The PERFect Christmas gift
So what do you get that recently retired police officer friend or family member of yours who has everything this Christmas but is missing the old life? What does Santa bring you when you have been good but the world is getting bad? It seems, as always, Taser.com has the perfect gift.Â
Perfect that is, except for The UN Committee Against Torture’s announcement that Tasers caused “extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and … in certain cases could also cause death”. Very timely given both that the New Zealand Police‘s 12-month taser trial is due to finish on 14 December at which point the Police Commissioner will make a decision about their continued use. Oh, and also there is the ongoing news about tasers.
Kiwiblog is using the traditional ‘well it’s better than merely shooting them’ argument to justify police use of tasers. Which is true (and to DPF’s credit he does raise concerns about the use of tasers). But then shooting them is better than bombing them. Do we really want to start allowing police torture because, well, at least it is not as bad as it could have been if we had let the police loose in a medieval torture chamber?
November 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The UN committee did not state that tasers are a form of torture. I welcome any proof to state that it did.
Tasers are not torture in NZ as torture does not not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Tasers are lawful sanctions in NZ. Therefore they are not torture.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Frog
So would you rather the police just shoot crims?
November 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hmm, so if the UN committee did not actually say that, then how come the world’s headline writers have said they did? Is this a conspiracy by the “hard left” or something?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/26/un_taser_verdict/
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/24/2324212
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/25/national/main3537803.shtml
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22814674-5001028,0 0.html
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/un-torture-panel-singles-o ut-tasers/?hp
November 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
The police must be given appropriate tools to do their job. Sometimes, they need to bring down dangerous, violent people, and hand-to-hand won’t do it.
The next option is a gun.
At least if a tazer is an option, then a gun may be less likely to be used, which causes less damage, which is surely a good thing?
November 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Because the worlds headline writers are a bit like you. the UN didnt say tasers are a form of torture. The UN saiud the USE of tasers CAN CONSTITUTE a form of torture. Quite different.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’m disappointed in the tone you take making out Police are going to miss a life of torture. They put their lives on the line for us every day. When you can convince criminals to behave themselves, you might have a point.
But the point is hard to take seriously when your attitude, one of disdain for the Police, shows so clearly through.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Torture is generally understood to mean deliberate infliction of pain, usually for the purpose of procuring information. It is nothing to do with legality. The torture used by most disctaroships is perfectly legal since it is the dictators who make the laws. It is still torture. Likewise, the deliberate infliction of pain on animals in New Zealand for the purpose of procuring (dubious) information, is legal. It is also torture.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Having a policeman son I do take a particular interest in the subject of tasers and other means of self defence for NZ police.
It would seem that tasers are less lethal than a pistol.
If we do not want our average beat bobby or traffic officer to be armed with a taser or a pistol, what means of self defence can the police expect to use when their ‘cliental’ are increasingly violent?
Many officers work alone in rural areas, with back-up more than 3 minutes away, and often in areas with no cellphone coverage or poor radio signal. So what in all honesty do we expect our police to do when apprehending a criminal or suspected criminal? Chant prayers of peace?
November 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I take UN committees with a large pinch of salt; they seem to act as a pheremone to a certain type of moth.
People need to remember crime is a dangerous sport.
Give ‘em a choice “taser or cold steel!” (They definitely don’t like it up’ em!!)
Crims curtail our freedom and co$t us a lot (eg every woman needs a mobile phone, etc, etc)
November 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I’m at a bit of a loss as to why a tazer trial was even necessary.
As far as I am aware, whatever firearms the armed offender squads carry around now haven’t each been through a big trial and review; somehow the most appropriate tool is selected from the wide selection that is available, and thats what they use.
So if the idea of tazers is that they are a less lethal tool than a gun that would be used in similar circumstances then a trial is pointless, and has no value. Of course armed offender officers should have the tazer in their toolset, for those occasions when a gun seems just too final, but pepper and sticks are just not going to get the job done.
Unless, of course, the idea is that tazers are not an alternative to a conventional firearm when the circumstances are appropriate, but are really just a long armed baton for every copper to carry and use as (s)he sees fit… then we’ve taken a step in the wrong direction.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The IRA were an effective ( and cost effective) police force, a simple Black and Decker and a drill bit… crime lost its popularity…..lawyers lost income….. tsh tosh.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
If you left “appropriate decision making” to communities (Maori or Pakeha), firstly the civil libertarians would get red noses, secondly crime would be an unpopular sideline.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I’m with davec. The use of water can constitute torture (e.g. waterboarding) as can prison (e.g. prolonged sensory-deprived solitary confinement). Of course electricity can be used in torture - did you really need the UN to tell you that?
November 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Joy I don’t think the Greens have much sympathy for the safety of your son. You must have seen the email circulating about how armed police in NZ, aussie and the US would deal with a homicidal maniac? The redGreens and their friends expect our police force and justice system to be “customer focused”.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Kevin,
I have been in email communication with Keith everytime the taser subject comes up. Naturally I have a different perspective on the need for our police to have some effective self defence measures.
I know my son is a very decent man, not given to excessive behavior either in his work or his personal life. I want to be reasonably assurred that as he goes about his work, striving to keep the community safe, he will have suitable tools to assist him deal with violent offenders.
My son and his colleagues put their safety on the line, for us, everytime they go on duty.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
This does nothing to advance the weak arguements against tasers. How the U.N. classifies tasers does not change what they actually do. Besides, why should we listen to anything the U.N. say? Are we not a soverign nation?
Besides, just because something is clasified as torture doesnt nessesarily imply that it is bad. People could clasify prison as torture, but should we get rid of prisons? The reality is that torture can sometimes be a means to an end and it can save lives as you avoid a potential shooting (does the name Stephen Bellingham ring a bell?). The taser, when it is introduced perminantly will be one more weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement.
Bleeding Hearts Kill when it comes to tasers.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
davec, what is your point then? frog said “constituted”.
jh, you are absolutely correct that criminals cost us a lot, the costs of imprisonment are astronomical, yet, oddly, right-wing types who otherwise argue in favour of reducing government spending usually argue in favour of increasing government spending on prisons. This is especially dumb when research shows that prisons are less effective at reducing re-offending rates than other cheaper alternatives.
jh, with your “appropriate decision making” jibe and IRA knee-capping comment, you seem to be arguing in favour of the rule of the mob. Neighbours coming round and lynching suspected sex offenders that sort of thing. And you said the Greens were “anarchists”. To me, the rule of the mob sounds more like anarchy than anything in the Green policies.
Kevin, what in our policies is it that makes you think that the Greens expect the police to put themselves in danger or be “customer focused.” And what practically do you think that actually means? All we are arguing for is that the police should be accountable and should follow legal process so as not to infringe any civil liberties. We are not asking for changes in the law around how the police behave, we are just asking for the police to behave according to those laws rather than according to a macho gang culture.
dbuckley, thanks for your considered and reasonable comment, seems from your last paragraph that there is actually consensus around the issue of tazers, at least from commenters who address the issues rather than using the issue as an excuse for cheap jokes and slander of the Greens policies.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
stuey,
I dont care what frog said, I’m more concerned what the UN said. And the UN didn’t say what Frog said it said.
I`ll write it s.l.o.w.l.y.
Frog said tasers “constituted a form of torture,” the UN said the use of tasers could constitute a form of torture. In other words, it’s not THAT tasers are used, its HOW tasers are used that is the issue. So go tell Keith Locke that.
For more see this
November 27th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
What Stuey, no rebbutle for me? I feel horribly left out
November 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Stuey
Please tell me what the Police are supposed to do when faced with a madman intent on causing somebody grievous bodily harm, are they supposed to ask them if it is OK to arrest them just in case they hurt their feelings?
It sickens me when I see the left (and it always is the left) attack our police for doing their job, they deal with low life scum on a daily basis and for their troubles they receive a pittance, they also have to suffer the irrational personal attacks of the likes of Keith Locke almost on daily basis.
The Greens seem to be more concerned about a criminals civil liberties than they are about crime, if you ask me a criminal loses his or her rights to any civil liberties the minute they commit a crime.
I am not sure who said it earlier in the week on this site but I am beginning to agree with the person who said that one of the (unwritten) principals of the Green charter is bringing down “the man”
The Greens will get nowhere with this soft on criminals and soft on crime approach, banging people up in prison may not decrease the rates of re offending but it makes society a much safer place to live in.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Torture or not, in overseas cases where the use of tasers over the years has ‘become acceptable’ victims have included people running away from the police, refusing to sign documents and on demonstrators. It seems that “just ‘cos you don’t die from tasers” the police are more keen to use them and hence misuse them.
aladin
November 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
And Frog, re. your headline: what does the police early retirement fund have to do with tasers and torture?
aladin
November 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Aladin: You’re conserns about Tasers are a potential issue. First of all I dont know how wide spread the problem of Taser misuse is in other countries, but I doubt it is that bad. Also there is no reason that we could not maintain a tight law in terms of the rules involving tasers, spesificly instructing the police on situations where tasers are justified, and disiplining police in situations where they misuse a taser. but there is no doubt that there is a demand for tasers in this country. Because of the media coverage they have recieved often pointing the taser is enough to subdue a criminal.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
My unease stems from the fact that the police can use tasers in these situations:
Unarmed (or lightly armed) but highly aggressive people,
Individuals displaying irrational or bizarre behaviour, and
People under the influence of mind altering substances, solvents or alcohol.
That’s all,
aladin
November 27th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Nick C, we wrote our comments at the same time.
BB: “Please tell me what the Police are supposed to do when faced with a madman intent on causing somebody grievous bodily harm”
I don’t know, I don’t happen to have a copy of the police operations manual at hand, but I expect they have procedures, training and equipment to deal with most situations they encounter.
BB: “It sickens me when I see the left attack our police for doing their job”
Who did that? I certainly didn’t. I just said they should do their job legally and with accountability.
BB: “the irrational personal attacks of the likes of Keith Locke almost on daily basis.”
I don’t agree that Keith has made any attacks such as those - could you point to some examples? If they are nearly daily I expect it will be easy for you to find some won’t it? Hmm?
BB: “If you ask me a criminal loses his or her rights to any civil liberties the minute they commit a crime.”
Our grandfathers fought in a war to protect our basic rights and freedoms such as right to trial by jury and so on and here you are gladly advocating removing those rights from people who may be innocent of the alleged crime. Sheesh!
BB: “soft on criminals and soft on crime approach”
Well actually we think restorative justice is tougher on criminals than prison because it forces them to really face up to their actions and their victims; and restorative justice is tougher on crime than prison because it is more effective at reducing crime.
BB: “banging people up in prison may not decrease the rates of re offending but it makes society a much safer place to live in.”
Yes, and the Greens still support prison for the small minority of violent and dangerous offenders, but most of the people in prison are in there for minor offenses that could easily be dealt with restorative justice.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I agree that those rules do seem a little broad, particularly the “irrational or bizarre behaviour” one. However the policemen who are armed with tasers have to be trained with them and in that training are given guidelines to situations where they should or should not use a taser. As long as the people who are allowed to use tasers are properly trained and advised on how and when to use them I have no problem with tasers. Also the review on tasers has yet to be completed so the rules may be changed.
Stephen Bellingham was high on party pills (i.e. under the influence of mind altering substances, solvents or alcohol) when he was shot dead while charging at a policeman. A taser would have saved him.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“Please tell me what the Police are supposed to do when faced with a madman intent on causing somebody grievous bodily harm. I don’t know, I don’t happen to have a copy of the police operations manual at hand”
Niether do I but lets look at what they have done in past situations. In the case of Stephen Bellingham he was shot dead when high on party pills and charging at a policeman with a weapon. The policeman shot him with a hand gun. He kept job so we can guess that what he did was what he was trained to do. Thats one situation where a life could have been saved by a taser.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:43 am
bb, Time in jail won’t make anyone a better person but it will make them a better criminal. The most important things they will learn are ways of avoiding getting caught including witness elimination. Banging people up in prison may not decrease the rates of re offending but it makes society a much safer place to live in for a short time, and a much more dangerous place to live in for a long time.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Frog, Stuey
This is a beat-up, here’s where the paragraph that generated all this comment comes from:
http://tinyurl.com/232v7o
… and in the interests of brevity, here is the actual paragraph itself
The Committee regretted that Portugal used detention for identification purposes, that could sometime lead to collective arrests. The Committee was also worried by information it had received on the persistent violence between prisoners in places of detentions, including sexual violence, and by the high number of deaths in places of detention, due in great part to HIV/AIDS and suicide. The Committee was worried that the use of TaserX26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use.
Now that single sentence, which points at a specific problem, which is that police CAN use a Taser to torture people and it is clear that some do ( and those should not be police at all ). That sentence does not mean the Tasers should not be available to police to use in-extremis. It does not mean that the use of a Taser is automatically a form of torture. It means that police should get enough training to be very deliberate about when to use them and that they should never never be used short of preventing someone from being injured or killed, including the police.
Which is clearly NOT how they are being used now and people DO die, in lesser numbers than they do from being shot with guns and with a different risk population and profile. I dislike this campaign of Keith’s. I dislike the prejudicial tone of the press, given the actual words used. I dislike the fact that the police have adopted a CASUAL attitude to the use of a very powerful weapon because it is usually non-lethal.
I want the beat officer to have one… but not use it casually as has happened in the USA and elsewhere. I don’t think our police will, their alternative has always been “no” weapon. The comparative violence and power of the Taser is greater to them than to the US cop who may have 2 or 3 guns on his person and a riot gun in the patrol car. That comparative violence is an important factor in the “casual” deployment of the Taser by US and other police against people who are misbehaving but not threatening.
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Stuey
Don’t you think it is a bit ruch for a Green party supporter to use the line “Our grandfathers fought in a war to protect our basic rights and freedoms”
The most basic of human rights is the one that protects free speech yet the Greens see fit to trample all over that in support of the EFB.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Study/Frog./Keith,
Do we use tasers in Prisons to subdue prisoners on prison units? That was the Polish context and Keith doesnt even seem to be aware of it . If he does, he is being disengenous on purpose. Our use here is not the use that the UN complained about - which is thevery point that I and others have made her and eslewhere, so, yes, it is a beat up.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Stuey said: at least from commenters who address the issues rather than using the issue as an excuse for cheap jokes and slander of the Greens policies.
Wrong thread to take this line Stuey. Re-read the opening paragraph of Frogs post a little more critically and see if it invites the same standard of cheap jokes back.
And Frog sums up with:Do we really want to start allowing police torture because, well, at least it is not as bad as it could have been if we had let the police loose in a medieval torture chamber?
No Frog, we want to give our Police an opportunity to defend themselves against potentially armed and violent thugs.
If Police are found using any instrument to torture prisoners (which is a completely separate issue), then we also want to make sure we have a system in place that catches that. Doesn’t matter if its a Taser, baton, belt or boot, and banning Taser’s would not stop such practice.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Taser guns have been proven to be lethal, they are not safe and anyone who denies this fact is lying. 18 people have died in Canada alone since 2003 due to the use of tasers and more than 220 have died in north america since 2001. This amounts to manslaughter by the police. This weapon should not even be considered for use. Canada is taking serious measures to remove tasers and it seems that if it is not done on a federal level that provinces are willing to take the measures due to pressure from the public.
It is impossible for police to tell if an individual they are trying to control has physical conditions such as a heat problem that the taser gun would seriously adversely affect. The fact is they are shooting without certainty of the facts of that individuals health condition and that has lead to many many deaths.
To answer the question: Please tell me what the Police are supposed to do when faced with a madman intent on causing somebody grievous bodily harm. I don’t know, I don’t happen to have a copy of the police operations manual at hand�
Quite frankly I’d rather the police shoot them in a limb with a tranquilizer. Why wouldn’t that be acceptable? It’s better than risking killing them! Especially when they haven’t be charged/convicted with anything!
It also pays to visit some of the taser companies websites - insightful look into their absolute denial of their weapons lethal track record. These people/companies are gung-ho about equipping as many police and even civillians (there are civilian grade tasers - they even come in hot pink) with these leathal weapons as possible. All about the profit under a guide of safe community.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
“Quite frankly I’d rather the police shoot them in a limb with a tranquilizer”
Why do you think this hasnt even been considered ash. HINT: Its a really stupid idea. Any weapon needs to be able to take out the ability of the criminal to act almost instantly. The torso is the easyst part of the body to hit, so we cannot always guarentee a limb shot. Also tranqualisers are not instant like tasers, they can take up to a minute to be fully effective. If you try to cut this time down by adding more powerful tranqualiser you risk death. Tasers are much safer then guns and more practical then any other novel solution.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
>>Taser guns have been proven to be lethal, they are not safe and anyone who denies this fact is lying.
Large sticks have been proven to be lethal, they are not safe and anyone who denies this fact is lying.
I would like to see a green supporter confront a violent maniac at 3am using a copy of Das Kapital, which I concede, is probably very lethal, depending on how it is used.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Surprise, surprise, I see the man who invented the taser is now working on one that will ‘control rioting crowds’ from a mini flying saucer. What a genius this man is.
Does anyone know what effect 50,000 volts has on a child?
aladin
November 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Does anyone know what effect 50,000 litres of water has on a child?
Sometimes they go swimming in it….
November 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“Surprise, surprise, I see the man who invented the taser is now working on one that will ‘control rioting crowds’ from a mini flying saucer. What a genius this man is.”
Hmmmm, send for the Raytheon Active Defense System. Bit more range than a Tazer…
November 28th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
we wouldnt have half the crims or need half the cops if cannabis were decriminalised. such a move would also bring the narc profession back into the actual community of kiwis,
and would take the sting right out of the taser.
the liberal prison reformer type crowd concerned about tasers are barking up the wrong tree - it may be a concern but ‘criminalisation’ ought ot be a far bigger one..
haLF these nasty incidents in nz would never happen if there was not a bad law instigating deviancy amplification and disrespect.
One recent example was the kop who killed the wasted guy in chch stanmore rd when he should have kept back and not inflamed the situation. people hate cops because of prohibiton. that instigates TROUBLE, all the time.
It is really sick to have ‘criminalisation’ on the statutes my friends, for a non-crime.
the change is easy -31 yr precedent in Holland, but the greens are too scared of prohibition it seems, to advocate against it?
regards
November 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Tasers are no more dangerous than guns and should be covered by similar rules, including the review of any use.
Trevor.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“One recent example was the kop who killed the wasted guy in chch stanmore rd when he should have kept back and not inflamed the situation. people hate cops because of prohibiton. that instigates TROUBLE, all the time.”
Were you high when you wrote this maaaaan? First of all that guy was high on party pills which are legal, secondly no one I know hates cop because drugs are illegal (then again I dont know many green party supporters). The cops dont make the law, they enforce it.
“we wouldnt have half the crims or need half the cops if cannabis were decriminalised.”
Riiiiiiiiiight. I guess if we legalised everything then we wouldnt need any cops would we?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Why all the pro-taser comments directed at me? I haven’t expressed an opinion about tasers at all. I do think it is great that there is so much consensus in this thread that they can be dangerous, that they shouldn’t be an easy and common option for the police and that their use should be properly trained and reviewed.
I completely agree with weedeater that drug prohibition alienates people and breeds massive disrespect for the police. I guess it does help inflame situations and make violence more likely as well. Drug prohibition also breeds massive disrespect for politicians and the political system, is it any wonder that voting rates are dropping?
One of the big reasons for the Greens election in 99 was the fact that something like 33% of the people who voted for us had never voted before. While some of those were young people who had not been 18 for long, most were people who had been disenfranchised from the political system and previously felt that there was no-one that represented their views - I’m convinced that these were mainly drug users attracted to the Greens because of Nandor. Of course we have lost many of those voters because of our backtracking on cannabis.
Yes the greens are scared of something, that they now fail to advocate against prohibition, but I wouldn’t say that it was prohibition they were scared of. It’s more the constant beat-ups and the steady stream of people saying “I would vote for the Greens but…”.
This manifested itself in many conferences I went to post 2002 when there was a litany of complaints from activists that they had encountered people on the street while campaigning who had said that.
It will be interesting to see how the Greens react after the next election when presumably the same activists will have been subjected to another deluge of “I would vote for the Greens but…” exchanges but this time it will be the EFB and S59 repeal, not drugs. Will they then go to Green conferences and call for backtracking on those policies as well? Or will they recognise that they shouldn’t have backtracked on cannabis?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
um the criminal underclass hate cops because they are narcs. full stop.
there is constant antagonism with policing of cannabis 20,000 convictions a year.
how nieve are you.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Yeah mate, cos all the nieve people in New Zealand want to keep marajuana illegal. The thing is you could pick any crime, legalise it and the amount of people convicted would go down. The Primary reason that I am opposed to drug legalisation is because people shouldnt need drugs to enjoy life. If you really need to use something that will rot your brain to have a good time then I feel sorry for you. My advice would be to seek god. Also a number of other reasons such as the fact that it is very harmful towards children, who are (excuse the cliche) the future.
How did the debate turn from tasers to marajuana anyway?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Sorry didnt see your comments Stuey, very good, it is a concern that the eco-social justice party compromised on this and has now lost its heart it seems.
The taser debate switched to cannabis Nick C because cannabis (or rather cannabis ‘criminalisation’) superceeds tasers in terms of NZ’s law and order problem - a problem which would be greatly mitigated with adult control home-grow or cafes instead of hypocritical, drug-promoting alienating, corrupting black market and alcohol/tobacco double standards.
if only the greens would advocate the policing solution which is in their policy, but hushed away as if the voting public have forgotten…
If you really want to criminalise ALL the weed consumers, Nick, i hope you can afford the 996 additional prisons required in NZ, as that is the scale of the non-crime. (One in eight of us according to the statistics) . It is a bad law. It is THE bad law.
Pls dont shoot the messenger (or use a taser - its less fatal).
regards
November 28th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
How many people have died in NZ because of a Taser used by Police?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Weedeater I think this all comes back to the war on drugs, which normally targets the supplyers and not the consumers of drugs. Co-incidently that is what myself and stuey are debating on the most recent thread called the “war on obesity”. Supplyers normally get really long jail terms where as consumers get off with a fine or community service. This is a good policy, although i think it needs to be more activly pursued with more police hunting down the suppliers. Tasers would only be involved if they refused to come quietly.
And if you do smoke weed, may I suggest you go to a church and seek god? He will turn your life around:)
November 29th, 2007 at 2:59 am
Stuey & weedeater, I am inclined to agree with your views on tackling the problems associated with illegal drugs because what you describe is parelleled in the official approach to speed related crashes. Did you know there are two speeding offences? And only one of them is mentioned in the official definition of a speed related crash. And it’s not the offence
November 29th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Sorry, must be getting late, clicked the wrong button.
And it’s not the offence mentioned in the ads and media hype.
It is actually the offence of reckless driver as it was defined before national speed limits were introduced. To paraphrase “Driving in a manner or at a speed that is dangerous for the nature, use and condition of the highway and the amount of traffic a driver should reasonably expect.” In the 1930s most drivers would have taken “traffic” to include pedestrians and cyclists and they still outnumbered cars in most places.
When research confirmed that “travelling too fast for the conditions” was the single biggest cause of deadly crashes the Department of Transport recommended a system of speed limits at locations where certain risk factors were present. Parliament responded with two blanket speed limits, 30mph for municipal authorities and, later, 40mph for county councils.
The fact that these speed limits completely ignored the factors that had prompted the call for speed limits meant that enforcement of the speed limits was of little practical use as a safety tool. The rule for setting speed limits introduced two years ago partially implements the system the experts have been calling for for three-quarters of a century. The curve advisory speed signs introduced by the National Roads Board following the Guinea Pig Highway project in 1959 is pretty much what the experts recommended as the basis of a safety speed limit system. Of course politicians have never made this advisory system mandatory and even the method of determining the advisory speed is only a “recommended” method which undermines the usefulness of the signs.
Nothing will change as long as the media and official propoganda and public bias prevent the facts from holding sway. Speeding offence and drug offence are both discredited tactics which nevertheless strike a chord with the public and therefore with politicians, especially as they are simple and lucrative “solutions”.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Everyone who endorses the use of tasers should be made to experience what it’s like to be shot with one. Hey and why not make that a rule with guns too….
Lucky for me I don’t endorse either.
The point that tasers are safer than guns is rubbish. The fact that some are trying to sell tasers on this merit is wrong. Earlier this year the police were even misleading the public by stating that no one has died from tasers. Amnesty International had to step in and pressure the police to stop decieving the public. If people die from ‘natural causes’ immediately after being shot with a taser….go figure. Tasers can cause serious disturbances in the physical body and can lead to sudden death in some people, this is a proven fact. If the taser triggers fatal heart failure because of an existing condition it is still responsible for the death of that person who would otherwise still be alive.
Tasers have a track record of being fatal. Sticks on the other hand….may be used in Nepal by police to beat people but I haven’t seen any statistics on death by stick. have you?
The use of tranquilizers is not a stupid idea and perhaps if we put more effort in to researching such non-violent means we would avoid such tragic and untimely deaths.
.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:22 am
ash,
“The use of tranquilizers is not a stupid idea’ until someone is killed by the adminastration of one, then you will be back with the Taser argument all over.
Unfortunately an alcohol and P fuelled idiot is not going to listen to a reasonable argument to calm down. So a some type of physical restaint is required.
One also has to consider the OSH regulations regarding workplace safety as pertaining to front line police. The employers (state) has to provide to equipment to ensure their workers (front line police) safety ( I dont think a stick - truncheon - is quite good enough).
Weapons such as guns and tasers are one answer. Maybe one of those net guns once used to capture live deer might be a better option?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:25 am
ash
What do you endorse? Nursery rhymes?
Serious question…
November 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Everyone who endorses the use of tasers should be made to experience what it’s like to be shot with one. Hey and why not make that a rule with guns too….”
Do you endorse jail? If so maybe you should spend a week in there. Thing is ash that we cant have an airy fairy society where criminals get treated the same as normal people. Tasers are for people who resist arrest, not ordinary citizens who advocate them.
“The use of tranquilizers is not a stupid idea and perhaps if we put more effort in to researching such non-violent means we would avoid such tragic and untimely deaths.”
When someone develops a traqualizer that instantly stops someone in their tracks and isnt lethal let me know. Its not about effort, the taser was invented by a private company, so if your idea was at all practical chances are someone would have invented it by now.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Everyone who endorses the use of tasers should be made to experience what it’s like to be shot with one.
Why don’t you first try being shot , stabbed, or hit by a car by a guy that escaped a police chase?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
id rather be shot with a taser so long as there was a Medical team handy and the voltage was turned down a bit!
but really, id rather if the police werent institutionalised bullies. that is a bigger issue but the greens are chicken to stand up against prohibition.
still awaiting Keith Locke’s advocacy in this arenaa btw.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Do you endorse jail? If so maybe you should spend a week in there. Thing is ash that we cant have an airy fairy society where criminals get treated the same as normal people. Tasers are for people who resist arrest, not ordinary citizens who advocate them.”
Well actually Nick C, the kind of ‘jails’ I endorse aren’t the kind we have here in NZ, and in saying that I wouldn’t mind spending a week or two in one.
Criminals are still people who need serious help Nick C and ZenTiger. Perhaps if our country wasn’t so close-minded we would be able to treat them as the human beings that they are. In Norway rehabilitation for people who have committed crime is central to the entire corrections system and the end result is that it has the lowest rate of murder in the world.
So is it airy fairy Norwary?? Or social policy that addresses the real issues and that actually works?
I’d like to know what you think about the proven effectiveness of the Norwegian model, considering Norway has the highest standard of living and lowest crime rates in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLQki-mQF4Q
Who is responsible for the death of the Polish man in Vancouver?
He was not a criminal and was shot with tasers four times by police, he was shocked twice and dead within minutes.
Nice welcome to Canada! eh!
November 30th, 2007 at 9:10 am
>>Norway rehabilitation
Those are low security risk prisons. We go one better - we allow home detention.
>>highest standard of living
Norway exports 100 billion dollars worth of oil per year. That is the reason they have a high standard of living.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:00 am
ash
Criminals need to be fed and housed and that is about it, we should give consideration to a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty, people like William Bell and Graham Burton do not deserve to share the planet with the rest of us.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 am
“Those are low security risk prisons. We go one better - we allow home detention.”
Norway also allows home detention.
Obviously the solution is never simple PeterBlue, there are many issues such as gun laws, police training, the teaching of civil liberties and responsibilities, all areas that need real and dramatic reform.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that our current corrections system does not work. Repeat offending is rampant and the culture of violence in NZ seems to be worse and worse. I am not sure if you agree but serious changes are needed. I believe that change needs to begin with far greater education in human rights/compassion, civil liberties and responsibilities from early childhood.
We need to implement major changes in the prison and criminal justice system. Prisoners need rehabilitation not alienation and isolation. What is more valuable to society, a murderer who is rotting and festering in jail without a chance or desire to reform his/her life or one who is getting the support and conditions to re-evaluate his or her horrific deeds, to rehabilitate and to make amends to society? You won’t get the latter very easily in the current hostile and degrading corrections facilities.
Despite the fact that treating criminals as people who need serious help is in conflict with many peoples’ emotional feelings (especially victims and their families) we need to realise that it may be the most effective and is the most humane philosophy.
It’s too bad that you’re so keen to write off Norway in couple of vague sentences..
“Norway exports 100 billion dollars worth of oil per year. That is the reason they have a high standard of living.”
Actually, it’s because they believe in total equality that the money is used for the benefit of everyone. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Many countries rich in oil or resources are generally not so fortunate (as to have the highest standard of living), once again its because of their philosophy and how that converts in to governance.
Of the top 15 oil producing nations more than two thirds rank in the lower half of the human development index and are also recorded as perpetrating grievous human rights abuses against their own citizens. In addition, their justice systems are rather ‘criminal’ in the way they deal with people.
I suggest you look a little deeper…
respectfully
ash
November 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
big bro, despite what you think the death penalty is a failed and flawed practice.
The chances of any New Zealand government or public referendum ever reintroducing it as a form of punishment are NIL. Perhaps you should go and live in Iran…there you get to see people being stoned…child offenders even.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Ash,
You’re missing the point. They can redistribute wealth without killing their cash-cow in the process. If we overtax our business in NZ, we’ll have less to redistribute than we do now. We cannot apply the Norwegian system here unless we earn, as a nation, what they do.
As for violence, the causes are varied. I would refer you to a study in the book Freakonomics. Whilst government were predicting increasing violence levels in the US, the trend actually reversed. Why? What happened?
Wade Vs Roe. The right to abortions.
Unwanted kids were being born less often. As a result, violence and crime leveled off, then decreased.
The left will never accept this in New Zealand, but they are fueling this neglect with their welfare state. The demographics of serious child abuse are clear - multiple fathers, poor, uneducated, a history or welfare dependence. The emphasis should be on participation, not unqualified handouts.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
>>I suggest you look a little deeper
I suggest it is you who needs to look deeper.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
ash
I would suggest that you are out of touch with the thinking of middle NZ (the same middle NZ that voted for the Greens last election), there are many who would support the death penalty for the likes of Burton and Bell to say nothing of the low life who murder children.
Middle NZ is sick and tired of the ever increasing rise in crime, the idea that the Greens think the crime wave can be solved by a group hug or restorative justice is only alienating the very people who will decide your political future.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I was chatting to a prominent criminal lawyer in Wellington, and he is of the opinion we should lock repeat offenders up a lot sooner. Not for their own good, for the good of society.
Once the hardcore are off the streets, they’re not causing problems.
Whilst in prison, they can work 9-5 days, just like everyone else. They earn room and board, and if they do well - privileges. And they are not getting out again until they show how well they can function. We pay for this by using their labour. Buy Kiwi Made, eh
This would also achieve the rehabilitation the lefties require.
The left model has failed. Miserably. Time to try something else.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
The attitude of you righties is just mindboggling.
Capitalism is designed to entrench and protect your social and economic privileges and still you’re not happy! For example your so-called property “rights” that excludes others not only from the use of that land, but also participation in any part of the economy beyond having to trade their liberty for eight hours a day or more for recompense that YOU dictate.
The fact that the economy doesn’t function without extensive government intervention at the taxpayers expense is a testament to the flaws of that economic system, not some supposed socialist ideological need for control.
FDR was hardly a liberal after all. He was a conservative reactionary much like Churchill who wanted to preserve capitalism against the radical left and it was the business community that designed the New Deal. Price controls, a biddable workforce (through forced arbritration and the like were in their best interests after all.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4512566.html
The same could be said for New Zealand after the death of Michael Joseph Savage. Fraser was rather conservative for a supposed liberal and furthermore kicked out John A Lee who (an influential leftie) who had influenced Michael Joseph Savage’s decision to nationalise the Reserve Bank and request that it issue the government cheap credit (1.25% interest rate) to fund the housing and hydroelectric projects, and guaranteed prices, rather than depending on expensive (and fraudulent) private bankers.
“Where will the money come from?�?; the Government’s answers were never explicit, but in fact a good deal of the money came from State credit created by the Reserve Bank. This institution, by an Act of 1936, had become a fully governmental body; where these expensive programmes could not be financed out of current revenue or overseas funds, the Government simply borrowed from its own bank. Neither the housing programme nor the guaranteed price could have been financed without such credit.�?
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/H/HistorySettlementAndDevelopment/193549 theLabourRegime/en
November 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Which post are you addressing?
People need to work in order to produce the things we need. What is the alternative?
You don’t have to trade your liberty for recompense that I dictate. Pool together, form a commune, and share the profits equally. There is very little stopping you from creating Kibbutzim. I suspect you choose not to do so. Why?
I have no sympathy for ultra-violent offenders. They have crossed a line. They should be removed for the greater good. They should count themselves lucky they keep their lives, which is more than they offer their victims. They get to live and work, and an opportunity to regain freedom, once they’ve proved themselves.
The alternative is what we have now. Violent attacks against innocent citizens. Shame on the left.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
big bro,
I have scant regard for Middle NZ’s opinions when they come in to conflict with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights - the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
BluePeter,
Not sure what unqualified hand-outs you’re referring to…or whether I agree with them.
I agree prisons should employ inmates in full-time work that pays for their confinement and qualifies them with a skill/trade. Organic gardening should be compulsory as should literacy studies. There should be strict yet fair rules surrounding all inmates activities. This should be run by the state, family and community.
Criminals should be sentenced to long hard years of contemplation and work - which by necessity must contain some form of education on what they have done, how it is wrong and how they can make amends and integrate themselves back in to society as a stable and functioning individual (if society agrees they can return).
“The alternative is what we have now. Violent attacks against innocent citizens. Shame on the left.”
What are you referring to? Burton? If so, I have no sympathy for those responsible for his utterly perplexing release, their ‘heads must roll’ (though not literally big bro).
November 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“As for violence, the causes are varied. I would refer you to a study in the book Freakonomics. Whilst government were predicting increasing violence levels in the US, the trend actually reversed. Why? What happened?”
First thing. Levitt’s claim is incorrect. He apparently made a couple of critical mistakes in his model/methodology. Besides its the left or progressives who are responsible for sex education, contraception and legislation to legalise abortion much to the opposition from moral conservatives.
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
What you also seem to forget is regardless of at what stage of criminal development they are locked away, criminals will eventually get released back into the community. The US recitivism rate is no better or even worse than ours despite their hard stance on crime.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
>>criminals will eventually get released back into the community
Not if I had my way they wouldn’t.
Before parole, they’d need to prove they are suitable for release. The way they would do this is by being a model prisoner in my 9-5 environment, they would possess a marketable skill, and they would pass the psychological profile.
No parole until the criteria is met. They reform, or they stay inside.
The aim is protection of the public and rehabilitation.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
BB: I quite agree that child abusers are the scum of the earth. I am against the death penalty not because nobody is bad enough to die, but because nobody is good enough to kill. I liked Gandalf’s argument against the death penalty when applied to Gollum.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
BluePeter
“Which post are you addressing?”
This one
“You’re missing the point. They can redistribute wealth without killing their cash-cow in the process. If we overtax our business in NZ, we’ll have less to redistribute than we do now.”
“Pool together, form a commune, and share the profits equally. There is very little stopping you from creating Kibbutzim. I suspect you choose not to do so. Why?”
Its not as easy as you maintain.
There are many barriers to entering the market. Lack of capital due to high startup costs, market dominance by big enterprises through their preferential access to capital, economy of scale, popularity to investors due to limited liability laws that protect them, monopoly of ideas through state protected IP and patent laws etc etc.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC4.html#secc41
Why should I pay extortionate interest rates AND risk my house if my business went under even if I did have a house to use as security, when they’ve merely pulled the “money” out of thin air? Don’t believe me?
“In essence, it states that for every $100 of loans, a bank should have at least $8 of capital, of which at least $4 must be permanent equity. Because loans secured over residential property were seen to be less risky than other loans, they only had to have 50% as much capital. Loans to banks from OECD countries were seen to be less risky still, so they only had to have 20% as much capital, and loans to governments denominated in their local currency 0%. There were several other categories and treatment for off-balance-sheet exposures.�
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0104984.html
The institution of banking where private bankers issue credit, which also allows them to demand the money back with interest AND for their borrowers to secure their land as collateral in case they are unable to pay back their fine, despite not even being required to have sufficient reserves to cover it was justified in the 1956 Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking, and Credit Systems where the Solicitor General defends the system by merely cites an article in the 1918 Law Quarterly Review that quotes a book on the history of banking that claimed that Italian bankers had not only been banks of deposit, but banks of issue.
If you prefer to trust private bankers to issue our means of exchange then I’d be only to happy draw your attention to examples of where their greed and malfeance have had devastating effects.
Bank Panic of 1909 (Notice how in those days banks issued their own private currencies, which was supposedly backed by gold? How was so much credit created without a complementary increase in production of gold? Thats right Fractional Reserve Banking.
Panic of 1907
Depression of 1918-1921
Great Depression
Savings and Loans Crisis
1982 Mexican economic crisis
1994 Mexican economic crise
1997 Asian Crisis
Brazil, Russia, and Argentina economic crises
The collapse in Long Term Capital Management
The recent collapse of the subprime real estate market
Notice how in situations where banks and other financial institutions run immediately run to the government for help despite their exhorations that the government shouldn’t intervene in the market or rather help out the little guy.
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/06/signs-of-hope-in-unlikely-places .html
Personally I don’t trust either as both act in their own best interests or those that fund them, which is why I prefer a system like this.
http://alt-money.tribe.net/thread/70e5eb29-853d-44ca-9faa-b789d1757037
As for blaming crime on the so-called Left. Fuckin bunch of compromising oppurtunistic, pateralistic sell-out Fabians the lot of ‘em.
Capitalism doesn’t cause crime, but its reform or replacement with a system that is design to meet the needs of everyone rather than to protect the privileges of one small section of society would limit it. Why do you think there is less incidence of crime among the middle and upper class compared to the poor? Does poverty make people committ violent crime? Of course not, but it makes them angry, depressed, undervalued and stressed though.
They’re are many academic studies that link economic hardship to crime and inequality, especially when governments encourage capital to shift economic development to the suburbs.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,612 1,1538844,00.html
“Social disorganizations and crime rates in U.S. central cities: Toward an explanation of urban economic change”
Joong-Hwan Oh
Sociology Department, Hunter College, The City University of New York
“Urban Change and Poverty”
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
“Impact of Inequality”
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,612 1,1538844,00.html
Even George Bernard Shaw was aware of its ramifications in his day.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/shaw/works/guide2.htm
And no. Using people in prison as cheap labour is not exactly a good way to show people that their contribution to society is valued. Surely it is better to do that BEFORE they go into prison rather than AFTER.
Thats no better than the Edwardian Work Houses.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
>>There are many barriers to entering the market.
That is a lame excuse. You want it to be easy?
You face risk. That is life. If you and others believe in your ideas, you will find a way, not make excuses. Are you less able than poor Jewish subsistence farmers? You live in New Zealand. Food grows. Land is cheap.
I think you hold an academic position which you are not prepared to put into reality. Ask yourself why. Deep down, you know it will not work.
>>Surely it is better to do that BEFORE they go into prison rather than AFTER.
Some people do not have your best interests, or those of society at heart. Lead a horse to water…
December 1st, 2007 at 12:32 am
“That is a lame excuse.”
There are degrees of difficulty from merely hard to nigh on impossible lol,.
I don’t think $1,000,000 for a small plot of land is particularly cheap a price that poor Jewish farmers in Palestine would never have even conceived of, perhaps compared to London, but we don’t trade in billions of pounds here like the City does.
My aim is rather more ambitious. To create a viable alternative to capitalism, which will be difficult when the Reserve Bank has powers like this.
“To enable the Reserve Bank to obtain information on the activities of the “fringe-bankingâ€? institutions and exercise some degree of control over their activities, the Bank is authorised to request any person or class of persons who (as a substantial part of their New Zealand business, accept deposits or carry on any banking business, or grant credit or make loans for the financing of industry, trade or commerce) to supply information concerning such business.”
“Deep down, you know it will not work.”
Its worked before and has been shut down, because the banker’s and financiers have seen it as a threat to their power and privilige.
The Continental Congress where the English counterfeited wagon loads in order to drive up inflation, which it did successfully.
Abraham Lincoln was conveniently murdered after he instituted a reform whereby the US treasury issued interest free fiat money much to the opposition of the bankers, but after he was assassinated the US moved to the gold standard and contracted the supply of greenbacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
December 1st, 2007 at 12:38 am
Also the successful example of Worgl, Austria in the interwar years that I cited earlier where unemployment of 30% and poverty before the monetary reforms design by Silvio Gesell to 0% unemployment and prosperity and back to 30% unemployment and widespread poverty after its threat to the traditional finance system came to the attention of Austria’s Central Bank who promptly shut it down.
“Some people do not have your best interests, or those of society at heart. Lead a horse to water…”
As I said earlier a more equal distribution of wealth will reduce the incidence of crime not stop it completely.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
>>more equal distribution of wealth
But what incentive would there be to do the jobs no one likes doing, or the jobs the come with a lot of pressure and responsibility? If there is little differential in pay, then wouldn’t most people opt to go for the most personally satisfying job? Who would clean the gutters? Who would drive a taxi at 3 in the morning? Once you have pay differential, you have economic inequality.
In the Kibbutz movement, they eventually returned to money and pay structures.
I find the banking structures interesting. I have seen the video about the development of fiat currencies, although I sensed I was watching a propoganda piece, and wondered who was behind it.
I would like to hear the pros and cons of a different structure. Is there a credible academic analysis somewhere?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:43 am
The redistribution of wealth is simply another form of theft, I earn it and the govt gives it to somebody else who does nothing all day.
I am not against pensions or benefits for those who genuinely qualify for the sickness or invalids benefit, however the rest are simply sponging off the tax payer.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“But what incentive would there be to do the jobs no one likes doing, or the jobs the come with a lot of pressure and responsibility? If there is little differential in pay, then wouldn’t most people opt to go for the most personally satisfying job? Who would clean the gutters?”
What incentive is there for most people to do jobs that they don’t like nowdays? If you’d notice te least satisfying jobs tend to be the ones that provide the least compensation. Cleaners, hospitality staff (cooks, dishwashers etc). Why is this the case? Because degrees of financial compensation is dictated by the tension between the bargaining power of capital and labour.
If capital has to compete for a limited supply of workers (such as after the Black Plague devasted the population of Europe) then labour has a strong bargaining position and can negotiate for better wages, but if labour has to compete for a limited number of jobs (such as when land owners forced the majority of peasants off previously commonly held land in the Enclosure movement during the Edwardian Period) then the bargain position shifts to favour capital who is then able to negotiate the wages down.
Perhaps I used the wrong word. Maybe inequitable would be more appropriate e.g. unfair and it certainly is an unfair world when one section of society consumes consumes 30% of the world’s resources despite having 5% of the world’s population.
I wonder if capital gains, rental of housing, and interest on investment is included in income distribution statistics, and the tax system favouring those that own land (LAQC, lack of capital gains tax, and ability to write off interest payments), because this country could be more inequitable than we currently realize if they aren’t included.
There are studies that convincingly link housing affordability to poverty.
http://www.cpag.org.nz/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=cpag&restrict=&exclude= &words=Housing+Affordability+MUL
“I would like to hear the pros and cons of a different structure. Is there a credible academic analysis somewhere?”
There are both credible academic analysis of the work of Silvio Gesell and emperical research on how his theories worked in practice something that neoclassical economics and neoliberalism lacks.
http://www.transaction.net/money/cc/cc04.html
Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University visited Worgl after reading the writings of Silvio Gesell to witness the theories being successfully demonstrated and wanted to apply the same theories in the United States, but was opposed by FDR, because it would threaten Federal centralisation of economic planning and therefore his power.
A similar project is being run in Tyrol, German and its success is such that the German Central Bank has completed a study on it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/18/cneu ro18.xml
Jerome Blanc, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-53449308.html
John Maynard Keynes wrote admiringly about the economic theory of Silvio Gesell (who influenced the designer of the currency of Worgl, Austria that I alluded to earlier) in his book General Theory of Employment, Money, and Interest, but his only disagreement was on the nature of interest when he said in his liquidity preference theory is that since people prefer to spend their money and those who decide to save should be rewarded for foregoing spending it.
Thats not why interest exists though.
Interest is a way for banker’s to attract capital to their institutions away from competing investment vehicles so that they can loan multiples of that money for interest, which is their primary means of profit. It is also useful for governments to contract and expand the money supply in the interests of the capitalist class as alluded to by John Kenneth Galbraith in his book the Good Society.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/keynes/engl.htm
Unfortunately that is the chief cause of economic instability for several reasons.
a) the interest component of the loan is not issued at the time that of issue so all business are competing for an insufficient supply of money, which means that businesses will fail unless the economy grows through the extension of greater amounts of credit.
b) at the beginning of the business cycle, firms tend to overinvest in production while both credit and labour are cheap, but as profits increase and employment rises, labour’s bargaining position is improved and are emboldened to demand pay increases, so in the interests of the capitalists the banks, but they don’t realise that their profits are determined by the demand for their products are dependant on the wages of their workers thus why there are frequent “business cycles”. Boom and Bust.
3) It reinforces itself as it encourages and rewards the hoarding of wealth, which insures an inadequate circulation of money supply, creating further demand for credit, and the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few.
4) It encourages and facilitates speculative investments, which have been the source of many economic crises since the institution of private banking was invested, going back to the first recorded bank run suffered in the time of Emporer Tiberius.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Wealth_in_Imperial_Rome /The_Business_Panic_of_33_A.D.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
SleepyTreehugger, “Democrats for Social Credit” has had the brains to recognise the core dishonesty that’s de-legitimizing capitalism for a long time….which is why we get zero exposure in the farce that is modern debt-based democracy.
We are just dumb stupid slaves, but the inability of people to realize n act accordingly is what ultimately stops us from grasping a system that promotes our humanside.
It’s not the Bush’s, Iraq Wars etc that’s the opposition, it’s US, as a collective; and our dsymal failure to implement the simple reforms that should have been done years ago has allowed a build up power of unimaginable proportions and ambitions.
The heart of the change is thus:
http://www.democrats.org.nz/News/Articles/2007/Work-as-a-Vocation.aspx
There is a long heritage of monetary reform analysis, from rocket scientists, engineers, prominet public servants, etc but it essentially boils down to what is above; bUT i can tell you from personal experience that the character of DSC at all levels is vastly different from that which i xperienced as a green, so it probably wouldn’t suit many here.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“The redistribution of wealth is simply another form of theft, I earn it and the govt gives it to somebody else who does nothing all day.”
I’m not arguing for state mandated redistribution of income, but merely a redesign of the current economic system that was designed to favour and protect the privileges and dominance of one social class over another.
I don’t like the State anymore than you do, probably less, because I recognise the fact that it works far more in the interests of the capitalist classes than for the workers and I despise the compromising, paternalistic, oppurtunistic Fabians as much as you do.
http://www.mutualist.org/id7.html
One fact that I’m sure of is your intellectual honesty so I highly recommend you read this.
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
December 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
excuse me the thread seems to have gone off topic. I thought we were talking about cannabis prohibition being a much bigger ‘toxic-policy’ issue for the greens to tackle, than tasers.
Adjusting one little regulation under the misuse of drugs act, a shift from class C to D. How hard is that?
December 1st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Well, as far as I was concerned we were talking about crime, justice and punishment. IMHO social justice is inseperably linked with economic justice. You can’t have one without the other.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
one for the tough on drugs, tough on prisoners brigade
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/nelsonmail/4268969a19260.html
December 5th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Stuey - One of the reasons I am in the green party is because the law enforcement being done against people who smoke pot is one of the most egregiously evil things we do to one another and it is based on the most blatant lies and misinformation that I have ever encountered.
The lawyer was right. The court and police however, were doing their job as dictated by the parliament of the people.
I have scant respect for the law. Some for the police, they don’t write the laws they are sworn to enforce, but none for the professional evaders of responsibility who make the law.
respectfully
BJ
December 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
fancy agreeing with bjchip(grin) who was so scathing of support for the ALCP who at least believe in the primacy of this issue.
it is just not harm reduction by any stretch of the definition when people die as a prohibition-related harm. (but never scrutinised under Health ministry’s National drug ‘harm minimisation’ policy framework, and prohibition harms rarely if ever advocated against by eco-justice party, despit being so deserving and such a vulnerable target - ‘poor public policy’ in helen clarks words, but why have the green party let Labour forget their commitment to reviewing the law (1998 resolution).
half the back-block murders, police shootings , prospective ‘taser’ incidents, and crime damage and ‘miscreancy’ eg youth justic outcomes, in nz is arguably prohibition related harm.’FUCK OFF COPS’ is a general sentiment in many of the circles i move in (not all underclass either i might add).
but Keith Locke has yet to mention and apears to have no concept of the War on Drugs - after 8 whole years of being the law and order, foreign policy expert. And Nandor has forgotten what is at the heart of injustice in NZ?
VERY STRANGE.
regds