Snap election!

[placidfemme]

[www.libertarianz.org.nz

haha I like it... some of thier ideas just may work...

What is the Libertarianz position on drug use?

Libertarianz would repeal laws prohibiting drug use. Each individual owns his own life; therefore he has the right to treat his body as he chooses.

But if drugs were legalised, wouldn't crime increase with more addicts on the streets?
Prohibition leads to criminal involvement. The resultant black market inflates the price of drugs and attracts criminals. Police time is diverted from apprehending real criminals and is wasted on drug law enforcement. It is likely that drug-related crime would decrease following legalisation of drugs.

And:

Why will Libertarianz abolish the welfare state?

Because it is based on coercion. We have no objection to people helping others, but they must not be forced to do so through taxation. Taxation, which is the theft of private property, is morally wrong. As each individual owns his life, so each individual has the right to the product of his efforts in order to sustain his life. The social welfare system, which is funded by taxation, will be abolished to make way for privately-run charity organisations.

[Lias]

You are quite incorrect sir - the existing de facto laws did not cover that already.

What do you mean by "of a religious nature" - christian? non christian? christian-like? jedi? should a hindu man and woman not be allowed to be legally married because they don't claim to worship "god"?

Your argument is contradictory. Most heterosexual couples that have chosen to civil union rather than marriage have done so on the basis that they are not religious, if civil union didn't exist they would be forced to marry, which you don't agree with because they are not religious (see the vicious circle).

Unless I've been hitting the crack pipe, even before civil union law when any hetero couple had been living together for 2+ years in a relationship like marriage they legally were De Facto / Common law and had similar rights.

It was the same as marriage but they dont get the ceremony and the word marriage because marriage is all about religion (and I said god(s) please note. I dont care if your talking the christian god, hindu gods, norse gods or cthulhu.. Pretty much every religion has a marriage ceremony of some sort)

[Lias]

So I take it you advocate the government legislating people's personal lives? I always thought marriage was between two people and their beliefs, whatever they may be.

I guess in a way, but I dont see it quite like you do.
I see it more as the govt protecting the "trademark" or "intellectual property" if you will of what marriage has traditionally been. Marriage is a ceremony in many religions, but until recently has always been just that, a religious ceremony. Now Labour has decreed that ANYONE can get married, and its not a religious ceremony. I think that dilutes the concept of marriage.

Equal rights? Fine. Marriage? No.

[Lias]

*sits back with my popcorn and watches the about-to-be homo bashing*

I'll only give it to you rough if you like it that way and use a safeword *grin*

[WINJA]

Wayne Mapp is one of the better politicians in the house, have you ever met the man?

and nothing wrong with the 90 day bill,give us managers the odd chance to say... mmmm your Fking useless, you're fired!!

F WIT!!

SURE MAYBE IN YOUR DREAM WORLD, BUT IN REALITY IT JSUT FUCKS OVER THE WORKERS , BUSINESSES WILL DO ANYTHING FOR A BUCK

[placidfemme]

I'll only give it to you rough if you like it that way and use a safeword *grin*

lol I'm gonna use 'bubbles' as my safeword

[John Banks]

I guess in a way, but I dont see it quite like you do.
I see it more as the govt protecting the "trademark" or "intellectual property" if you will of what marriage has traditionally been. Marriage is a ceremony in many religions, but until recently has always been just that, a religious ceremony. Now Labour has decreed that ANYONE can get married, and its not a religious ceremony. I think that dilutes the concept of marriage.

Equal rights? Fine. Marriage? No.

Traditionally marriage is about the ownership of a woman by a man. Traditionally it is less about religion and more about property. Either you need to accept that the idea of marriage has changed and will continue to change.
Or at least don't pretend it's about "tradition" or "sanctity" or any other bullshit excuse.

[bert_is_evil]

Unless I've been hitting the crack pipe, even before civil union law when any hetero couple had been living together for 2+ years in a relationship like marriage they legally were De Facto / Common law and had similar rights.

It was the same as marriage but they dont get the ceremony and the word marriage because marriage is all about religion (and I said god(s) please note. I dont care if your talking the christian god, hindu gods, norse gods or cthulhu.. Pretty much every religion has a marriage ceremony of some sort)

To qaulify as a De Facto relationship you must be living together for at least 2 years, sharing bills etc. You can get married a week after meeting someone, live in different towns and still have all of the benefits of being married such as next of kin status, joint health insurance etc

If you think that anyone who worships any god should be able to marry (as long as it's for religious purposes), then you would have to accept that different religions follow different values and many religions do not descriminate against homosexuality. Therefore you couldn't really exclude homosexual's from being allowed to marry could you?

[crashe]

Unless I've been hitting the crack pipe, even before civil union law when any hetero couple had been living together for 2+ years in a relationship like marriage they legally were De Facto / Common law and had similar rights.

It was the same as marriage but they dont get the ceremony and the word marriage because marriage is all about religion (and I said god(s) please note. I dont care if your talking the christian god, hindu gods, norse gods or cthulhu.. Pretty much every religion has a marriage ceremony of some sort)

Lias - mate you need to go and check out the civil union website to get all the correct information.

It is now 3 years together not 2 years. Then they get equal share.
Just the same as in a marriage breakup.

Even if say, in a defacto relationship, the couple had children... and one partner died... and if the parents of the partner that died didnt like the other person, they could come in take the kids off them. This is one way to safe guard the children for the partner that is left.

In the past the parents of the dead partner could also sell up the house that the two had brought together... didnt matter if it was in both names. There were too many loop holes.

Say you had a bad accident and your partner came to see you in hospital. Your parents couldnt stand your partner. Guess what under the old ways they could stop your partner from visiting you. Now they cant.
In the past the partner couldnt sign the hospital forms, now they can.

Also go and check out the new relationship/property act that came into effect.

Did you also know that many married couples have actually gone and change their marriage certificate over and had a civil union...
More hetro sexuals have had civil union than gays and lesbians.

It is safe guarding ALL New Zealanders.

[oldrider]

SURE MAYBE IN YOUR DREAM WORLD, BUT IN REALITY IT JSUT FUCKS OVER THE WORKERS , BUSINESSES WILL DO ANYTHING FOR A BUCK

C'mon WINJA you are not trying to say that doesn't apply to workers too are you?

There are three possibilities:

The business says, make a buck, stuff the workers!

The worker says, make a buck, screw the business!

The business hires the worker and they both say, lets make a buck and divide it according to how much investment and value we each add to the business!

They are never very often equal but it should be reflected in their employment contractual agreement.

It sometimes takes up to 90 days to establish a worker and train them to a level of proficiency so that they can safely do a job to the required standard.

It does not have to be an acrimonious arrangement, the labour court is there for that sort of protection if it's required. Cheers John.

[Skyryder]

I can't understand the "outrage" about National's connections with the Business Roundtable, whether the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is allegedly boning the deputy chair of said ginger group or not. The Labour Party is and has been in bed with the trade union movement since its inception. Unions rark up their members to vote Labour at every election. They fund the Labour Party. Many Labour MPs (past and present) have been union organisers. Surely that's more sinister than Mr Brash's alleged sex life?

The connection between Labour and the Trade Union movement is of politics.

The connection between the Buisness Roundtable is of politics.

Wherever there is a 'unlawfull connection' between any lobby group and an MP not to mention the Leader of a political party who has the potential to becomePrime Minister,then there is the potential for blackmail.

Trade Union policies that are incprperated in legislation go through a democratic process.

Any policy that the Buisness Roundtable wanted to become part of Parliments legislative agenda again goes through a democratic process. That policy is moved or seconded etc. Like the Trade Union movements these are not neccessarily public discussions but one a policy has been adopted it becomes public knowledge.

Shagging the Vice Chairman of any Buisness Group would be cause for concern but 'having it off with the VP of the Buisness Roundtable, a known far right lobby group with close assoscations with National is grist for the mill in politics of any shape or form.

Skyryder

[SPman]

Clintons not doing anything - reckon he'd be better than any of the twats currently in or running for government - reckon he was a great US president!

[Skyryder]

You could say the same about the connection between Labour and the Unions.

No Finn you can not. Seems you do not understand the relationships.

Many Trade Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party as indeed are many Buisness organisations. The same can not be said for the Buisness Roundtable.


Skyryder

[Finn]

No Finn you can not. Seems you do not understand the relationships.

Many Trade Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party as indeed are many Buisness organisations. The same can not be said for the Buisness Roundtable.


Skyryder

Seems you don't understand the real world fish boy. Put the text book down for a moment. The relationship is driven by the same motivation.

The unions would not have the same power under a National government, in fact they are shit scared of their own pitiful existence should Nation govern NZ. This is because most of them are unemployable. Therefore they support Labour. You wouldn't find many businesses supporting Labour, unless they're privately owned by dumbass kiwi's.

On the other hand the BRT support National because they share common ideas of growth and prosperity.

[Lou Girardin]

I love the people advocating a National Govt. It it long term memory loss, short attention span, or some other reason you don't remember the debacle of Ruthenasia and the other horrors of the Bolger/Shipley years?
It wasn't Labour that consigned us to the longest recession since WW2.
To hell with both their party's.