I am intrigued to hear that you think the Greens advocate fringe economics. Or as Don/Hide said, “caveman economics”.

Ecological economics is both a modern/contemporary development and an increasingly supported/accepted model. If anything, the free market model is both outdated/prehistoric and has been increasingly discredited and refuted.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Believe that if it makes you happy!

The Greens believe the evidence (from different sources) that many who wanted to Party Voted Green in this close election, gave that vote to Labour to avoid a National-led-Government, and what it might do. (Yes! the thought of such a government really DOES frighten a considerable number of people!)

Unlike Winston Churchill, Greens prefer to keep their hearts because, as a group, they are aware that the Party is very well endowed in the brain department.

Stay happy Marsboy … don’t try to think too hard!

e

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m intrigued by your reluctance to acknowledge that human rights abuses have ever occurred and/or can occur in countries with deregulated economies.

You say: “Human rights abuses can occur anywhere in the world.” Absolutely. Let’s shake to that. We have found agreeance somewhere. But now, moving on…

Some countries (yes, SOME) with deregulated economies have widespread occurrences of human rights abuses. Or are these countries not part of ‘the world’?

Granted, government is not always the best protector of human rights; but that’s not to say it never is. Besides, who would you rather have protect them? Corporations? Sure, let me cede by bodily integrity and all rights that go with it to ExxonMobil and Monsanto.

As someone who believes strongly in the rule of law, then why this cynicism of the effectiveness and application of statute?

It is legislation which at the very least gives rudimentary protection of human rights; and along with that, international treaties.

Also, think about the role of unions: they act as a voice of – and shield for – workers against both employers AND the government. Deregulation, and anti-union measures that go with it, takes away this very basis of a safety net.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Human rights abuses can occur anywhere in the world.

“But you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to human rights and the observation/recognition/protection of them?”

Opposed to human rights?? Of course not. Do I believe that Government (which in many cases is a major perpetrator) is the best body to protect these rights?? No.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

1) Most certainly; but that wasn’t the *only* point I was making…
2) I think deregulation both causes and permits human rights abuses to occur. By ‘permits’ I mean allowing them to take place, due to lack of legislative measures.
3) You say “they can occur in any market system”; in so doing you’re actually agreeing with my point insofar as you do not dispute the fact that systemic rights abuses *can* and *do* occur in a deregulated system.

Workers’ rights are violated in every system, no doubt. But this happens to a greater extent in deregulated market systems, given the lack of recognition and protection of workers’ rights in statute. If Indonesia had anywhere near what we have here by way of the ERA (I’m talking about the amended Act, owing to the ERAA 2004), and if so were it to be stringently enforced, I doubt there would be the conditions that we now see in the sweatshops there. (Btw I don’t think the ERA, even as amended, is wondruous by any means, but it is a long shot from what Indonesia has.)

Or are you unaware of the existence of ’sweatshop labour’?

We could go on forever re free trade, so I wouldn’t even begin with it. But I think you’d expect me to be opposed to it.

But you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to human rights and the observation/recognition/protection of them? If so, the matter rests. If not, then do you think it is ethical to trade with a country that so systematically violates human rights at every level?

That’s a bit like me doing business with someone whom I know tortures his wife and sexually abuses his children.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As far as free trade goes, yes I would like to see NZ sign a free trade deal with China, as I believe we will have more influence over China than we currently have (which is next to none) if a deal benefitting both countries is struck. But of course, you will no doubt disagree wiyh this too

Fire away…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Isn’t there a muscle somewhere twitching guys, ‘cos you’re so far away from thinking about what you own and beleive in the way of policy philosophy, and so sold on just picking each others statements apart??? Your brain is so much more than a semantic search engine for epithets and insults.

Wizban: this works for me – just say it straight to their face and be upfront about how you feel, why should you apologise unless, of course, you didn’t mean what you said :-O

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My point is this: That the Greens as well as many others are concerned about human rights abuses that occur BOTH in countries with heavily deregulated economies and totalitarian (Stalinist or otherwise) regimes. (I am not sure that ACT and other free market advocates do; the Libertarianz say that there is no such thing as human rights as we understand it, only property rights. Hmmm…)

Mind you, countries like North Korea may have regulated economies, but they are Stalinist, and many academics would regard ’state capitalism’ as being synonymous with Stalinism.

And if you look at China, the government is Communist only in name, for they have embraced full-fledged capitalist tendencies. Low wages and poor working conditions derive from their desire to be ‘competitive in the marketplace’ – hence the drive for profits trumping all else.

Furthermore, in both North Korea and China, both countries do not have independent workers’ unions. They do have state unions however, which actually act as arms of the repressive regimes themselves.

Stymied sums up my point exactly: I never said that human rights abuses derive *solely* from developing countries with deregulated economies, only that they are among the pool of perpetrators of human rights abuses. Moreover, I was illustrating the point that free market advocates pay little attention, if any, to human rights abuses that do occur in these countries, because do to so would necessitate legislative protection and policy measures and hence REGULATION – the complete antithesis of laissez-faire.

This somewhat ties in with my point on another thread, AF: You cannot claim to advocate the position of workers on the one hand while trumping free markets policies on the other, policies which in many respects contribute to wanton and arbitrary abuse of workers and their rights.

Incidentally: doesn’t ACT support the idea of a free trade deal between NZ and China? If so, then why the comment “some of the worst Human Right abuses occur in countries with heavy regulation (North Korea, China etc)”? If you recognise that human rights abuses do occur in China, as you most certainly (and rightly) do, and yet despite this still support free trade with such a nation, then you have illustrated my point absolutely, that being this:
1) Either the position ACT takes is contradictory;
2) Or ACT and other free market advocates don’t really believe in the protection of human and workers’ rights after all.

Or perhaps it is both.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Your responses boil down to “yes, and it can happen in other instances too”. So you do agree that “Some of the worst human rights abuses stem from developing countries with heavy deregulation”? The fact that it happens in other cases is extranious to the argument, but your replies imply you agree with RedGreens point, even if you don’t recognise it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Relax. Certainly don’t think you’re dragging us into disrepute. Aaron’s just stirring.

You’ll have noticed that Aaron paraphrased what you said instead of quoting you directly because he was attempting to make it look like we were busily hatching conspiracy theories, instead of a simple question being asked. If he’s willing to paraphrase like that, and avoid context or detail, then given a long enough thread of comments it’s certain he would have found something he could misrepresent suitably. So if it hadn’t been you it would have just been someone else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The point was that “Some of the worst human rights abuses stem from developing countries with heavily deregulation”

Yes, heavy regulation can be equally bad, but that’s not relevant, nor does it change the argument.

Jesus H Christ I am sick of deliberate obtuseness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)