Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[Grahameeboy]

Graemeboy;

I might disagree with the existence of a deity and believe that organised religion is abusive and the cause of a great deal of humanity's problems but I don't for a minute deny you the right to practice what you believe in as long as you don't abuse others in doing so.

I would not disagree with you there. My Church is organised, my faith is personal. I do not preach to others to convert. I am not perfect, but each morning I aim to try.

What REALLY pisses me off though is that the opposite is not quite as true.

I understand that. Sadly there is a hierachy in Churches that does spoil it at times.

I refuse to sing the NZ National Anthem for instance because MY right NOT to believe in a deity is abused and ignored in that to support my country I am expected to beg 'god' for the privelage.

I am not sure that is the intention of the anthem. You don't have to sing it to support your Country. I guess it is more a tradition.


Change the flag? I don't give a damn! Get rid of that divisive bloody national anthem so all of us can feel like New Zealanders? FUCK YES!

So you cannot feel like a NZer otherwise. See you are allowing a traditional anthem to control how you feel?........................

[scumdog]

btw: capitalism as practiced by the USA and Britain has long used military and covert violence to control and manipulate entire economies.

Sort of the way communism practiced by China and USSR used military and covert violence to control and manipulate entire economies? (and populations).

[Grahameeboy]

But don't christians place themselves in the hands of a non existant deity whose minions tell them what is right and what's not?

Sounds like a lack of control to me


My Dad is against religion so I was not exposed to Christianity.

Well Jesus mixed with unbelievers. Yes the so called minions may tell me what to do in and to an extent as a Christian I should obey the Laws. However, most Laws are not unreasonable so do not in reality affect my freedom or personal freedom and if I break the Law, lets say speeding, then it is not a major. Obviously murder, fraud etc are different.

This is what I guess I am saying. We live in a Society but it is how we deal with Society that makes the difference and God is my ultimate provider.

[Grahameeboy]

Sort of the way communism practiced by China and USSR used military and covert violence to control and manipulate entire economies? (and populations).

In a way there is not a massive difference between the two. One is legalised and the other is not.....

[idleidolidyll]

........................

you're welcome top practice your religion but you seem to miss my point re the national anthem.

the anthem is supposed to represent ALL new zealanders and we are also supposed to be a secular state.

why then is it only representative of the MINORITY of kiwis who say they are religious?

it's divisive BECAUSE it excludes people like me who think religion is nonsense and that it's an insult to my intelligence to ask a non existent myth to save my country.

[idleidolidyll]

Sort of the way communism practiced by China and USSR used military and covert violence to control and manipulate entire economies? (and populations).

indeed but we're talking about socialism and capitalism not communism.

different ideology; can you work it out?

BTW: As I've said many times, the authoritarian takeovers CHANGED socialist states into dictatorships; the OPPOSITE of socialism

[Grahameeboy]

you're welcome top practice your religion but you seem to miss my point re the national anthem.

the anthem is supposed to represent ALL new zealanders and we are also supposed to be a secular state.

why then is it only representative of the MINORITY of kiwis who say they are religious?

it's divisive BECAUSE it excludes people like me who think religion is nonsense and that it's an insult to my intelligence to ask a non existent myth to save my country.

I thought that slightly more than 50% of Nzers were Christian??

It excludes you because it was written before you were born by a Christian Society and like a lot of these things, it becomes more a tradition than a religious matter.

It is you who decides it is wholly religious based.

I am sure you would be happy if you voted for your party who were elected as the Govt when only 30% of Nzers voted...........

[imdying]

the anthem is supposed to represent ALL new zealanders and we are also supposed to be a secular state.http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-identity.htm?page=para012Master

Over half of NZers listed themselves as Christian, and that's a single religion.

[idleidolidyll]

I thought that slightly more than 50% of Nzers were Christian??

No, not if self reported. The 50+% figure is CALCULATED and includes atheists like me who were baptised because we didn't have a choice. The Catholic Church thinks you remain theirs until you die or are excommunicated. That's patent bullshit; I've never believed in mythical creatures and still don't.

It excludes you because it was written before you were born by a Christian Society and like a lot of these things, it becomes more a tradition than a religious matter.

It was written by people who knew no better, ignored the native people of the country and it should have been changed the second we declared ourselves a secular democracy; that's the point Graemeboy

It is you who decides it is wholly religious based.

I didn't say wholly, I said it excludes me. The very words are repugnant to me:
"God of nations blah blah" "God defend NZ blah blah"

exclusive, divisive superstition

I am sure you would be happy if you voted for your party who were elected as the Govt when only 30% of Nzers voted...........

I would be very happy if 100% of citizens of age voted but that's not likely. The 30% number is for local bodies, the national turnout is much higher, more than 80% in fact:
"

Voter turnout reached 80.9 percent in 2005, a slight increase on the 2002 turnout of 77.0 percent.
Voter turnout in New Zealand has averaged 86 percent between 1981 and 2005."from: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PubRes/Research/Papers/4/0/b/40bcd378849e4ff59302bdc5d2f2fe02.htm

That's the point after all. If I believe in socialism I also must be prepared to accept the decision of the majority each election for that governmental period; and I am.

If national were to be elected i would not try to overthrow them by force, i'd merely be trying to show how deluded the last 'majority' were for the next election.

[idleidolidyll]

http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-identity.htm?page=para012Master

Over half of NZers listed themselves as Christian, and that's a single religion.

I stand corrected but I'm pleased to see that the number of people who state that they have no religion is increasing year by year: it seems Kiwis are getting smarter.

Regardless though, if more than a million Kiwis are excluded by the national anthem and that figure is growing; why don't we change it to something INCLUSIVE and not divisive?

[idleidolidyll]

it becomes more a tradition than a religious matter.

No graemeboy, if you had to sing an anthen asking the devil or mohammed for help, i'm sure you'd be disgusted and outraged.

as an atheist living in a secular country i'm disgusted that our anthem is religious

[idleidolidyll]

the acid test: change the anthem so it calls on a different religious myth to save our country and see if the christians whine

lets see an anthem calling for Vishna to save our country on our behalf and watch the christians whine about it.

[scumdog]

the acid test: change the anthem so it calls on a different religious myth to save our country and see if the christians whine

lets see an anthem calling for Vishna to save our country on our behalf and watch the christians whine about it.

Sure, when the Vishna worshippers outnumber the Christians I'd have no problem with that.

But it ain't goin' to happen sunshine.

If we had NO anthem I wouldn't give a fat rats arse - after all, what the hell is there to worry about in an anthem in the greater scheme of things?? - there's a shitload more important stuff to worry about in life than who beleives in what and an anthem.

[Grahameeboy]

No graemeboy, if you had to sing an anthen asking the devil or mohammed for help, i'm sure you'd be disgusted and outraged.

as an atheist living in a secular country i'm disgusted that our anthem is religious

True but unlikely so not for debate.

I used to sing the British anthem before I was a Christian and it just gave me a feeling of my roots............

You need to chill........;)

[Grahameeboy]

Sure, when the Vishna worshippers outnumber the Christians I'd have no problem with that.

But it ain't goin' to happen sunshine.

If we had NO anthem I wouldn't give a fat rats arse - after all, what the hell is there to worry about in an anthem in the greater scheme of things?? - there's a shitload more important stuff to worry about in life than who beleives in what and an anthem.

Totally agree Sir....

[idleidolidyll]

Sure, when the Vishna worshippers outnumber the Christians I'd have no problem with that.

But it ain't goin' to happen sunshine.

If we had NO anthem I wouldn't give a fat rats arse - after all, what the hell is there to worry about in an anthem in the greater scheme of things?? - there's a shitload more important stuff to worry about in life than who beleives in what and an anthem.

icons and semiology are vitally important in all societies

everyone is altered by them whether they want to admit it or not

[idleidolidyll]

Totally agree Sir....

of course you do, your first though is for your beliefs and other human beings come next

that was my point in this secular nation asking in its anthem for god to save us from the devil knows what

[idleidolidyll]

True but unlikely so not for debate.

I used to sing the British anthem before I was a Christian and it just gave me a feeling of my roots............

You need to chill........;)

good for you

singing our national anthem gives me a feeling of hypocrisy

[Grahameeboy]

of course you do, your first though is for your beliefs and other human beings come next

Mmm...No. My beliefs involve others.

that was my point in this secular nation asking in its anthem for god to save us from the devil knows what....................

[Grahameeboy]

good for you

singing our national anthem gives me a feeling of hypocrisy

Well I respect your integrity.

[idleidolidyll]

it muddies the water a lot

although the practice of organised religion IS politics, it's a stand alone subject and distracting

[idleidolidyll]

Well I respect your integrity.

and i your right to practice your belief without negatively affecting others

[Grahameeboy]

and i your right to practice your belief without negatively affecting others

Hopefully I practice that too.................

[Grahameeboy]

it muddies the water a lot

although the practice of organised religion IS politics, it's a stand alone subject and distracting

Sorry my fault..........I was just trying to debate your 'Control' points and relating it to how I view life etc.

[idleidolidyll]

Sorry my fault..........I was just trying to debate your 'Control' points and relating it to how I view life etc.

don't sweat it, i'm not offended

[Grahameeboy]

don't sweat it, i'm not offended

I know, just a courtesy post.

[scumdog]

icons and semiology are vitally important in all societies

everyone is altered by them whether they want to admit it or not

But does it affect my day-today living?
Does it concern me?
Does it influence my view on life?
Does it make me think more/less of others? (barring suicide bombers I guess!)

Pretty much 'no' to all the above, ergo it is waayyy down the order of lifes concerns, relegated to the time I am only navel-gazing due to a want of subjects to think about.

[idleidolidyll]

But does it affect my day-today living?

Yes

Does it concern me?

apparently not but it should

Does it influence my view on life?

Yes

Does it make me think more/less of others? (barring suicide bombers I guess!)

buggered if i know

Pretty much 'no' to all the above, ergo it is waayyy down the order of lifes concerns, relegated to the time I am only navel-gazing due to a want of subjects to think about.

there's them opinions brown-eyeing us again

[scumdog]

there's them opinions brown-eyeing us again

Both of us i would say.

Not sure how religion affects my day-to-day living or influence me but if you say so it must be fact eh?

[Grahameeboy]

Funny cause Ideaology post's actually display some elements of 'Thall Shalt do this'

Anyway, my concern is that this Thread has exceeded my KB Arse Thread which is quite appropriate as I see it 'Kant Be Arsed'................as he slips away

[steveb64]

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

snip'd

That would be true - the Stalinist era was a particularly nasty time for the Russian people - but they had been doing even worse under the Tsarist regime. From what I saw when living there (mid '90s for near 2 years), and have picked up on the subject over the years, communism was the easiest (apart from the Stalinist regime) and least painful way for the russian peasant class to get a general improvement in their standard of living.

That said - communisms failure, was in not providing enough incentive (cash, land ownership, etc.) to inspire individuals to perform at their best - why bother, when the slacker down the road gets a share of what you've done, for no work output.
Thus, they (and the Chinese also) are now moving towards a capitalistic society (quite quickly in some of the bigger cities) - hopefully without dropping too many of the social backups, like welfare for the elderly and infirm....

IMO - the best solution seems to be a combination of capitalism AND socialism - taxes being used for building common infrastructure (hospitals, schools, transport, power, and comms networks) and law enforcement, and acting as a backup/catch point for those who are unable to support themselves, for whatever reason - while still giving the individual the chance/opportunity/incentive to improve their lot and advance themselves. Whether Russia and China will achieve that or not - who knows? Good luck to them I say!

Of course, then there's Cuba - which (IIRC) was described somewhere as being one of the few communist societies that could have worked as well as the communist ideal was stated. Problem was the Americans screwed that one up for them with various dirty tricks and trade embargos...

[slowpoke]

I envy you steveb64, Russia is an intriquing country with a rich history and to live there for a couple of years would be quite an experience. I could happily spend days just checking out the incredibly ornate Moscow Metro underground railway stations, which make our graffiti ridden examples look quite barbaric....anyway.....
You'll probably be in the right position to correct my impressions. It seems that with the fall of communism and rise of capitalism in what is quite a richly resourced country that the general living standard has hardly changed for the average person on the street. Even some 16years later life actually seems worse in some cases. The drug trade, general crime, prostitution etc are all flourishing, the Roman Abramavich's (owner of Chelsea football club) gorge themselves on the "free market", yet life seems to still be a struggle for the average person. The only people who seem to be benefiting from the overthrow of communism seem to be the shady underworld types, and the Macdonald's and Nike type conglomerates who have access to another market.

[steveb64]

I envy you steveb64, Russia is an intriquing country with a rich history and to live there for a couple of years would be quite an experience. I could happily spend days just checking out the incredibly ornate Moscow Metro underground railway stations, which make our graffiti ridden examples look quite barbaric....anyway.....
You'll probably be in the right position to correct my impressions. It seems that with the fall of communism and rise of capitalism in what is quite a richly resourced country that the general living standard has hardly changed for the average person on the street. Even some 16years later life actually seems worse in some cases. The drug trade, general crime, prostitution etc are all flourishing, the Roman Abramavich's (owner of Chelsea football club) gorge themselves on the "free market", yet life seems to still be a struggle for the average person. The only people who seem to be benefiting from the overthrow of communism seem to be the shady underworld types, and the Macdonald's and Nike type conglomerates who have access to another market.

The metro stations are awesome. Over a million passengers a day through some of them - and the longest fastest escalators you'll EVER see! :shit:

Like the vertical height equivalent of a 10 story building, in one continuous escalator, moving at a metre a second! That's a fast walk on to it - and you get quite a launch off the end! :woohoo:

It has changed - but there's this thing called social inertia - where it takes a lot of input for things to start changing, and if you want them to change faster - even MORE input... There's a LOT of money going into Russia - and it is filtering down through the system to the (still developing) middle class, and then drips down from there to the lower classes.

Even when we were there - mid '94 to earlyish '96 - there was a class of newly rich - (Novy Russkies - new Russians) who has shitloads of dosh. And it was like the wild west - gunfights, forced takeovers, all sorts of weird shit. You couldn't just walk along the street at night having a chat... it was like painting a target on your back. Same as wearing bright western ski jackets or clothing, bum bags (a particular favourite for the muggers), - dress drab - I like black, so had an unexpected benefit - tied in with a black US Mil spec 'extreme cold weather' parka... There's only two outfits in Russia that wear black - the Mafia, and the Spetznatz (KGB Special Police) - and NOBODY messes with them. Put that together with me being fairly large (6', 180 lb), grumpy looking (stuffed back, so if it hurt...) and apparently looked like a Caucasian (that's as in from the Caucaus mountain regions) - NOBODY hasseled me. It was great - we could walk down a footpath, at one of the busiest times of the day on a Saturday morning, and the crowds would part around us. Absolutely NO jostling...:cool:

On the other hand, some friends of my missus came up for a visit (Aussie and a Kiwi) - and got mugged in the middle of one of the main streets in Moscow, one Saturday morning... And they were due to fly out on the Monday! Lost cash, wallets, passports, visas, travellers cheques - all that was in the inside pockets of their (purple) jackets... Luckily, we knew the people at the NZ Embassy quite well (had been to a couple of parties there, and got on well with the security guy and his wife) - and they were brilliant! Got the Kiwi's passport replacement sorted, told us what we needed to do to get a visa replacement organised (get stamped form from Russian police), and helped us double check everything the Aussie embassy was doing - the Kiwis got it right every time! ...and they made their flight! :first:

There were summat like 2 or 3 McDonalds in Moscow when we were there - spoke to a friend recently who'd been back over there not too long back - he reckoned 30+ McD's there now...:sick:

[davereid]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]
The New Zealand Oxford Paperback Dictionary ISBN 0 19 5584104:Capitalism: An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.Capitalist: 1. n One who has much capital invested; derog; a rich person.
2. a person who favours capitalism Socialism: n A political and economic theory advocating that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, transport, property etc.


Not that I actually see much wrong with "An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

As thats actually the only reason we do anything. For pay, profit, reward.
Be it cash, or the reward of helping others, its our primary motivation in life.

Yes the battle of the dictionary...

How about "SOCIALISIM (In Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalisim to communisim..." (New Collins english dictionary.)

[davereid]

please, spare the dramatics it (Socialisim) doesn't take tax by gunpoint and the agendas and supporters are the majority not the minority: that's the point


Absolutely tax IS taken by force. Just try resist paying it. Resist the man in the grey suit, he will send one in a blue suit carrying a stick. Resist him, and he will send 10 men in black suits, carrying guns.

[davereid]

the acid test: change the anthem so it calls on a different religious myth to save our country and see if the christians whine

lets see an anthem calling for Vishna to save our country on our behalf and watch the christians whine about it.

While we are doing that acid test, lets do another. Make tax voluntary, and see how many vote for it.

(Oops.. can't do that ... if you only pay for services you want you would be a free man..)

[davereid]

No it doesn't; it gives power to the people collectively and then they as a group decide. In our system that is called democracy...long live Robin Hood....

Yes, Democracy has been likened to two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu.

IMHO democracy (or ANY system) can't be allowed to cross certain lines.
And they are the use of force for other than self defence.

So a society that has an army or police force to protect itself from other nations, or the criminal within its own population does not cross that line.

But a system or individuals that think they have the right to extract money or work from others crosses that line. It has not made anyone better off, except in its own eyes.

What it has done is made slaves.

"SLAVE - a person who is forced to work for another against his will.. a person under the domination of anther person"

[idleidolidyll]

That would be true - the Stalinist era was a particularly nasty time for the Russian people - but they had been doing even worse under the Tsarist regime. From what I saw when living there (mid '90s for near 2 years), and have picked up on the subject over the years, communism was the easiest (apart from the Stalinist regime) and least painful way for the russian peasant class to get a general improvement in their standard of living.

That said - communisms failure, was in not providing enough incentive (cash, land ownership, etc.) to inspire individuals to perform at their best - why bother, when the slacker down the road gets a share of what you've done, for no work output.
Thus, they (and the Chinese also) are now moving towards a capitalistic society (quite quickly in some of the bigger cities) - hopefully without dropping too many of the social backups, like welfare for the elderly and infirm....

IMO - the best solution seems to be a combination of capitalism AND socialism - taxes being used for building common infrastructure (hospitals, schools, transport, power, and comms networks) and law enforcement, and acting as a backup/catch point for those who are unable to support themselves, for whatever reason - while still giving the individual the chance/opportunity/incentive to improve their lot and advance themselves. Whether Russia and China will achieve that or not - who knows? Good luck to them I say!

Of course, then there's Cuba - which (IIRC) was described somewhere as being one of the few communist societies that could have worked as well as the communist ideal was stated. Problem was the Americans screwed that one up for them with various dirty tricks and trade embargos...

excellent post steve

the incentive thing happened the same in china.

when Mao wanted more production the managers all reported more but didn't manage to increase productivity.
the crops failed, the government calculations of their grain stocks were out by a large order of magnitude and tens of millions starved to death.

that was a lesson and by then, Mao was a virtual dictator; he'd stayed too long and become corrupt with power. the same happened with mugabe and others; at first they were popular and often the right medicine at the time but power eventually corrupted them.

as dictators they never allowed their people to have choices (and therefore are not socialists by definition)

you've nicely identified the main difference between socialism and communism.

communism failed because of the dictatorship and the communal work schemes not because it had some socialist underpinnings.

socialism doesn't demand communal work groups (although some socialists might suggest them).
all it demands is that control over peoples lives should be in the hands of the people as a whole rather than those wealthy few who inevitably cause mayhem when the power corrupts them.

and once more for the chorus: it's authoritarianism that remains the worst problem: put too much power in too few hands and self gratification will take over at the cost of lives and freedom.

[idleidolidyll]

It reminds me why capitalism amerikan style is an abusive failure:http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

spot the trend?

cosy up with dictators and despots to overthrow and undermine democracy.

economies and resources are easier to steal that way

[davereid]

Yeah I know.. when Mr. Bush bombs an Iraqi thats evidence of how bad capitalisim is. But when the National Socialists fry 6000000 jews, they actually werent socialists, they were the reverse of socialists.

The USA contains a lot of capitalists.. but its been a long time since it was truely capitalist. It may have been in the time of Jefferson and Franklin.

But now, most states have social welfare schemes. The entire nation has a pension scheme. Free primary and secondary education. Hmm... maybe the modern USA is pretty socialist too !

Socialists can do what they want 'cos they have the majority, and thats democracy.

But Grahameboye can only be a christian as long as he doesnt bother other people, cos hes got a majority, but it doesnt count cos gods a myth.

[slowpoke]

Yeah I know.. when Mr. Bush bombs an Iraqi thats evidence of how bad capitalisim is. But when the National Socialists fry 6000000 jews, they actually werent socialists, they were the reverse of socialists.

I think the oft stated point is that both acts are to be condemned, with the common link being that both acts were driven by authoritarian governments and neither government sought the mandate of the people regarding their proposed actions.

The USA contains a lot of capitalists.. but its been a long time since it was truely capitalist. It may have been in the time of Jefferson and Franklin.

But now, most states have social welfare schemes. The entire nation has a pension scheme. Free primary and secondary education. Hmm... maybe the modern USA is pretty socialist too !

As long as such basic necessities as health care and power are allowed to be manipulated by private companies who's sole motivation is profit, without thought to the service they provide, then it's fair to say that the US is a looooong way from being a socialist state.

I would propose that social welfare and education actually pay for themselves. To withhold these services would result in crime/social disorder on a massive scale and a poorly skilled workforce, both of which will ultimately cost a greater amount of money.


Socialists can do what they want 'cos they have the majority, and thats democracy.

But Grahameboye can only be a christian as long as he doesnt bother other people, cos hes got a majority, but it doesnt count cos gods a myth.

It's not a valid argument to compare a generalisation to a specific example. 3i's has already stated that he is quite prepared to go along with the majority view if he happens to be in the minority. I think 3i's sticking point with the anthem is a valid one: even if you are a christian why would you prefer an anthem that excludes a large portion of your country's population when there is a clear alternative that could include everyone. Shouldn't the aim be to satisfy as many people as possible?

................

[idleidolidyll]

Oh dear, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Despite leading some people by the nose through the minefield of propaganda within political terminology; many still refuse to recognise authoritative definitions of thew terminology they attempt to discuss.
Instead of basing their arguments on those authoritative definitions they base them on propaganda even when that propaganda is debunked as in the difference between socialism and communism, between capitalism and commercialism etc.
Worse still, these same people are predisposed to believe what people tell us they are rather than identify them in a political context by the actions they take and the policies they make.
There is no point arguing with people who continue to point to the dictatorship of Joe Stalin and attack it as if it were socialism even though it has been categorically shown that communism and socialism have different names because they are different ideologies, even though a dictator by definition cannot BE socialist.
Add to that their single minded determination to falsely accuse socialism of great evil without once casting an eye over the CURRENT abuse by the worlds largest capitalist nation or its plethora of abuses in the past.

For the record: Adolf Hitler may have SAID he was a socialist but that is no more true than me saying I'm King of New Zealand. Judging Hitler by his actions, policies and allegiences (Catholic Church and Big Business), Hitler was a fascist dictator and his policies were to the right of centre.

I DO understand the motivation for presenting propaganda instead of fact based argument though: without propaganda capitalism and authoritarianism is stripped of its false promises and exposed as the dangerous ideologies that have existed since monarchs OWNED us all and used us or discarded us at a whim.

The fact remains:
Socialism is government by the people while capitalism is government by a dictator, oligarchy or invisible cabal who have been given more rights than the citizens of the nation (as in the USA).

[Grahameeboy]

Well folks, have a good day out there and enjoy the good things in life......

[idleidolidyll]

Now lets address Mr Reid's complaint that setting minimum wages is destructive in some way.

Unfortunately NZ has decided that it can be a free trade nation in a world where such nations are practically non existent.
That brings great danger for the people of the nation and great benefit for the few capitalists willing to exploit it.

The danger is that free trade effectively puts every job in NZ into competition with every labourer in the world regardless of whether their country has free trade or not.
This creates a race to the bottom where manufacturing relies more and more on driving down wages to retain competitiveness with the likes of China, Thailand etc where wages are less than a dollar an hour. Neither of those nations have free trade the way NZ does and we are effectively exporting our businesses and our jobs.
If we are to have a free trade policy, then wage protection is absolutely necessary. Without it we create a permanent poor class who are never likely to climb out of the hole capitalists have dug for them. That wage protection must be of sufficient strength to provide the worker with a decent standard of living or else they are no more than slaves.

I don't favour either idea though. I suggest that we are misguided and unrealistic in thinking we can have a free trade nation when even the worlds most powerful capitalist nation recognises that this is destructive of its internal industry. Instead I would prefer much greater support given to locally owned and run businesses in order to help them compete. Things like start up loans at low rates, free management and operational training for owners and staff, investment by government in research and technology in the private sector with the Govt retaining shares in its portfolio on behalf of the people of NZ and a policy of treating other nations as they treat us in trade.

laissez-faire capitalism, the kind promoted by Mr Reids words and by capitalists in many countries, is the most abusive form of the theory. It removes barriers to abuse by mega powerful corporations who refuse to be bound by the decent rules of society and instead seek to isolate all markets and create a new serfdom for workers who must fight not just against cheap Asian labour for their jobs, but also against exporters who make more money selling NZ produce to Europe and the USA than they can make selling to Kiwis (because our wages are driven down by competing with Asia etc).
laissez-faire capitalism is nothing less than a huge step back into our past when Monarchs and their selected elite decided everything without redress to the will of the people. It's promise is that everyone has the same chance to be wealthy but that is a lie. We can see by example all over the world that it increases the gap between the rich and poor and concentrates wealth in the minority of people who use it to ensure that is a permanent state of affairs.
Amerika's much lauded trickle down economic theory never produced trickle down: it produced trickle up with a few crumbs being throw to the dogs at their feet (You and me).

[davereid]

The fact remains:
Socialism is government by the people while capitalism is government by a dictator, oligarchy or invisible cabal who have been given more rights than the citizens of the nation (as in the USA).

No, socialisim is carefully rebadged slavery.

It's a system that absolutely relies on resources extracted from unwilling suppliers by force.

Strange how the socialists like to ignore this nasty little part of their chosen system, and then take the moral high ground.

As I have said before, capitalisim is quite capable of creating slaves. But it can exist without doing so. Socialisim on the other hand IS slavery.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

[Grahameeboy]

1. Finland

2. Iceland

3. Norway

4. Sweden

5. Austria

Take your pick. Look forward to the postcard.

[davereid]

The danger is that free trade effectively puts every job in NZ into competition with every labourer in the world regardless of whether their country has free trade or not. This creates a race to the bottom where manufacturing relies more and more on driving down wages to retain competitiveness with the likes of China, Thailand etc where wages are less than a dollar an hour. Neither of those nations have free trade the way NZ does and we are effectively exporting our businesses and our jobs.
If we are to have a free trade policy, then wage protection is absolutely necessary.

Sadly we cannot just trade within our own borders and be viable. As nice an idea as it sounds, without external trade, we lose. Large economies can manage this trick. If I make a widget in the EU, there are hundreds of millions of potential customers within 2hrs freight on the train. Make it in Wellington, it had better be pretty popular, or so badly made that you need a new one every week, or soon I'm out of business.

Tarrifs create the illusion of solving this problem. Manufacturers love them, as they are effectively a tax, collected by the manufacturer. Tarrifs made Todd Motors and the protected motor trade suppliers very rich, at the expense of the motorist who had to wait for a badly made Hillman to be delivered.

Tarrifs also destroy your ability to compete. While you can say in business, and make a very good profit thank you, you can't export. As your product is just too expensive.

So what works ?

Productivity is a least pert of the answer. But to be more productive I need access to a larger market, and I have to be price competitive.

So, when a wage rise for my electronic assemblers comes along, I have a few options. I can pay it, hope they work harder and produce more. I can replace them, either by getting the manufacturing done in Singapore, or by getting a pick and place machine.

I actually have another option too. I can buy 4 pick and place machines and upskill my 4 assemblers to run them. Thats a serious producivity boost.

Thats actually the preferred option. But it puts the cart before the horse. I haven't yet got the orders. So no point making inventory.

The most important person in the loop isn't the Managing Director. Its not the software engineer, the shop steward or the chick in accounts with the big hooters.

Its the customer. Only by meeting his needs with regard to price, quality, and performance will business and incomes grow.

[steveb64]

Anyone here had the thought re China that maybe the cheap labour rate is a part of their master plan to wage economic warfare on the US (and most of the rest of the western world also...)?
Seems like their trick of keeping the Chinese currency exchange rate so low against the US is giving them the ability to build up HUGE stockpiles of surplus $US cash - which they are using to: Push up the oil prices, buy up US and other industries, buy up western manufacturing plants, dismantle them, and relocate them to China - where they can then help the Chinese economic plan (by producing even more cheap stuff), and generally force more and more western manufacturers to relocate their manufacturing facilities to China.

What happens if the US decides to take on Iran (and/or Nth Korea) - and while they are in the middle of that - China moves in on Taiwan? And shuts down ALL exports? Who's gonna make the stuff then? NO MORE PEANUT BUTTER! Bugger.

Then there's the pollution (airborne particulates) drift across the pacific (to the US), which reduces solar energy driven evaporation, which causes there to be less moisture in the atmosphere - leading to drought in the landmass downwind (US)... Link to article (about dust drift, but valid for airborne particulates) : http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/dust_storm_010514.html

And they're building high pollutant coal fired power plants at an ever increasing rate...

Hmmm - what's the thoughts on this one?

[imdying]

Then there's the pollution (airborne particulates) drift across the pacific (to the US), which reduces solar energy driven evaporation, which causes there to be less moisture in the atmosphere - leading to drought in the landmass downwind (US)... OH NOES!!! THE CHINESE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CALIFORNIAN SUPER FIRES!!! :laugh:

[scumdog]

The danger is that free trade effectively puts every job in NZ into competition with every labourer in the world regardless of whether their country has free trade or not.
This creates a race to the bottom where manufacturing relies more and more on driving down wages to retain competitiveness with the likes of China, Thailand etc where wages are less than a dollar an hour. Neither of those nations have free trade the way NZ does and we are effectively exporting our businesses and our jobs.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

I agree.

To extrapolate this to the max, unless soemthing in th eworld changes (and it will) in 50 years the world would have the same level of income and standard of living evrywhere.

At the moment places like Chine etc are enjoying a slowly increased level of income for the individuals -at the expense of NZ manufacturers who cannot compete with products manufactured overseas at 3rd world labour costs.

We get cheap T-shirts from them, we also get less opportunity for manufacturers here to be viable while paying our hourly rate levels.

ergo the worker won't earn much but he will be able to pay for the imported T-shirt!!:crazy:

[idleidolidyll]

Not that I actually see much wrong with "An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

As thats actually the only reason we do anything. For pay, profit, reward.
Be it cash, or the reward of helping others, its our primary motivation in life.

Humans are the only animals that can be altruistic: some of us have greater motivation than ME FIRST

I gladly pay taxes so that less fortunate people have a chance in life.

Yes the battle of the dictionary...

How about "SOCIALISIM (In Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalisim to communisim..." (New Collins english dictionary.)

Finally. Yes, that is indeed what Marx said and you'll note that it is neither communism nor capitalism but something between: exactly as I have been saying.
However, as a transitional state, it could be moving either way or stay as it is. On a double continuum for right/left and authoritarianism/liberalism, socialism is liberal left, communism is authoritarian left and capitalism is authoritarian right.

Are you finally getting it? communism is not socialism, there is a fundamental difference.

[davereid]

I have never said that socialists are communists !

I have said that they both are systems that absolutely rely on resources extracted from unwilling suppliers by force.

[idleidolidyll]

Absolutely tax IS taken by force. Just try resist paying it. Resist the man in the grey suit, he will send one in a blue suit carrying a stick. Resist him, and he will send 10 men in black suits, carrying guns.

the words you used were "by gun point".
in fact it is taken through the will of the people for moneys to be set aside to assist in infrastructure and welfare.

Interestingly a poll released today asked Kiwis if they wanted the $2.6 billion surplus spent on tax cuts or on social policies. 48% wanted it spent on social policies and 35% wanted it spent on tax cuts. 12% wanted it spent on both and the rest didn't answer.
Twice as many people with a tertiary qualification or higher wanted the money spent on social policies.

So it seems Kiwis are smarter than John Keys gives them credit; they can see through the bullshit of tax cuts to the damage it can do to society.

Personally I'd have said spend it on neither, instead invest it in our superannuation fund.....................oops, isn't that social spending? (no, it's social investment)

taxes are almost always preferably to liberal economic policies because capitalists given that much freedom always tend toward abuse and self serving greed.

[idleidolidyll]

I have never said that socialists are communists !

I have said that they both are systems that absolutely rely on resources extracted from unwilling suppliers by force.

no, you haven't but you HAVE assigned communist ideology and action to socialism which is pretty much the same thing without using the word itself.

propaganda is always propaganda.

socialism does not exist under dictators, the very fact of a dictatorship indicates that socialism (people power) does not exist. The abuses you assign to socialism committed by the communist governments of the soviets and chinese are bollocks because these were committed under oligarchies and dictatorships. Likewise assignment of Hitlers slaughter of Jews: Hitler was a fascist dictator not a socialist and only suckers believe words over actions.

[davereid]

Socialisim doesnt exist under dictators beause as soon as they become dictators, you say they arent socialists anymore.

But it doesn't alter the fact that socialisim requires force to exist. If it only required voluntary agreements, then its not socialisim any more either.

[idleidolidyll]

Sadly we cannot just trade within our own borders and be viable. As nice an idea as it sounds, without external trade, we lose.

A straw man argument? That's pretty boring, I NEVER said we should only trade inside NZ.

Large economies can manage this trick. If I make a widget in the EU, there are hundreds of millions of potential customers within 2hrs freight on the train. Make it in Wellington, it had better be pretty popular, or so badly made that you need a new one every week, or soon I'm out of business.

Who cares what your answer to your own straw man is? I never made such an argument.

Tarrifs create the illusion of solving this problem. Manufacturers love them, as they are effectively a tax, collected by the manufacturer. Tarrifs made Todd Motors and the protected motor trade suppliers very rich, at the expense of the motorist who had to wait for a badly made Hillman to be delivered.

It's not about absolutes, that's a meaningless debate. There must be a balance and as I wrote earlier, to have free trade where NZ manufacturing workers must compete with workers in Asia directly will always result in steady reductions in wages unless safeguards like minimum wages are fixed to prevent it.

Tarrifs also destroy your ability to compete. While you can say in business, and make a very good profit thank you, you can't export. As your product is just too expensive.

So what? If your manufacturing depends on competition between cheap Asian workers fighting Kiwis for their hourly wages, it's of fuck all benefit to the country and we are better off dumping it in favour of something that benefits Kiwis.
I never want to compete on a non level playing field for wages, that's just plain stupid. Far better than manufacturers find a competitive edge in research and processes rather than by driving down wages.

So what works ?

Productivity is a least pert of the answer. But to be more productive I need access to a larger market, and I have to be price competitive.

We've been over this before. You say you hire unskilled low wage workers and I say to improve productivity we need upskilled workers and more investment in that training as well as R&D.

So, when a wage rise for my electronic assemblers comes along, I have a few options. I can pay it, hope they work harder and produce more. I can replace them, either by getting the manufacturing done in Singapore, or by getting a pick and place machine.

As far as the good of the country is concerned, the wealthy can pretty much look after themselves in almost every circumstance. The poor often cannot and that is and should be the main focus of Government: doing what is best for most people.
But thanks for emphasising my point about competing on wages alone by using the threat of manufacture in Asia. If that's all you've got as your 'edge (wages), I reckon we don't need you.

I actually have another option too. I can buy 4 pick and place machines and upskill my 4 assemblers to run them. Thats a serious producivity boost.

Now there ya go, invest in training and increase productivity WITHOUT competing against China (or Singapore) for wages.

Thats actually the preferred option. But it puts the cart before the horse. I haven't yet got the orders. So no point making inventory.

The most important person in the loop isn't the Managing Director. Its not the software engineer, the shop steward or the chick in accounts with the big hooters.

Its the customer. Only by meeting his needs with regard to price, quality, and performance will business and incomes grow.

No, the most important people in any country's loop are the people of the country, other country's people come second.

[idleidolidyll]

Socialisim doesnt exist under dictators beause as soon as they become dictators, you say they arent socialists anymore.

But it doesn't alter the fact that socialisim requires force to exist. If it only required voluntary agreements, then its not socialisim any more either.

There was never such a 'fact' to alter; just propaganda.
No, socialism doesn't require force to exist, that's the point. Socialism is a system that gives power to the people collectively, it only needs a normal police force and judiciary to ensure that the laws of the nation are policed just as EVERY politicval system does. The most abusive will always be the system where the least amount of people have the most power: authoritarianism first, capitalism second.

BTW: collective voluntary agreements ARE socialism, the people decide what they want as a group and those who feel disaffected by the sharing of power (capitalists, fascists etc), will always try to disrupt and derail socialism. A police force is necessary to ensure laws are upheld.

[davereid]

So we tarrif to protect jobs.

This means our workers have a job, at a good wage. But its not much use to them. They pay $40 for a $5 T shirt. They can't get an unprotected job, because all the employers have shut there doors and are getting the widget made in Singapore. (And leaving the profits there, as taxes are lower).

And somehow we just can't seem to keep inflation under control, so any money we have loses value.

And exactly how will we find "an edge" as you say ? We are no brighter, no harder working or closer to markets or resources than many of our competitors, so this edge is a bit tricky. Easy for Norway with oil, or Aussie with minerals or Finland with massive forestry resources rght next to major markets.

Not so easy for us.

And yes, productivity needs a few things. It needs upskilling of workers, completely agree with you. But it also needs someone to buy the extra prduction, and money to fund the growth. Both of which get short in locked up economies.

I'd really like it if it was that easy, all we needed to do was close our borders to trade, and pick a wage we would like.

But the world won't care.

[davereid]

There was never such a 'fact' to alter; just propaganda.
No, socialism doesn't require force to exist, that's the point. Socialism is a system that gives power to the people collectively, it only needs a normal police force and judiciary to ensure that the laws of the nation are policed just as EVERY politicval system does. The most abusive will always be the system where the least amount of people have the most power: authoritarianism first, capitalism second.

BTW: collective voluntary agreements ARE socialism, the people decide what they want as a group and those who feel disaffected by the sharing of power (capitalists, fascists etc), will always try to disrupt and derail socialism. A police force is necessary to ensure laws are upheld.

No, sorry complete garbage. Your chosen system cannot exist unless it gives itself the power to take the property and incomes of others away against their will.

A majority does not give you that right, anymore than it gave the religious majority the right to torture denyers or burn witches.

Crossing the line to a system that requires violence to exist puts you in the wrong. Even if you get 100% of the vote.

[Hitcher]

Whereabouts in the world does "socialism", as a form of government freely chosen by the population of that country, exist?

[Street Gerbil]

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

The vast majority of participants of this discussion are brainwashed by the capitalist propaganda. The rest is brainwashed by the communist propaganda. Makes sense. Thank you at least for not bringing imperialism into the mix...
But seriously, whether or not the implementation failed so utterly because the theory was perverted and corrupted in the process or because the theory itself was flawed is irrelevant in the framework of the discussion. That much was proven, so to speak, empirically. The topic is not whether one should trust the propaganda of Marx, Bakunin, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. They never actually had a say as to what -isms are. They only speculated what measures can influence the transition from one -ism to the other. Again, before debating on who is on the right or on the wrong, it makes sense to establish a sort of a common ground.
What I am referring to is the philosophical tool that was thought out when Soviet propaganda machine wasn't even in the blueprints, a cornerstone of Marxism by the way, defining the determining factors of capitalismness, socialismness, or communismness of the society. Speaking of which, what is the name of the science I am referring to?

[slowpoke]

On a slightly different tack:
Why is it that a supposed "blow out" in wages (say an increase of 5% rather than 3%) is decried as "inflationary" yet a 10% increase in company profits is celebrated as "growth"?

[scumdog]

Whereabouts in the world does "socialism", as a form of government freely chosen by the population of that country, exist?

I was going to kinda pop the same question!!

So now two of us await a response - from 'somebody'.

[idleidolidyll]

Again, before debating on who is on the right or on the wrong, it makes sense to establish a sort of a common ground.


You're right: serious discussion can't be had unless the definitions are made and agreed to beforehand.

I've tried to do this but keep running into the brick wall of ingrained propaganda descriptions as opposed to logical definitions based on authoritative sources.

Unfortunately you too seem to have fallen into the same trap. I hope I'm wrong.

[idleidolidyll]

Whereabouts in the world does "socialism", as a form of government freely chosen by the population of that country, exist?

In the same place as "capitalism" as a form of government freely chosen by the people of 'that' country: nowhere and everywhere.

that you select just one and not the other shouts your position.

However, clues can be found in SOME names: social democrat, conservative etc

as i've noted a few times here though, political parties must be measured not on the words they assign to themselves but against strict definitions and terminology in an objective manner.

to believe self labelling is to believe propaganda as we've seen constantly from some who say that communism id socialism and commercialism is capitalism. There is a reason they all have different names: they are different plain and simple.

I have posted a website here that evaluates politicians and political parties on an objective basis using the SAME criteria for each one. That's closer than any of the opinions offered here but of course even though it is objective and authoritative, those whose opinions it doesn't support refuse to even acknowledge it let alone hold a valid discussion.

As for 'socialist' and 'capitalist' governments; there are no pure forms of either in existence only governments that tend greatly toward each philosophy. These too can be found if one were to have the integrity to look at the websit objectively.

[scumdog]

It must be SO frustrating being so right and knowing it all - yet not being supported by a swarm of acolytes posting the same kind of stuff on KB

[idleidolidyll]

It must be SO frustrating being so right and knowing it all - yet not being supported by a swarm of acolytes posting the same kind of stuff on KB

No, I don't really give a damn

The recent survey on the Govt cash surplus confirms to me that Kiwis in general are smarter on average than the Kiwis who post here.

Kiwis with a tertiary education or above want the government to spend the extra money on social policy NOT on tax cuts.

Less educated people want tax cuts.

The right wingers are whining for tax cuts here.

[scumdog]

No, I don't really give a damn

The recent survey on the Govt cash surplus confirms to me that Kiwis in general are smarter on average than the Kiwis who post here.

Kiwis with a tertiary education or above want the government to spend the extra money on social policy NOT on tax cuts.

Less educated people want tax cuts.

The right wingers are whining for tax cuts here.

Yup.

ALL fact, no opinion here folks...move along, nothing to see.

[idleidolidyll]

Yup.

ALL fact, no opinion here folks...move along, nothing to see.

yes and no

reading some posts there is fuck all to see, reading others we can see excellent opinions and facts

dismissing all because you feel aggrieved in some mysterious way is also informative

[scumdog]

You're right: serious discussion can't be had unless the definitions are made and agreed to beforehand.


And who is going to organise the definitions that are to be 'made and agreed to' - and by whom are they meant to be agreed to by??

And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??

[Hitcher]

In the same place as "capitalism" as a form of government freely chosen by the people of 'that' country: nowhere and everywhere.

that you select just one and not the other shouts your position.

However, clues can be found in SOME names: social democrat, conservative etc

as i've noted a few times here though, political parties must be measured not on the words they assign to themselves but against strict definitions and terminology in an objective manner.

to believe self labelling is to believe propaganda as we've seen constantly from some who say that communism id socialism and commercialism is capitalism. There is a reason they all have different names: they are different plain and simple.

I have posted a website here that evaluates politicians and political parties on an objective basis using the SAME criteria for each one. That's closer than any of the opinions offered here but of course even though it is objective and authoritative, those whose opinions it doesn't support refuse to even acknowledge it let alone hold a valid discussion.

As for 'socialist' and 'capitalist' governments; there are no pure forms of either in existence only governments that tend greatly toward each philosophy. These too can be found if one were to have the integrity to look at the websit objectively.

Why didn't you just say "there aren't any". That would have been answer enough, without the veiled ad hominems you claim to so fervently detest.

[idleidolidyll]

Why didn't you just say "there aren't any". That would have been answer enough, without the veiled ad hominems you claim to so fervently detest.


because that would be playing your game and i'd rather do it my way

as for the veiled ad hom; please show me one

piss or get off the pot

[idleidolidyll]

And who is going to organise the definitions that are to be 'made and agreed to' - and by whom are they meant to be agreed to by??

And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??

it doesn't matter who does it only that it is fair and objective.

I've offered a website and in return all i've seen is propaganda and baseless opinion

as for your last question: yes, without it the debate is worthless opinion

[davereid]

SCUMDOG "And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??"
idleidolidyll "as for your last question: yes, without it the debate is worthless opinion"

Its the other way around. If you "define" something before you debate it, you lose the power to "re-define" it after its found to be different to what you thought.

Better to reach the definition after looking at how it works, and what happens.

ie.. An apple falls - we call it gravity. But we don't define it, until we understand it. Otherwise we end up calling it something else, because the definition we gave it was wrong.

[idleidolidyll]

I suggest many of you should broaden your description of 'communism' and look back further in time. 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.
Consider the purity of the systems examined and the motivations of the leaders. Concentrate not on the words of the leaders, but on their actions (Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

From what I have seen, the failures of modern communism have not been because of communism per se but because of the nature of man to seek control and power over others. In effect, the failure of soviet communism came through the arrogant, dictator personality of Stalin followed by the greed of subsequent leaders (greed of course indicates an authoritarian or capitalist streak not communist ideology).

Likewise though, capitalist societies are also failures and have been dragged down by the greed of those who demand to rule; people like Pinochet, Bush and Reagan. Their failure is indicated in the vast disparity in opportunity within those societies and the ruptures in culture and society caused by that disparity.

I have indicated recently and in the past that I favour neo-socialism. That is a system, like Denmark etc, where capitalism exists but is subordinate to social policy. IMO, those are the successes of today, not the USA. Those are the societies that produce the most valid outcomes: happiness, equality and contentment.
The combination of fundamental socialist principles with the freedom to create ones own small world through business OR culture creates a more successful society as measured not by the ridiculous 'wealth' indicator but by the Quality of Life and Happiness indicators.

Wealth and money is not a valid indicator of happiness and contentment.

[Robert Taylor]

I suggest many of you should broaden your description of 'communism' and look back further in time. 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.
Consider the purity of the systems examined and the motivations of the leaders. Concentrate not on the words of the leaders, but on their actions (Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

From what I have seen, the failures of modern communism have not been because of communism per se but because of the nature of man to seek control and power over others. In effect, the failure of soviet communism came through the arrogant, dictator personality of Stalin followed by the greed of subsequent leaders (greed of course indicates an authoritarian or capitalist streak not communist ideology).

Likewise though, capitalist societies are also failures and have been dragged down by the greed of those who demand to rule; people like Pinochet, Bush and Reagan. Their failure is indicated in the vast disparity in opportunity within those societies and the ruptures in culture and society caused by that disparity.

I have indicated recently and in the past that I favour neo-socialism. That is a system, like Denmark etc, where capitalism exists but is subordinate to social policy. IMO, those are the successes of today, not the USA. Those are the societies that produce the most valid outcomes: happiness, equality and contentment.
The combination of fundamental socialist principles with the freedom to create ones own small world through business OR culture creates a more successful society as measured not by the ridiculous 'wealth' indicator but by the Quality of Life and Happiness indicators.

Wealth and money is not a valid indicator of happiness and contentment.

Actually, I agree with a small part of what you have said. Quality of life is a better indicator, adjudged against a different set of parameters. The Japanese are paid well and have expendable income for toys, but basically live in ''cubicles'' No thanks..

[idleidolidyll]

Actually, I agree with a small part of what you have said. Quality of life is a better indicator, adjudged against a different set of parameters. The Japanese are paid well and have expendable income for toys, but basically live in ''cubicles'' No thanks..

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

[Robert Taylor]

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

The simple answer is I do not have the time that you have to write very long detailed justifications of ones political persuasion.... because I work very very long hours and that is not going to abate any time soon. May sound like a convenient excuse but that is the cold hard reality. And I took the pee out of you in another thread with the same basic message.

It IS entirely workable to have principles that are both conservative and compassionate / to have a sense of fair play. I fail to see how anyone could disagree by saying its impossible. And also, conservatism doesnt neccessarily have to go hand in hand with the excesses of the free market. Those excesses you and I clearly agree on.

I just cannot stomach the Karl Marxs, Nandor Tanczos, Sue Bradfords, Keith Lockes, Helen Clarks and Norm Kirks of this world....but conversely I had some respect for some of what the late Rod Donald had to say. Call that a conundrum, yes indeed!

So I am not the right wing fascist people may believe, just a hard working Kiwi that wants to see equality of opportunity, a fair rather than draconian taxation system and an economy that is not top heavy with civil servants and the ''smoke and mirrors'' that they perpetuate etc etc.

[idleidolidyll]

The simple answer is I do not have the time that you have to write very long detailed justifications of ones political persuasion.... because I work very very long hours and that is not going to abate any time soon.

So you keep saying but I've noticed that you spend as much or more time here than me.

You're quick to attack but slow to offer your own policies: the sign of the morally bankrupt

[idleidolidyll]

It IS entirely workable to have principles that are both conservative and compassionate / to have a sense of fair play. I fail to see how anyone could disagree by saying its impossible. And also, conservatism doesnt neccessarily have to go hand in hand with the excesses of the free market. Those excesses you and I clearly agree on.

No it doesn't. Conservatism may in fact be religious indoctrination and abusive in some other way. The reason it can't work is because it always wants to stop when one group has the power and others are subservient.

I just cannot stomach the Karl Marxs, Nandor Tanczos, Sue Bradfords, Keith Lockes, Helen Clarks and Norm Kirks of this world....but conversely I had some respect for some of what the late Rod Donald had to say. Call that a conundrum, yes indeed!

That you lump those people all together shows to me that you actually know bugger all about them and their beliefs and philosophies.

So I am not the right wing fascist people may believe, just a hard working Kiwi that wants to see equality of opportunity, a fair rather than draconian taxation system and an economy that is not top heavy with civil servants and the ''smoke and mirrors'' that they perpetuate etc etc.

Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds more like someone who wants the world to be the model that he desires and bugger the rest.

[davereid]

..... 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.....Consider the purity of the systems examined.....


Purity of the system.

Exactly.

The first time two cavemen traded voluntarily, swapping a leg of lamb for some fermented wheat, a pure system of trade had developed. Lets call it "free trade".

The first time a bigger caveman showed up, and took the beer or leg of lamb using force, then violent crime had developed.

The first time a group of cavemen took the beer, the leg of lamb and a share of everything else, violent government had arrived.

You can call your violent government anything you like. Socialist, communist, even capitalist. Its all irrelevant, because its all based on the dodgy foundation of force for the common good.

Socialists and communists are trapped in this violence. They have to use it to exist.

Lots of goverments just use it with considering what they are, or bothering with the facade of voting, or democracy. They just call it a kingdom, call you a subject, and do what they want.

There is only one solution, and its based on capitalisim.

Capitalist society CAN exist without using force to take resources off unwilling citizens. I absolutely accept that it needs managing, and it can easily become a self serving monarchy.

It can easily degenerate into violence, but it has one special redeeming feature. Ands thats that it doesn't need to cross the line of using force to take someone elses money.

Sure it can do violence really well. But it doesnt have to.

None of the other systems can manage with out violence.

If you use force to take money and resources off others, you can call yourself anything you like.

But all you are is a violent criminal.

[Winston001]

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

You really don't get it III, do you? Reasoned discourse. The intelligent exchange of views. Persuasion through example. That is how you convert readers to your point of view.

Instead what happens? At 5:05pm you post a perfectly rational statement in unemotive language. Good. Robert gives a short reply and what is your response? Sarcasm and abuse. :2guns:

I really don't understand your motivation. The moment an argument dips into the personal and becomes emotive, the theme is lost. And the loser is the person who breaks the line. Don't do it. You'll get far more traction with your opinions if you stick to the high ground and attack the issues, not the individual.

[Sanx]

(Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

Just a small point... fascism does not equal capitalism. Fascism is extreme authoritarianism, where the needs and rights of the individual are subserviant to those of the state. Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Mao Tse Tung were just as fascist as Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet.

The political spectrum does not just have one long line along which all politicians and beliefs are located; it's more of a two axis system. Left to right is communism/socialism to extreme capitalism. Top to bottom is fascism to anarchy. All of the above dictators were under the illusion that the rights of the individual were very much second to what they perceived to be in the best interest of the State. That makes them all fascists ... and we're not a huge distance from that in NZ.

[Robert Taylor]

So you keep saying but I've noticed that you spend as much or more time here than me.

You're quick to attack but slow to offer your own policies: the sign of the morally bankrupt

More time offering solutions to suspension problems, yes.

But nowhere near as much time as you engage yourself in abusing those who dont agree with you and ramming leftish dogma and propaganda down peoples throats. Of course its a given that you wont agree but what the heck, Im not going to lose sleep over it.

[Robert Taylor]

Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds more like someone who wants the world to be the model that he desires and bugger the rest.

You are of course entitled to beleive what makes you feel comfortable, many people do whether its right or wrong.

[Fatjim]

I think a good book on the subject would be "how to win friends and influence people".

[Pex Adams]

I think a good book on the subject would be "how to win friends and influence people".

Does that come with pictures?:stupid:

[davereid]

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the
virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented,
forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of
public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed
under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted
from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed,
hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned,
judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

P. J. Proudhon, _General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

[Sanx]

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the
virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented,
forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of
public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed
under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted
from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed,
hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned,
judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

P. J. Proudhon, _General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

Fuck ... I knew Labour had plagiarised their election campaign material from somewhere.