nutters – people I didn’t vote for.

    My personal preference would be to see a centrist government in place that represents 80%+ of the common NZ voter (a Utopian view I know, one that will never happen due to the ego’s at play). Not one that represents 30+ % of the vote and a bunch of fringe dwelling foons to help make up the numbers.
33. fitzyp 33

    24 October 2008 at 1:38 pm

    I actually cannot believe that some people think its a valid line of argument.
34. Daveski 34

    24 October 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Ahh vidiot – the Grand Coalition.

    Funny that hasn’t been mentioned before.

    I’ve made the comment that increasingly Labour and National are crossing over – indeed the reality of MMP forces them down this path.

    MMP does give exceptional power to the smaller parties.

    However, as you point out egos will mean that you won’t get a centrist party emerge that could change the political landscape.
35. randal 35

    24 October 2008 at 2:03 pm

    you know that the hypnotised never lie!
36. Steve Withers 36

    24 October 2008 at 2:22 pm

    “It speaks volumes that National and their supporters would rather spread sexist smears than discuss serious issues.”

    Exactly. Yes. Just one more reason why I can’t vote for such people. I don’t care who does it, it reflects badly on anyone who engages in such behaviour and makes suspect anything else they say or do.

    Just politics? Sure….but not politics I approve of and not politics I have to tolerate.

    So I don’t. No one should.
37. randal 37

    24 October 2008 at 2:27 pm

    their (national) corrupt and corrosive practice makes up for the fact they have no policy and also reflects their real moral and ethical standards which not suprisingly are about nil.
38. Steve Withers 38

    24 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Daveski: MMP does NOT “give exceptional power” to smaller parties. The problem people who say things like that do not want to face is that the larger parties are still only minority parties.

    Democracy is about majorities. MMP makes this explicit and required while FPTP used to cheat.

    No party with minority support should be alloowed to have it their own way and MMP does an excellent job of making that a reality.

    If Labour and National *always* disagree, then of course whoever else can compose a majority is handed – on a silver platter – the possibilities that composing a majority brings.

    But don’t blame MMP for this. It’s the residual confrontational culture among the two major parties that is the real source of the trouble. Especially the National Party as they still hope to dump MMP and therefore resist changing their internal and external “culture” to adust to the new reality.

    John Key is the explicit attempt to look like they “get” MMP while at the same time having little real intention of actually becoming the more compromising and humble organisation that their 40% of the vote (or whatever) should see them exhibit.

    Most people don’t vote for them. They should get that through their heads…and stop trying to pretend otherwise.

    There is no such thing as “exceptional power”. It’s a fraud….and evidence of a failure to comprehend democracy and majority.
39. NeillR 39

    24 October 2008 at 2:38 pm

    you’re not buying Clark’s physical appearance, you’re being asked to vote for her party’s policies and skills.
    Then why does Clark feel the need to have such a highly chopped photo of herself? Especially given her strong feminist background? I too long for the day when politics is about policies and not appearance, but until Clark decides to put out a realistic fascimile we can only hope.
40. higherstandard 40

    24 October 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Steve Withers

    You are a twat – the vast rump of NZ will vote for Labour or National yet of the vast rump around half of them will not have their party of choice in government but will have a minority party wagging a large party.

    Outside of a grand coalition or Labour or National getting more than 50% of the vote (very unlikely) we will yet again have a situation which is barely (if at all) superior to FPP.
41. Steve Withers 41

    24 October 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Thinking about that further, it is FPTP that “gives exceptional power” to one minority party – cutting out all others.

    That just sucks .
42. randal 42

    24 October 2008 at 2:45 pm

    neillr you are acreep to keep going on about someone elses appearance. get a life you smarmy little jerk
43. Sarah 43

    24 October 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Helen’s photos are heavily photoshopped. I saw her at MUN twice this year, and there is a dramatic difference between what you see in her billboards and what you see in real life. It’s quite ironic, but rather fitting, that a party campaiging on trust would do something of this sort.
44. vidiot 44

    24 October 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Sarah – you mean like this one ?

    http://i33.tinypic.com/351z9j7.gif

    There are unflattering images of both of the major parties leaders in common circulation, which makes the use of photo shopped images a joke.

    Marketing is all about packaging, you don’t buy a Ferrari because it comes with a sensible glove box and sun visors, you buy it because it turns you on.
45. Sarah 45

    24 October 2008 at 3:30 pm

    True vidiot, but John does it in no way as much as Helen. To actually claim, as SP does, that there is very little photoshopping in her pictures is such a joke.
46. Steve Pierson 46

    24 October 2008 at 3:37 pm

    vidiot. politics isn’t all about marketing.
47. vidiot 47

    24 October 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Sorry Steve but Marketing has a hell of a lot to do with politics.

    Take 2002 (the dreaded worm debate), once Peter Dunne got on screen and marketed his policies, his support went up 10 fold. And his result that year for UF showed that. This year, he’s not had a chance to soapbox/market his policies and he’s now at what 0.5%.

    Sure, he had some ideas/policies that the people liked, but up until the time he got airtime, nobody knew who (or what) he was.

    There’s no point having a great story and then not promoting it for the people to buy.

    The billboards, brochures, you-tube videos, websites, sign written vehicles are all there to market the parties and what they ‘in theory’ stand for. Helen standing on ‘trust’ and using that heavily photo-shopped image is all part of the marketing process.

    edit: photo-shopped, not digitally altered – there’s a big difference between correcting a skin tone/blemish as to removing features/characteristics of that person.
48. Daveski 48

    24 October 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Steve W

    Your comments don’t stack up.

    Winston has in the past managed to extract significant policy and other benefits from having barely 5% of the vote compared to a party of around 40%.

    That’s not proportionate. So exceptional is not unwarranted.

    After the election, what’s the bet we don’t know who the government will be until the MP finish a series of hui, yet the MP party most likely won’t crack 5%. Isn’t that exceptional power for a minor party?

    I’m not dissing * MMP as such – just pointing out a reality you seem sensitive about.

    * Is it right for a middle aged white rightie to use “dissing”? Discuss.
49. vidiot 49

    24 October 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Daveski – please define ‘middle aged’

    a) 18 – 30
    b) 31 – 40
    c) 41 – 50
    d) 51- 60
    e) 61+

    And using the Pantone charts, please state colour pallete used for you.

    And dissing, yeah sure fine I think it might even be in the webster these days.
50. Daveski 50

    24 October 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Vidiot

    Good question.

    Answer – someone older than me.

    Regretably it is C (1981 Springbok Tour plus 27 years) gives the algebraic equation.

    Makes LP and a few others about similar ages too.
51. Steve Withers 51

    24 October 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Daveski: I still can’t see where “exceptional” comes from. Any party willing to support that policy could have been part of a majority. They chose not to be part of that majority.

    That’s democracy……nothing ‘exceptional” there. Please define ‘exceptional”, given that other parties could have…but CHOSE not to.

    Yes…this is a language quibble. “Exceptional” implies some degree of inequity or unfairness or advantage (deserved or not)….and none of those apply. Whether a party – or parties – choose to not support a measure is democracy in action.

    That’s why we elect people. Nothing exceptional there.
52. Julie 52

    24 October 2008 at 5:24 pm

    It seems to me that women in this situation are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, and to a much higher degree than men. Some people are still not able to look past a woman’s appearance and consider what she says, and does, as a more important indicator of her worth, or, in this case, her prime ministerial ability. Men are not held to the same standard, although the pressure for their looks to conform has increased.

    IMHO the difference in photoshopping between Clark’s image and Key’s is a pretty good measure of the different standards. Key is able to make minor changes, primarily to hair, skin tone (either that or he’s wearing blush), and facial features, whereas Clark requires more (although still minor imho).

    And I have to say that it is entirely possible to create, through make-up, lighting and camera angles, a photo of somebody that looks quite different from what you might encounter on the street, without going near the photoshop icons at all. I was quite surprised at my own appearance in a few of my wedding photos, and I know there was no retouching beyond colour balancing. Once when I ran for student election the photographer was able to take some very flattering shots of me (and actually I didn’t even have much make-up on). So claims that photoshop was not necessary (for Key or for Clark) could in fact be true.
53. randal 53

    24 October 2008 at 5:44 pm

    sarah you are a jealous ugly hag. get over it!
54. QoT 54

    24 October 2008 at 8:32 pm

    I’m with Julie on this. The fact is, John Key doesn’t have to put on a toupee or get a facelift because it’s not detrimental for a man to look like a human being.
55. martin english 55

    26 October 2008 at 5:31 pm

    No airbrushing ? Ok, so what happened to the wart ?

    just under the right hand side of her mouth.

    Compare this to the top of the page on http://www.labour08.co.nz
56. Felix 56

    26 October 2008 at 6:23 pm

    QoT

    He’d do better if he did look like a human. Looks like a replicant to me.

    If only there were a journo with the guts to ask him about his mother…
57. G 57

    27 October 2008 at 4:16 am

    SP: “If you’ve actually seen Clark in person close-up, you’ll know she projects the same radiance as is evident in the picture…”

    Oh dear, Steven, you really are head over heels aren’t you, you poor thing. 🙂
58. lprent 58

    27 October 2008 at 7:53 am

    G: you really are a little jerk aren’t you, a prize wingnut. It always amuses me the way that the little pricks like you really hate having an effective woman prime minister.

    I’ve worked on Mt Albert election campaigns since probably before you were born, both for and against Helen. I have been known to ‘discuss rigorously’ various issues with her, because we disagree on many topics. But she takes on board ideas from across the spectrum to get something that is workable. That ranges from my centre-right views to some of the irredeemably liberal views.

    She is far and away the best PM that I’ve seen in my lifetime, and a bloody effective local MP as well. Long may it continue.

    BTW: There was a classic shot of Helen and Peter in the Herald on Sunday which I can’t see online (damnit) in online version of this article. It showed Peter cooking the curry and Helen seated talking to Holmes. Now that was a classic shot, and was almost perfect. Does anyone know where I can get it online?
59. G 59

    27 October 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Centre-right, Iprent? Centre-yeah-right!

    It doesn’t amuse me at all, Iprent, that you twits keep defending the bitter and harsh reality of the unairbrushed facsimile of your beloved leader with the vigour you do. Oh she’s been effective alright — just look at the greedy surpluses of other people’s money she’s been bathing in for years, and dishing out like some great benevolent dictator. Taking money from the so-called rich pricks and giving it to the people she thinks are more deserving is theft whichever way you slice it. Your argument that it’s democratically sanctioned doesn’t alter the injustice one iota.

    You people will never understand the underlying philosophical evil of altruism, a doctrine that effectively leaves its adherents without moral guidance. Altruism evades the task of defining a code of moral values — it’s only interest is in how they should be distributed. According to socialist principles need is the only true criterion, and under its altruist ethics it states that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for yourself is evil. So the recipient of the action is the only determinant of a moral action — and so long as the beneficiary is anyone other than yourself, anything goes. And boy haven’t we seen it go.

    Politics without sound principle and a moral philosophy is a very blunt instrument indeed. I’m sick of being bludgeoned by Nanny, and I’m working tirelessly to ensure Prime Sinister Clark’s regime comes to an end.

    Contrary to your assertion, I do admire a truly effective woman Prime Minister … not perfect by any stretch, but unequivocally effective in saving her country from the stagnant, unionised hellhole it had become.
60. DeeDub 60

    27 October 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Hey ‘G’

    “Politics without sound principle and a moral philosophy is a very blunt instrument indeed”

    Sounds like Thatcher alright! Ask someone who lived through that twisted social darwinists’ rule what it was actually like? Moral? Don’t make me laugh.

    “not perfect by any stretch, but unequivocally effective in saving her country from the stagnant, unionised hellhole it had become”

    God bless Pinochet too I suppose?

    You sad Friedmanite freak!
61. DeeDub 61

    27 October 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Actually G how can you possibly idolise a person who once famously said “there is no such thing as society…” ??

    My GOD, man!!!
62. Felix 62

    27 October 2008 at 4:43 pm

    G

    Extreme right wingers now call themselves “centre-right”.

    That doesn’t make it so.
63. Anita 63

    27 October 2008 at 5:00 pm

    G,

    You people will never understand the underlying philosophical evil of altruism, a doctrine that effectively leaves its adherents without moral guidance.

    Me people does not understand what you mean by altruism.

    When I give my elderly neighbour eggs (from my chooks) because I know they make her happy is it evil? philosophically evil? morally unguided?
64. DeeDub 64

    27 October 2008 at 5:01 pm

    G: “According to socialist principles need is the only true criterion . . . so long as the beneficiary is anyone other than yourself, anything goes. And boy haven’t we seen it go.”

    What a load of utter bollocks! Where did you study socialism?
65. lprent 65

    27 October 2008 at 5:36 pm

    G: What a strange set of ideas you have. So is my (or DPF’s) altruism in providing these blogs for you to scrawl your ideas on, that is evil? If so then you must a evil worshiper….

    Now we have you sorted…
66. G 66

    27 October 2008 at 5:41 pm

    DumbDeeDub… here it is from the ass’s mouth: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” And there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into an amorphous collective.

    Anita, what you are describing is a voluntary act of charity. This is not altruism, which is a duty-bound action that one is obliged (or in socialist societies, forced) to perform. I imagine there is a value exchange in your scenario: your eggs make your elderly neighbour smile — and in turn that makes you happy, no? That’s a selfish act. If it were selfless, you would receive no value from it at all. And if joy is a value to you, the exchange is fair and complete — and utterly moral.
67. G 67

    27 October 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Iprent, I had no idea you had a duty to provide this blog. Why, may I ask, are you doing something that’s so unrewarding?
68. G 68

    27 October 2008 at 5:52 pm

    [Edit for clarity: … there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into a singular unit.]
69. Anita 69

    27 October 2008 at 6:04 pm

    G,

    So how do you define altruism?

    I’ve never thought of altruism as a duty (let alone compulsion), I’ve never seen it defined that way.

    Does giving eggs to my neighbour make me happy? I guess a little, but it’s just one of the things I do; it’s just an expression of who I am. It comes out of caring for others and acting on that caring.
70. Chris G 70

    27 October 2008 at 6:18 pm

    Okay, here we have G who is philosophically not aligned at all with any left wing thought. According to G: Caring for other people is always going to be selfish. And the Left is without ‘Sound Principle and Moral philosophy’ riiightt. I thought I’d heard it all from an extreme righty, but G takes the cake.

    If actually Caring for marginalised people in this Society ie. A basis of left wing thought, unlike you one-eyed righties, is against Sound Principle and lacks moral philosophy. Then I must be a monster. But quite frankly, I can see this being a we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because no matter what you say, at the end of the day:

    I think You are Morally deluded.

    Maybe the sort of sound principles you like are akin to the Christian Right? are you one of them?
71. Felix 71

    27 October 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Repeat after G:

    “We’re all individuals.
    We care only for our own self gratification.
    Anything you feel for another individual must be ignored.
    No deviation from these truths shall be deemed acceptable.
    We all came to these conclusions independently of course as we are all individuals.”

    Whatever.

    You know what G? I think I’m starting to understand why it seems to you that there’s no such thing as society.
72. G 72

    27 October 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Here’s Wiki’s definition, Anita, which I take to be the general view: “Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others… Altruism is the opposite of selfishness… Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty… Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.

    Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte’s version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an “altruist.”

    You are not obligated to give the old neighbour your eggs. You sound like a good sort, Anita. I would be most surprised if you performed this act of charity as a lifeless automaton, doing it because you HAD to do it; doing it without bringing some sense of personal joy; doing because you could care less whether she enjoyed your eggs or not.
73. Chris G 73

    27 October 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Felix,

    Add:

    ‘Where I ended up in the world is a result of my own doing and nobody elses’

    or:

    ‘Anyone can be a CEO like me if they put their mind to it’
74. G 74

    27 October 2008 at 6:42 pm

    Chris G, you’re clearly too thick to get your head around any philosophical discussion, but let me try at least and enlighten you as to my political leanings. The true political spectrum isn’t Left-wing state vs Right-wing state, because ultimately you’re stuck with a large dose of state with varying degrees of liberalism, conservatism and totalitarianism. So here’s another paradigm with which you may not be familiar:

    TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT — MODERATE GOVERNMENT — LIMITED GOVERNMENT — NO GOVERNMENT/ANARCHY. I am neither “right” nor “left”. Once and for all, for the umpteenth time, I subscribe to a limited constitutional government.

    [lprent: Personally I just wish you wouldn’t shout – especially slogans. Hurts my eyes as I scan over comments]
75. G 75

    27 October 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Oh… and I’m an anti-theist. 🙂
76. G 76

    27 October 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Felix, you too seem to be a rather confused young man.

    “We’re all individuals.
    Correct
    We care only for our own self gratification.
    You’re describing a hedonist; I have family and friends for whom I care deeply and most selfishly.
    Anything you feel for another individual must be ignored.
    Who said?
    No deviation from these truths shall be deemed acceptable.
    Them’s your rules, mate — not mine.
    We all came to these conclusions independently of course…
    Them’s your delusions, mate — not mine.
    … as we are all individuals.”
    Correct

    And for even more clarity: there is no such thing or unit called society which is an entity that is apart from or superior to the sum of its individual members. Society is simply a great number of people who live together in the same place, who in their daily lives deal with one another.
77. Felix 77

    27 October 2008 at 7:04 pm

    zOMG!!!1

    G lives in a 2 dimensional world not just a one dimensional one!!

    You think you’ve got a handle on these amazing concepts that no-one else understands but seriously, it’s like watching a chimp get excited about learning to tie shoelaces.
78. G 78

    27 October 2008 at 7:11 pm

    BZZZZZ… and you’re outta the game, Felix. I’ve noticed that you reach for the unsubstantiated epithet — or ad hominem — faster than anyone else on this blog.
79. Chris G 79

    27 October 2008 at 7:27 pm

    ‘I subscribe to a limited constitutional government’ Sound like an ACT supporter to me as thats one of their catch-phrases. They are right wing, that is fairly obvious and they would quickly admit that themselves.

    Your paradigm reduces any political philosophy to a one dimensional factor based on the size of the government. So essentially we all voting according to how large we want a government? Thats what your saying. Thats revolutionary thinking G, publish that.

    Finally: Care to elaborate on your statement “Politics without sound principle and a moral philosophy is a very blunt instrument indeed. I’m sick of being bludgeoned by Nanny” Why are left wingers (or as you call them big government supporters) without sound principle and moral philosophy, and more importantly Why and How do you, conversely, have So much?

    Your one of those ACT supporters I hate talking to. Get Michael Tabachnik back here, he’s an ACT guy who I respect and actually made me think that if your an ACT person your not deranged, you make me think otherwise.
80. Daffodil Gal 80

    27 October 2008 at 7:34 pm

    G, know your sources. I just viewed the wikipedia article you’re

    “Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not.”

    The article directly contradicts your assertion that altruism is based on a sense moral obligation.

    Anita is therefore clearly displaying some level of altruism by giving up her eggs to help her elderly neighbour. She is driven by the motivation to do something that she believes to be good. She may or may not feel a sense of duty, but that’s really not for you to say.

    In your own example, paying of taxes by the filthy rich (or at least grubby rich) is in no way due to altruism. It is legally required due to policies that place a high value on equity within our economy. It is not due to the wealthy feeling deeply motivated to help out the poor/unemployed/sick at no personal gain. Neither is it due to moral obligation (a feeling of duty) even, but more due to the fact that you like living in New Zealand and would rather obey the law and lose some of your income to tax than leave for a country like Kyrgyzstan which has a flat tax rate but not many of the benefits you enjoy here in New Zealand.

    Actually, perhaps you should do that, Homie G. Some Kyrgyz probably wouldn’t mind your mindless blathering, given that English is not widely spoken there. And less people would argue with you than on here. I think I have just solved all your problems. But I am not being altruistic. Because I am driven by the selfish wish that you would just f off.
81. Akldnut 81

    27 October 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Ghere it is from the ass’s mouth: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.’ And there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into an amorphous collective.
    [Edit for clarity: … there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into a singular unit.]

    I think your definition’s wrong, just an interpretation by a pommie bitch who screwed over her own people too. An entity can be a group or body of people in any perspective. ie NZ is its own entity compared to the rest of the world which would make our Kiwi society a different entity to that of say UK, Israel, Egypt……
    or should we be bound by laws made in their countries? I think not!
82. Akldnut 82

    27 October 2008 at 7:37 pm

    That makes our society an entity unto itself, hence society = entity
83. G 83

    27 October 2008 at 7:57 pm

    Among certain circles ACT is otherwise known as the Association of Compulsion Touters. They are right-wing semi-socialists; they are NOT libertarian. Though they do get points for supporting small government, self-governance, self-responsibility and eliminating some elements of Nanny from our households.

    To be crystal clear, Chris, a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual — not just the poor and disenfranchised — or for that matter just the rich. It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be, and if we had a constitution that prevented the mob-rule situation we’re suffering today where the majority can and does dictate how the minority lives their lives, then it wouldn’t really matter who was in power: it would simply be a matter of electing a competent and honest manager to oversee and protect the constitution.

    It’s not just the Left that bludgeon; the Right do it too. They’re both operating without morality for reasons I’ve already stated above: altruism, the doctrine which sacrifices the individual to society and the state, is utterly immoral.

    “My” system is moral because in it EVERYONE is equal in the eyes of the law, and EVERYONE has the right, as a consenting adult, to deal with other consenting adults in any way they choose — PROVIDED they respect the individual rights of others. In other words, live and let live.
84. Chris G 84

    27 October 2008 at 8:16 pm

    This is my last sound off because I’ve decided its not worth talking to you for much longer.

    “a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual”

    Firstly, I said your paradigm was one-dimensional and how ridiculous it was to assume we should vote based purely on how big we want a govt to be. Secondly: How can protecting the rights of every individual be one-dimensional. A collection of individuals is so multi-faceted it never ceases to amaze me and simply banging out a constitution is unlikely to address everyones concerns.

    “It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be”
    How do we know when its too big? When your worried about how much taxes your paying?

    Your idealistic, ill give you points for trying, but good luck with convincing anyone how your libertarian ideas will work.

    To Libertarians: You assume that limited government will lead to freedom for everyone and the ‘shackles that once held you’ (ie. govt) will be removed and no one will be in a position of power above you ‘bludgeoning you'(Do they do it for fun?). Well, G, Mans pursuit of POWER will never stop and you are a fool to think that if you remove government you wont have someone in Power or searching for Power above you. To get me to my point: You limit government, you increase the power of the next most capable people of gaining a hold of power and those who will always seek it: Corporations. The drive for more money and power are often synonmous. Someone will always want to ‘bludgeon you’ as you put it.

    You will have more of tripe like the Channel One Network in America. Where schools who dont get enough Govt funding in search of money have to take money from corporations so long as the kids have to sit and watch ads.
    Cos you like wiki so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_One_News

    Plus, I’m convinced your a Christian Right nutter.
85. Chris G 85

    27 October 2008 at 8:38 pm

    This is my last sound off because I’ve decided its not worth talking to you for much longer.

    “a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual”

    Firstly, I said your paradigm was one-dimensional and how ridiculous it was to assume we should vote based purely on how big we want a govt to be. Secondly: How can protecting the rights of every individual be one-dimensional. A collection of individuals is so multi-faceted it never ceases to amaze me and simply banging out a constitution is unlikely to address everyones concerns.

    “It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be”
    How do we know when its too big? When your worried about how much taxes your paying?

    Your idealistic, ill give you points for trying, but good luck with convincing anyone how your libertarian ideas will work.

    To Libertarians: You assume that limited government will lead to freedom for everyone and the ‘shackles that once held you’ (ie. govt) will be removed and no one will be in a position of power above you ‘bludgeoning you'(Do they do it for fun?). Well, G, Mans pursuit of POWER will never stop and you are a fool to think that if you remove government you wont have someone in Power or searching for Power above you. To get me to my point: You limit government, you increase the power of the next most capable people of gaining a hold of power and those who will always seek it: Corporations. The drive for more money and power are often synonmous. Someone will always want to ‘bludgeon you’ as you put it.

    You will have more of tripe like the Channel One Network in America. Where schools who dont get enough Govt funding in search of money have to take money from corporations so long as the kids have to sit and watch ads.
    Cos you like wiki so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_One_News
86. G 86

    27 October 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Thanks for your consideration, Daffodil. I can see how you might think this contradicts, but it’s really a question of semantics.

    Ethically they’re one in the same. An obligation and a duty (which you’ll find side-by-side in any thesaurus) is in this case simply a distinction made for the one who’s demanding you sacrifice your self to society. Above I quoted directly from Wiki: “Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.”

    If, as I said, joy is a value to Anita, then she has received her ‘reward’ and it’s not altruistic. If she received no value like happiness or joy from performing this act of charity, imagine how deflated the oldie would feel: would the oldie rather receive the eggs as a generous gift that the giver ENJOYED giving? Or an act of pure pity where the giver could care less and felt absolutely NOTHING for it?

    Let’s be clear here: the act of caring (and loving) is a self-ish act — it is your SELF that feels something to care about. To care self-less-ly is a contradiction in terms: it is to say, “I, my self, cares without the self.” The only thing that acts to care without a “self” is a pre-programmed robot.

    Now let’s look at what would happen if Anita received no reward from the oldie. Say she delivers the eggs and gets NOTHING from the exchange — just a completely blank look. Would that bring a smile to Anita’s face? My guess is that it wouldn’t. Anita would be giving, and giving, and giving, without knowing how the oldie felt about it. Now THAT would be a thankless task, and one would have to question WHY Anita was doing it. If the oldie was autistic and felt no gratitude for the eggs because of her unfortunate infliction, one would hope that Anita would still get some sense of her own goodness, a little pump to her self-esteem (another value) from doing the charitable work.

    If NEITHER of them felt anything from the gift, if neither could care less if the oldie starved to death, then you have something that is entirely neutral — the act cannot be said to have ANY moral value whatsoever.
87. G 87

    27 October 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Akidnut:

    entity |ˈentitÄ“| — noun ( pl. -ties) — a thing with distinct and independent existence.

    Indeed New Zealand, the country, is a distinct landmass that exists independently of another landmass like say Australia; as an individual is a distinct human-mass that exists entirely independently of his neighbour. If you lump one neighbour in with another, then what you’re trying to sell me here is that the world populace is one great big entity… la-la-la, Kumbaya… and pop goes your argument that we’re an entirely different entity to that of say UK, Israel etc. Of course if the Islamofascists had their way…

    The thing you socialists are trying to do is eliminate the importance of individuality, and individual rights; you want to sacrifice the individual to the whole just as the Communists and National Socialists attempted to do last century with murderous consequences.

    Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.
88. Akldnut 88

    27 October 2008 at 9:30 pm

    G – I find your robot analogy of selfless to be incorrect, there are such acts by humans as I’m sure families of many, many selfless heroes who have passed would agree ie The gentleman from Whangarei who died trying to help a woman in Auckland a 2-3 weeks ago. (a selfless act doing what he though was right)
89. lprent 89

    27 October 2008 at 9:39 pm

    G: No duty. It is interesting providing a channel for ideas to propagate in. There is a certain morbid amusement in being a BOFH when required.

    Besides it is allowing me to keep certain skills up to scratch.
90. DeeDub 90

    27 October 2008 at 9:40 pm

    G:
    “Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.”

    No. You are just a pompous knob with delusions of intellectual superiority!
91. Akldnut 91

    27 October 2008 at 9:47 pm

    G – entity |ˈentitÄ“| — noun ( pl. -ties) — a thing with distinct and independent existence.

    Our society is quite distinctive and independent of many other countries societies, the distinctness is quite glaring when comparing to some asian or middlle eastern countries. IMO Kiwi society is an entity quite seperate and independent of others.
92. lprent 92

    27 October 2008 at 9:49 pm

    G:

    Indeed New Zealand, the country, is a distinct landmass that exists independently of another landmass like say Australia

    Wrong. You just have a limited frame of reference. A better (as in more predicable) way to view landmasses geologically is as the scum of lighter materials (SiAl) floating on a mobile bed of denser SiMa. The system is made mobile by being powered by a very large nuclear fission reactor with the energy generated by the radioactive decay chain of various isotopes (mainly U238).

    That is easy to see even if you just look at recent history (well for a earth scientist as I originally trained in) over the last 65Myears at NZ’s deformation at the junction of a couple of ocean floor plates. The landmasses are irrelevant, it is the seafloor that is active on both landmasses.

    Any other flawed analogies you’d like to share? Thats ok – keep them to yourself… They’re sure to have the same limited reference frames
93. Killinginthenameof 93

    27 October 2008 at 9:51 pm

    G: “Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.”

    You won’t be needing those roads that my taxes paid for then eh?
94. Akldnut 94

    27 October 2008 at 9:59 pm

    ROFLMAS @ Killinginthenameof
95. Pascal's bookie 95

    27 October 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Hey G-tard, 😉

    Why don’t you save everyone some time and post a link to that interminably long thread where I so generously attempted to a) understand your sorry arse, and b) educate it. I have no fear of others reading our little conversation, after all, you got pwnd more often than a junky’s watch.

    Have you worked out whether the 5th amendment to the US constitution establishes, protects, or extinguishes private property rights as you understand them yet? That was something you had some problem with as I recall.

    And while I’m here, and I live to serve, ‘semantics’ is the study of meaning. When people say the difference is merely semantic they usually don’t know what they are talking about. Sentences with different semantic content, mean different things. That’s kind of the point.

    You also might want to brush up on ‘category errors’ and (still) ‘begging the question’.

    There may be a test, but I doubt it, ‘be nice to a libertarian’ month is long over.
96. Felix 96

    27 October 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Whatever G.

    You remind me of Rodney Hide. You both operate at a mental level of an amoeba yet expect people to believe you’re smart just because you’re impressed by the tripe you regurgitate. Quit pretending you’re holding a torch of special political wisdom – it’s stuff most of us rejected years ago because it fails to withstand any serious analysis.

    When you grow up and out of your wittle wibertawian fantasy maybe you’ll find people who take you seriously enough to have a serious discussion about it. Until then who can be bothered? So you read a bunch of shit on teh interwebz that appeals to your selfish nature. Big deal G, not everyone else is so easily impressed.

    But you cling tight to the fantasy that you’re smarter than everyone else as you cry yourself to sleep alone.
97. G 97

    27 October 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Well you can disagree all you like, Aikidnut, but I’m telling you this: the only way the gentlemen from Whangarei would have jumped into save the total stranger and done it absolutely and entirely selflessly, would be if he didn’t care about himself, or indeed his own existence.

    I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing he wasn’t suicidal.

    The moment he was concerned enough about her to take the calculated risk of jumping in to save her, he was motivated by the rationally selfish emotion of caring. Or it may be that he couldn’t have lived with himself if he didn’t at least try to save her, in which case he was motivated by the rationally selfish protection of his own self-esteem. Then again, he may have imagined himself a hero and was motivated by the rationally selfish emotion of pride.

    My guess is that somewhere at the core of that courageous gentleman from Whangarei was a man fully aware of him-self, with a full accounting of the value of his own life, and the dangerous action, the calculated risk, he was about to take.

    The self-less man, one who has little regard for himself, for his own life, who ranks all human beings above himself, is a sad man without a shred of self-esteem. Generally they’re not the courageous type, though they may do something that would be incorrectly perceived as brave, when in fact he really had nothing to lose.
98. G 98

    27 October 2008 at 10:16 pm

    G: No duty. It is interesting providing a channel for ideas to propagate in. There is a certain morbid amusement in being a BOFH when required… Besides it is allowing me to keep certain skills up to scratch.

    Well I’m happy for you Iprent, and I’m glad to see you’re getting a selfish return on your investment. 🙂

    What the hell is a BOFH?
99. Pascal's bookie 99

    27 October 2008 at 10:20 pm

    “What the hell is a BOFH?”

    Is google broken?

    Results 1 – 10 of about 1,260,000 for BOFH. (0.18 seconds)

    nope.
100. Akldnut 100

     27 October 2008 at 10:22 pm

     G you moron – this man was a devout christian and family man. You should be fucking ashamed of what you’ve just written. you clown
101. G 101

     27 October 2008 at 10:24 pm

     DumbDeeDub, I go and provide you with a quote from your beloved Karl to show you socialism’s key focus, contrary to your cry of “bollocks!”, is indeed on those in need, and that’s your sad little retort? I know it’s hard when you’re shown up among your peers, but really, can’t you come back with more than ad hominem?
102. G 102

     27 October 2008 at 10:29 pm

     Iprent: “Wrong. You just have a limited frame of reference. A better (as in more predicable) way to view landmasses geologically is as the scum of lighter materials (SiAl) floating on a mobile bed of denser SiMa. The system is made mobile by being powered by a very large nuclear fission reactor with the energy generated by the radioactive decay chain of various isotopes (mainly U238).

     That is easy to see even if you just look at recent history (well for a earth scientist as I originally trained in) over the last 65Myears at NZ’s deformation at the junction of a couple of ocean floor plates. The landmasses are irrelevant, it is the seafloor that is active on both landmasses.”

     DumbDeeDub: “No. You are just a pompous knob with delusions of intellectual superiority!”

     🙂
103. G 103

     27 October 2008 at 10:30 pm

     Killing, I paid my taxes too. What’s your point?
104. G 104

     27 October 2008 at 10:46 pm

     As I recall Miss Bookie, I owned your ass when I successfully established that your support of a society who has the power to vote in a government that can do what the hell it likes with a percentage of your property (up to and including 100% of it if it so chooses), means that according to you, people like the Chickawa Indian were ‘righty’ confiscated of their land.

     Ironic, don’t you think, that it’s the libertarian who fights to protect their property rights — not you “love and caring” lefties.
105. Pascal's bookie 105

     27 October 2008 at 11:00 pm

     Post the link then chump. Seeing how you think you even touched me, you should be proud. You didn’t successfully establish shit. Which is kind of like how Libertarianism has never been establshed anywhere, ever, outside of fevered imaginations. Reality fucks with that shit too hard.

     That strawman drivelis what you kept saying though, even though you couldn’t even start on establishing it. Basically you don’t understand what it means when someone says that ‘Property rights are constructed by societies’. You (still) seem to think that that means those rights don’t exist, when in fact, it is the only way those rights can exist. This is all shown in that thread, so let’s not do it over. No mulligans I’m afraid.

     And you again misrepresent what I was saying completely. I also said that if I was in charge the Chickawa would not have had their land confiscated. Unlike you though, I also recognised that the nomadic tribes also had property rights, something your libertarian foolishness couldn’t cope with. You considered them subhuman svages, IIRC.
106. G 106

     27 October 2008 at 11:26 pm

     It is quite possible then, Akldnut, that he did the Christian thing: in the face of certain death he may have put his values on hold (those values being his own life and the love of his wife and kids), and placed the drowning woman’s life above it all — which is indeed altruistic. Which is indeed a selfless act… and an immoral one.

     “Immoral?!” I hear you cry?

     Morality is the act of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad. If he jumped in because God, or the baby Jesus, or the chinless twat at the local church insisted that, as a moral imperative, he sacrifice himself to others, that was a very, very bad choice.

     The moment he selflessly exchanged something of lesser value (the life of the woman) for a greater value (his own life and the love of his family) he became a sacrifice for a doctrine that insists you have no right to exist for your own sake; that your life is less important than another’s; that the life of a total stranger who you care less about is more important than that of your wife or kids for whom you selfishly adore. It’s the doctrine that places you and everything you selfishly value about the needs of your fellow man — that subordinates the individual to the greater good of the group.

     And that is the very point where Christianity and socialism meet. Altruism is evil. And so are your doctrines.

     But clearly none of you has the skill to argue this point, so until the seemingly reasonable and well-mannered Anita comes back I’m taking a break from this inane and ignorant onslaught.
107. G 107

     28 October 2008 at 12:06 am

     Miss Bookie, you’re the one who wants to regurgitate the old argument; don’t be a lazy sod and do your own bidding. But there’s no need to find the link — I can successfully re-stitch you right here.

     IIRC you advocate a system of a social democracy:

     1) where the majority of society gets to chose their government,
     2) that allows their government to determine “how much or how little” private property may be confiscated from individuals,
     3) of a sum that remains eternally uncapped and may in fact, at some future date, include ALL of an individual’s property.

     Therefore, when the society elected the government that confiscated the Indian lands they were — in accordance with your system — well within their rights as a majority rule.

     I, on the other hand, advocate a system of a constitutional democracy:

     1) where the majority of society gets to chose their government,
     2) that limits the power of the government to the role of protecting the private property rights of every individual,
     3) that allows minimal taxation to cover the cost of protecting those rights — and not a penny more — eternally enshrined and codified in a future-proofed constitution.

     This system would have ensured the Chickawa were still farming their lands today.
108. G 108

     28 October 2008 at 12:17 am

     * 1) where the majority of society gets to *choose their government,
109. G 109

     28 October 2008 at 12:55 am

     A final point, Pascal: in a truly civilised society funding the system of government and the necessary public utilities would be funded by voluntary taxation. And before you all cry, “Pipe dreams!” remember this fact: America didn’t even have income tax until 1862. Prior to that they existed solely on tariffs, and as the above article attests, a system of rational selfishness: if they needed a firehouse, the local businesses pulled their money and built one to protect their own property. No council busybody, or social democrat, needed to twist their arms.

     It’s ironic that the Arabs are now showing the West how it should work: Dubai is virtually tax free and its economy is booming beyond belief, and while rent and some services like schooling are expensive, at least their citizens get to choose how their money is be spent. And I can tell you first hand that it ain’t on a massive bureaucracy.

     Ahh… Hookah dreams, hey. 🙂
110. G 110

     28 October 2008 at 12:59 am

     * … at least their citizens get to choose how their money is *spent.

     Bring back the edit function, BOFH!

     [lprent: It is, but seems to fail on some systems. The joys of ajax. At this point it will have to wait until after the election.]
111. G 111

     28 October 2008 at 1:11 am

     * … It’s the doctrine that places you and everything you selfishly value *above the needs of your fellow man…

     What can I say… it’s late, and one against nine is exhausting.
112. Pascal's bookie 112

     28 October 2008 at 6:44 am

     chicken. That wasn’t what I was saying at all. You don’t understand that my talk about constructed rights isn’t normative, but descriptive. Even in your fantsy libertarian world, the rights you would have, if they were worth anything, would be constructed. But you think rights are written in the fabric of the universe, which is what you have in common with Christian Dominionists and the like.

     run along.
113. DeeDub 113

     28 October 2008 at 9:12 am

     G: “DumbDeeDub, I go and provide you with a quote from your beloved Karl to show you socialism’s key focus, contrary to your cry of “bollocks!’, is indeed on those in need, and that’s your sad little retort? I know it’s hard when you’re shown up among your peers, but really, can’t you come back with more than ad hominem?”

     Taking a SINGLE sentance and calling it ‘socialisms focus’ is just infantile and self-serving.

     What is obvious to everyone here G’tard is that you read a lot to confirm your predjucies in the inimitable style of the late son of one A. Schickelgruber. ie.

     “A man who possesses the art of correct reading will, in studying any book, magazine, or pamphlet, instinctively and immediately perceive everything which in his opinion is worth permanently remembering, either because it is suited to his purpose or generally worth knowing….”

     I find it most amusing that almost all of you social Darwinists point to the future by revisiting the ugly foolishness of the past?!! Thatcher was always harping on about how great and ‘moral’ things were in Victorian Britain??!! Hell, yeah! Let’s have the WORKHOUSE back again and the magical days when ‘charity’ from the rich will rescue the poor???!! Didn’t work then won’t work now.

     And now you dribbling on about how great things were done pre-1862 in America without income tax….. Easy to not have income tax when you have the ultimate in free labour though eh? Heard of SLAVERY? Actually income tax was introduced in the US to pay for the war to end slavery. Do you think businesses would nave ‘banded together’ to pay for that to happen? I doubt it.
114. Felix 114

     28 October 2008 at 9:54 am

     Don’t mess with G. He saw a wittle wideo on teh interwebz so he knows what he’s talking about.

     Such a silly boy. The best part is that these “discussions” are archived for eternity so even when he grows up he’ll be able to taste the bitter sting of his own stupidity with a quick google.
115. G 115

     28 October 2008 at 10:36 am

     The ball, people, not the player — Jesus you guys are useless at debating. Stop getting so emotional and engage the brain for once. If you’ve got one.

     Anita…?!

     [BTW, Pascal, this time round I cut to the chase, arrived at the essential construct of your preferred political system, and compared it with my own so that everyone can plainly see only one of us advocated the protection of private property for the Chickawa. Correct me if I’m wrong, otherwise I’ll take it you got ‘pwnd’ (god I hate that juvenile phrase) yet again.]
116. NeillR 116

     28 October 2008 at 10:45 am

     Pat. if you think the major issue of this campaign is a picture of Helen Cark’s teeth you’re pathetic.
     So why did Clark do it?
117. Pascal's bookie 117

     28 October 2008 at 10:49 am

     Nah G. The Chickawa were a sideshow. The debate was whether or not property rights are constructed by societies. You keep confusing this meta point about what all rights are, with what set of rights I would advocate for.

     But for the record, I said that under my prefered system the Chickawa would have their property rights recognised, as would the nomadic tribes that you considered to be subhuman savages.
118. G 118

     28 October 2008 at 11:03 am

     No, as I recall, the Chickawa became the defining case in point in a discussion regarding rights (specifically property rights), that crystalised and distinguished our respective systems.

     But whatever the case may be, if what you say is true, Pascal, HOW would your system have protected the Chickawa exactly? By your own acknowledgement society retains the right to determine “how much or how little property one may keep”, which in the case of the Chickawa (and the nomads for that matter) was precisely none.
119. Pascal's bookie 119

     28 October 2008 at 11:11 am

     Same way you would have numbbrain.

     By constructing and obeying a different set of rules around property than that followed by the US gov’t at that time. Bearing in mind that that US gov’t was the closest example you could come up with to show Libertarianism existing in practice.

     You really are quite boring aren’t you G. You’ve got nothing new after all this time, just the same old strawmen.

     CU
120. G 120

     28 October 2008 at 11:22 am

     Stop contradicting yourself… you said, and I think I accurately quote you, “society retains the right to determine how much or how little property a citizen may keep.”

     Where exactly is the mechanism in your system that would have stopped society from determining to confiscate all the Chickawa land?
121. G 121

     28 October 2008 at 11:25 am

     Pwnd!! … run baby, run. 🙂
122. Vanilla Eis 122

     28 October 2008 at 11:33 am

     God, I remember kicking your arse over this months ago G. Go and find the old thread and re-read it a little, you’re boring.

     captcha: Athens Society (you know, the one they constructed that said that free men had a vote? Where was the mechanism that allowed them to excude slaves? Oh, wait…)
123. Steve Pierson 123

     28 October 2008 at 11:37 am

     You should all know by now there’s no arguing with libertarians. They’re impervious to reason (these are the geniuses who came up with the Freedom Ship) and quick to claim personal victory.
124. r0b 124

     28 October 2008 at 11:40 am

     Pwnd!! run baby, run.

     This is the level that G operates at. In other threads he is shown to be wrong time and again on factual matters (and deeply unpleasant in his values, such as referring to a group of women as “silly bitches”).

     So G prefers content free “philosophical” debates where he can stick to rock hard stupid statements until the end of time. Once everyone else gets sick of making their fingers bleed trying to reason with the unreasonable, G autostimulates his own little ego with a juvenile ejaculation such as the above. But he uses a smiley, so I guess that’s all OK.
125. Matthew Pilott 125

     28 October 2008 at 11:45 am

     If someone uses ‘owned’ freely (10:46) then pretends to hate ‘pwnd’ you know they’re affecting a style to pretend they’re not someone else.
126. Pascal's bookie 126

     28 October 2008 at 11:48 am

     SP, that freedom ship must be getting ready to sail soon, maybe G should book a berth and see how well his ideas work in practice.
127. Pascal's bookie 127

     28 October 2008 at 11:50 am

     In his limited defence I started with the pwnge, but I used it in a metaphor, punning on the ambiguity of the 1337 spelling. He just, well, whatever it is he does.
128. randal 128

     28 October 2008 at 11:56 am

     I think it involves those masks with glases and a moustache and chains and whips and things
129. G 129

     28 October 2008 at 12:10 pm

     Here’s Pascal’s actual quote: “An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers 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.’

     Then she says the Chickawa farmer was unjustly robbed of his land.

     And yet the principle of the system she advocates expressly permits society to “interfere” with as much property as it likes, which in the case of the Chickawa was ALL of it.

     “Pwnd” was her expression, not mine. I hijacked it for the purposes of making a point. “Contradiction exposed” is more my style.

     I see you blog hosts have nothing intelligent to add. Keep up the mediocrity fellas.
130. Matthew Pilott 130

     28 October 2008 at 1:09 pm

     “I see you blog hosts have nothing intelligent to add. Keep up the mediocrity fellas.

     Ahh, I’m sure they have more interesting things to do than re-hash a debate such as this. You have no idea how boring it can be – similar to debating with flat-earthers and creationists, except with far less humour.

     When did Pascal’s Bookie confirm they were a “she”, G? I must have missed it.
131. DeeDub 131

     28 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

     G
     October 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

     “The ball, people, not the player — Jesus you guys are useless at debating. Stop getting so emotional and engage the brain for once. If you’ve got one.”

     I played ‘the ball’, mate… and, I might add to stretch your analogy to breaking point, put one right past you and into the net!

     All you libs seem think you are intellectual gods – the supermen of your dreamed of meritocracy – and you’re happy to argue theory until the cows come home – but the moment a real human issue comes up you have NOTHING to say and your arguments are shown for what they are; “…a tale told by an idiot, full of wind and fury…” etc etc
132. G 132

     28 October 2008 at 2:43 pm

     MP: “Ahh, I’m sure they have more interesting things to do than re-hash a debate such as this. You have no idea how boring it can be – similar to debating with flat-earthers and creationists, except with far less humour.”

     Well it’s infinitely more intelligent than rehashing stale ad hominem, Matt. The “debating with a libertarian is like arguing with a flat-earther” has been leveled at me at least half a dozen times since I’ve been here. And for your information, Pascal and I haven’t actually completed the last argument on property rights and the Chickawa — she flounced at the very same point in the debate the last time, when her contradiction was outed.

     And as for you, DumbDeeDub, you were playing your own little game of footsies, taking the point completely out of context and then topping it off by plagiarising Pascal’s ad hominem.

     Unintelligent and unoriginal.

     I was discussing the nature of morality and how it pertains to our respective political philosophies, and all you clowns can do is regurgitate epithets. Grow the fuck up.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS