Up Front: And a Pony. A Sparkly One.
101 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Act'd get all kinds of pissy if National were to try and change that position, too, so we're probably safe.
I think expecting Act to be our bulwark against social authoritarianism is a bit hopeful, really. Some of them might have these libertarian ideas, but when it comes down to it they're just another bunch of hangers and floggers. And not in a good way.
-
I found this hugely distasteful. People entering into a polygamous relationship in Malaysia receive mandatory and extensive counselling first. Now they're being asked to say which one is their 'proper' wife - with all the loss of benefits and legal status for the discarded spouses that entails.
That's interesting. I'm struggling to, in a few seconds, ponder if there are any similar policies in different areas.
My first thought was married immigrants, where one or both of them were under legal marrying age in New Zealand - would NZ recognise that marriage? But I that's not a fair comparison with polygamy at all.
-
Technical issue: if we had a New Zealand Sex Party, the Australians would hear it as the New Zealand Sucks Party.
I suppose it would be a counter to New Zealand First, at least.
-
I don't actually think you can take a "social liberalism" stance and divorce it from economic and other policy.
One of the main justifications for policies based on restriction and oppression is the tendency of people to have screwed up lives, involving stuff like drug dependency, bad parenting or general alcohol-fueled hooliganism. The socially authoritarian approach to this is to restrict access to drugs 'n' porn 'n' booze - trying to fix the symptoms.
But the underlying cause of most such people's problems is a spiral of social deprivation, leading to a lack of self-respect and responsibility. Delivering social justice is the real long term answer to these problems - not locking people up.
So for me at least, social liberalism and social justice both need to be pursued and the Greens are the closest NZ party I've found that's trying to deliver this.
-
"Technical issue: if we had a New Zealand Sex Party, the Australians would hear it as the New Zealand Sucks Party.
I suppose it would be a counter to New Zealand First, at least."
NZ First don't have any teeth, so NZ Sucks is NZ First. :p
-
Gonorrhea
Gunner Rea was the fastest promoted woment in the NZ Artillary. Also the fasted demoted.
-
I think expecting Act to be our bulwark against social authoritarianism is a bit hopeful, really. Some of them might have these libertarian ideas, but when it comes down to it they're just another bunch of hangers and floggers.
Yeah, if you look at ACT's voting record on the big conscience votes of the last term (and I wonder if we'll get any of those this term) they're not really a socially libertarian party at all, just fiscally.
Likewise I think there's a bit of a disconnect in people's perceptions of 'the left', in that they assume they ARE socially progressive, because they're left-wing. But if you look at the Chris Trotter Jim Anderton type socialists, they're very socially conservative. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jim thought filtered internet was a great idea.
-
I think expecting Act to be our bulwark against social authoritarianism is a bit hopeful, really. Some of them might have these libertarian ideas, but when it comes down to it they're just another bunch of hangers and floggers.
Yeah, if you look at ACT's voting record on the big conscience votes of the last term (and I wonder if we'll get any of those this term) they're not really a socially libertarian party at all, just fiscally.
Ah, yes, but you're both making the mistake of assuming that I think Act would turn it down because they're "our bulwark against social authoritarianism". I wouldn't ever think of Act in those terms, not least of which reasons being their close association with Family Fist. My logic is much more fiscal. Filtering costs, and would require a significant bureaucracy to be implemented. That goes totally counter to Act's positions and policies. If it could be done entirely by the private sector they'd still be agin it, because it's imposing costs on business for regulatory compliance. Again, against their positions and policies.
I described Rodney and Winston as the same kind of beast the other day. They're both "narrow-minded reactionaries" - Rodney of the economic kind, Winston of the racist kind.
-
I wouldn't expect Mr Goff to make a stand for Liberty on this issue. So, once Austrailia implements the scheme, Family First will whine that we should have a Ministry of Truth just like theirs and the Government will ensure that we get moral fibre to our doors.
Is there anywhere nice we can go, somewhere with sunshine and liberalism?
-
y'know, compulsory national sex education program...
Yes, that went out with the drift away from cycling to school and associated facilities.
But more seriously -
found this hugely distasteful. People entering into a polygamous relationship ... being asked to say which one is their 'proper' wife
And -
The day we start making special laws that allow people to do stuff others can do just because of their religion
Isn't there a fundamental conflict in these two positions? Our laws spring from a judeo-christian base where you may have one (official) partner only and the laws of the land are the laws of the land. If we allow people to bring with them their standards of law how can this be selective. The same people might also want state sanctioned sharia courts here as well as they are in the UK, with all that comes with that
A very complex and difficult question!
-
Yeah, if you look at ACT's voting record on the big conscience votes of the last term (and I wonder if we'll get any of those this term) they're not really a socially libertarian party at all, just fiscally.
Yes indeed... here is an interesting analysis and a way to test where your personal views sit.
-
My logic is much more fiscal. Filtering costs, and would require a significant bureaucracy to be implemented. That goes totally counter to Act's positions and policies.
Not that I'm dying in a ditch over this, but locking people up for life is WAY more expensive than proper rehabilitation.
Is there anywhere nice we can go, somewhere with sunshine and liberalism?
According to my unwritten thesis It's Cold Eh: Let's Socialise the Health System, sunshine and liberalism are incompatible. The hotter the climate the more reactionary the regime. Democratic socialism is for countries like Canada and Sweden.
Our laws spring from a judeo-christian base where you may have one (official) partner only and the laws of the land are the laws of the land. If we allow people to bring with them their standards of law how can this be selective.
Well, see, that's not really a dilemma for me. I think it would be nice if, as a country, regardless of where people came from or whose laws they brought with them, we could have a discussion about where the law intersects private life, and if there's any reason for the state to legislate the number of partners you can have.
That Judeo-Christian 'our laws are based on the ten commandments' thing? Not so much really true. I believe our legal system owes as much to the 'pagan' traditions of Greece, Rome and the Hammurabic Code as it does to the Bible.
-
According to my unwritten thesis It's Cold Eh: Let's Socialise the Health System, sunshine and liberalism are incompatible.
Er... ancient Greece?
-
Er... ancient Greece?
Better for teh gayz, not so grate for the chicks.
-
Er... ancient Greece?
All together now: "THIS! IS! SPARTA!!!!!!!1!!!!!ELEVEN!!!"
Ahem. On preview, what Emma said.
-
OTOH, Spain.
the Government will ensure that we get moral fibre to our doors.
I LOLed.
-
Better for teh gayz, not so grate for the chicks.
Not too bad for the chicks either, at time and in places - certainly far better than elsewhere. How about Spain right now then?
-
Beaten to it. Haaaart! (shakes fist)
-
Beaten to it. Haaaart! (shakes fist)
I really need a more yellable name. Unfortunately, the only other surname I was ever offered was McGeachie.
Do you have an insight on Spain, BTW Giovanni? Because I found their 'gay marriage in a conservative Catholic country' kind of odd.
Anyway, I'm off to prune roses and listen to test cricket while contemplating the weirdness of a day where I sort of advocated polygamy.
-
What do we think about a South-East Asian immigrant falling foul of the SPCA and NZ law by slaughtering and eating a dog or cat, or a New Zealander falling foul of Indian authorities and law for slaughtering and eating a cow? Whether laws come from a religious base or from a jointly held view of morality they are the laws of the particular land that you are in. They develop and change with the prevailing social mores.
I am all for social diversity and tolerance but we can only have one rule of law at any one time… if the Malaysian immigrant can have two wives, why can’t I… and if the Malaysian man living here can have two wives then surely a Malaysian woman can have two husbands? Not!
-
Do you have an insight on Spain, BTW Giovanni? Because I found their 'gay marriage in a conservative Catholic country' kind of odd.
What can I say? I hate the bastards. It used to be one of the few countries that we could look upside down in Europe. Conservative, teeming with Catholics, they had a fascist dictator who died of natural causes (the wrongest possible way for a fascist dictator to die). They won a lot of trophies at club level but never threatened the supremacy of the Azzurri. Then, lord knows what happened, Zapatero and the winds of change and a narrow mandate immediately monetised into gay marriage. Gay marriage! Are you shitting me? The church was in a knot and he didn't care. After all, he said, it's not as if we're forcing priests to perform gay marriages in the church. And there he missed an opportunity, really, I would have so loved the enforcement of gay marriage in a church setting.
Plus of course they modernised economically, invested in education, beat us on penalties on the way to winning Euro 2008. The whole thing is revolting.
An Italian comedian that is dear to I/S made a beautiful little movie called Viva Zapatero, which is essentially about how we suck and they rule. Recommended viewing.
-
Indeed, laws should change over time to reflect contemporary culture. The origins of law are kind of beside the point - yes, that tells us how we got to where we are, but it doesn't answer the question of whether where we are is a good place to be.
Basically, laws are like a Hollywood scriptwriter in a meeting with a producer. Look, baby, we love the stuff you've done for us, you've always produced high quality product for us, but what have you done for us lately? I mean, I'd love to keep you on the books, but you've got to be giving us the good stuff right now, you know?
-
..here is an interesting analysis and a way to test where your personal views sit. Political Compass
That's the concept I disagree with, that economics and social policy are independent axes. Like I say above, they're intertwined. If you favour economic liberalism, you'll wind up taking a social authoritarian stance because of the need to clean up after your economic policies.
-
What do we think about a South-East Asian immigrant falling foul of the SPCA and NZ law by slaughtering and eating a dog or cat
I'm fairly sure that if they're your dogs and cats and you slaughter them humanely and hygenically, you break no NZ law. They'll taste like shit though, as Mick Dundee might say.
-
They'll taste like shit though
The taxi driver I had last week assured me that black dogs are quite delicious.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.