by frog
And here’s more policy announcements. Keith Locke and Kennedy Graham launched a 22 page foreign affairs policy tonight at the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs that:
- Introduces into our trading framework with other countries values like human rights, labour and environmental standards, ecologically-sustainable practices, local values and cultures, the right of all to equal access to water for basic needs and the right of all countries and peoples to produce and grow their own food
- Increases New Zealand’s Overseas Development Aid budget to the international standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income by 2015.
- Opposes New Zealand involvement in United States-led coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (but support UN peace-building there); and oppose any intelligence assistance to these wars by closing down the satellite communications interception station at Waihopai.
- Undertakes, as a legally-binding obligation in domestic law, never to commit armed forces for military action beyond our national territory without a UN Security Council authorisation.
- Advocates for human rights in a principled, international way that won’t be muted for economic, political or military reasons.
22 pages. That’s a bit swotty really.
Published in Campaign | Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Wed, September 17th, 2008
Tags: , afghanistan, foreign affairs, human rights, international, Keith Locke, Kennedy Graham, Overseas aid, peace, trade, Waihopai, war
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
frog: “That’s a bit swotty really” …
I was at the launch, and Keith’s speech was very well received by an impressively “knowlegable” audience.
As an “oldie” who was born in the middle of WW2, and has lived through the seemingly endless series of smaller wars that followed … Korea, Vietnam, Gulf etc …
I was delighted with the Greens’ fresh, sensible (and achievable) policy that looks towards change within the United Nations: to strengthen that body, get away from its now anachronistic (unrepresentative) domination by the “victors of WW2″, and to adopt policies that promote the cooperation between member states (that will be very necessary if we as a species are to cope with overpopulation, resource depletion and the effects of Global Warming.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A bit to the left, what? Not many people are concerned about Waihopai; they understand Afghanistan and see Iraq as a mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not too bad as far as our policy goes, it even boarders on sensable.
That is provided that the 0.7% GDP goes towards infrastructure only, prehaps even constructed by our military.
I dont agree with the waihopai base bit though; I dont like that we are helping the Americans spy but as a small country we are unable to support a large army without facing economic collapse and as such we are very open to annexing should a war break out and considering our ability to produce foodstocks we would be an attractive target for both likley sides. To gain the protection of one or both sides we must keep our utility to them above the utility if they invaded, if all that means is spying alittle and sending them food then it is a small price to pay for our saftey in the upcoming turbulance; I may not like america but I am damn sure id rather have them as allies, with the illusion of democracy, than the chinese whom dont even bother to put up such an illusion.
Waihopai should stay, if anything we should be doing alittle more, just so long as we dont do enough to become a target.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, it’s been out over 12 hours now, and no comment at all from our regular hawkish visitors who are usually parroting the “all the way with the USA” line and accuse the Greens of being naive pacifists.
What’s up guys, cat got your tongue? Or do you actually find you agree with most of it but won’t come here and admit it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Undertakes, as a legally-binding obligation in domestic law, never to commit armed forces for military action beyond our national territory without a UN Security Council authorisation.”
What about smaller states that have asked for our military assistance, and can’t wait for the UN to ponder?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
Not much to comment about as frog’s post is so full of generilization and short on specifics that it can be best classified as “warm fuzzies”
What the heck does that mean in reality. What strategic plan will achieve this? What action steps are to be taken? What benchmark will you set to measure achievement?
I’m suprised that the Greens dont advocate the armed forces be disbanded and replaced by a non combat ubits such as engineers, medical, catering and police only. To be used soley for civil defence and peace keeping duties only. And a coast guard type navy for fishery patrols and maritime safety.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
I have not commented because the Green policy it just to stupid to bother wasting my time on.
Keith’s long time hatred of the USA shines through once again, remember this is the man who thought the rise of Pol Pot was a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>trading framework
None of trading partners meet “the framework”. Or they say they do, but don’t.
What do you do, Greens? What do you do?
Why are “local values” better than global values?
What are the security benefits we gain from Waihopai? How do you know?
>>Advocates for human rights in a principled, international way
What does that mean? Produce a bumper sticker?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Keith’s long time hatred of the USA shines through once again..”
He doesn’t hate the US, he despises US foreign policy and with good reason.
“.. remember this is the man who thought the rise of Pol Pot was a good thing.”
Your just repeating Winston Peters’ favourite lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
There is a defence policy…. someone may even announce it someday. I know because I worked on it. Defence is different from foreign policy… it is what you get when foreign policy fails to keep peace.
I think trevor29 has hit on the one thing in this policy that bugs the HELL out of me. Vague never troubles me in policy… laws on the other hand, need to be more tightly drawn.
The principle that we should not be making or supporting those who make, war is a good one to guide a foreign policy. It is important to me as well as to other Greens and it appears to be reflected pretty well in the document.
Me, I want to replace those Frigates with something like this…
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/
Others want them replaced with something more like this…
http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/DPW/images/August_2005/Row%20boat%20P7170006.JPG
We agreed on the word “replaced”
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok over all this is pretty good.
Except we need to leave the UN and will only re-join when it has been reformed. The policy says that we will only enter into conflicts if the UN sanctions it. I hate to point out to the so called democracy loving Greens that the UN is one of the most un-democractic/corrupt organization’s on the planet except of course since Keith loves the UN i guess we need to include it in the policy.
Also note that the sovereignty of New Zealand resides in the New Zealand parliment, We must be very careful when we place “Global” organizations such as the WTO,UN etc in positions where they have puesdo sovereignty over NZ.
Hey also under the Debt relief section Will nz support the USA when they need to be forgiven on all the debt they owe the world or does that only extend to third world nations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28 said: I hate to point out to the so called democracy loving Greens that the UN is one of the most un-democractic/corrupt organization’s on the planet…
The Greens recognise that, which is why we are stressing reforming it. But I don’t think leaving it will help to reform it. Sovereignty over NZ territory does indeed reside in the NZ Parliament, but that doesn’t extend to invading someone else’s territory. There need to be clearly defined international protocols defining the circumstances where such an action can be legitimate. Despite its shorcomings, the UN is the only international organisation that can provide these.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Invading someone else’s territory is a clear violation of the countries sovereignty how can some group of dictators and thugs decide that its justified.
The 20th century was the most violent on record and for 80 years of that century we had a world organization. They don’t work and wont ever work so why do we waster our time trying to have one. The simple answer is we don’t need one. Go on Toad please explain to everyone how the UN has created a century of peace.
The simple answer is once again you Toad are clinging to your need to have a nanny looking out for you, come on Toad don’t you think its time for you to grow up and leave the crib.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
Please do not try and re write history, Keith Locke is on record as saying he supported Pol Pot.
He (Locke) has had a long and well documented dislike of everything American, to simply say that he dislikes their foreign policy is not true, I really think that dear Keith has never got over the fall of the Soviet Union.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro the Soviet Union never died it just went to sleep and seems to have woken up here in the USA or lets call it by its new name the
USSA(United Socialist States of America). I would think with the Socialist Sunday’s we have been having here in the US Keith would now be in love with US and busy trying to move here, so he can partake in the greatest nationalization of private companies in the history of the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ha ha…dont tell me you really believe that the world will turn to communism as its saviour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
The only legitimacy is coercive force, if you can muster the force you are the one with the legitimacy.
There are no god-givern or inate rights and no inate correct way of doing things; the world and all of human society revolves around the crude mechanism of force and whom has the most.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – true, but wrong! Part of being Green is about trying to change that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Communism will never save the world BB, but i can tell you this the average american is pissed big time over all these bail outs.
very good point Sapient and Its also extends to nature as well, all lifeforms exist by force, hell the entire universe operates on that principal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Then i suggest you kill your self Toad since that is the only way you can no longer exert “force”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also Toad if you take the positon of non-Force, you by Sapients definition have no rights and will lose to another group which does exert force and takes everything from you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip
We only have the bail outs because socialists interfered with the capitalist system in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro:
“Please do not try and re write history, Keith Locke is on record as saying he supported Pol Pot.”
Prove it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
That cant be changed, it is the very nature of human being; all human reactions involve a certain degree of coercion. Its not always the monkey with the biggist stick that wins, but that monkey has a pretty decisive advantage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
You are SO wrong. The monkeys that cooperate most effectively WIN. That’s why we live together as a society rather than alone as tigers in the jungle,
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, what sets humans aside from other animals is our ability to think. We can choose to look after those who are weaker, rathr than exploit them for our own selfish ends. We can choose to cooperate for our mutual benefit, rather than exploit at the expense of others.
Where you are going leads to all use of force being legitimate if it achieves the desired end. It leads to Iraq being legitimate. It leads Vietnam being legitimate. It leads to the Soviet gulags being legitimate. It leads to the Third Reich being legitimate. And, scariest of all, it leads to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being legitimate.
I don’t want the sort of world where that thinking leads.
As human beings we have the capacity to think and discuss and agree both on the circumstances in which the use of coercive force is legitimate and the level of force that is legitimate in those circumstances.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t care if you are the single fastest, smartest, strongest predator on earth, you can be caught, beaten, killed and eaten by a group of animals of which you can beat any one or even 3…. so we have wolves in packs and pods of Orca.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Yup yup; It was a simple analogy.
The individual which can muster the most coercive force in the most effective manner, be it in and of themselves or through agreements and interactions with others, is the individual that is able to exert their will.
That is how society functions, we all agree not to utilise certain freedoms against each other so that we are able to, together, progress and live a life outside of the “state of nature”. Any individual within society who dishonours that agreement is punished by society; in that way each individual has more force to ensure their own safty than they would have if they had not of become a party to the social contract.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Those examples were legitimate in the period overwhich they were able to succesfully use their force, but when the international community interviened they were overpowered and lost that legitimacy.
“our ablility to think” – animals can think too, animals cooperate on the same level as we do, they are just more honest about it. All relationships are coercive and manipulative; there is no such thing as altruism, mearly a inbuilt desire to conform to social norms and to avoid negitive feelings; feelings which have evolved because by people avoiding those feelings society progresses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Humans are inherently selfish beings;
You dont care for children because you love them; you do it because you perceive it to increase the spread of your genes.
You dont help the old lady because of altruism; you do it because social norms make you feel bad if you dont and you want to avoid that bad.
You dont interact with others unless you benifit from doing so.
You dont promote the environment because you love it or because you recognise it is vital if the kiwi is to survive; you promote it because society makes you feel good for doing it or because you realise that without the environment none of your genes will continue.
Altruistic beings die, its that simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All beings die eventually, Sapient, in case you haven’t noticed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Debatable accually, but I wont go there.
Selfish beings are able to live to reproduce, and that is what is important. Altruistic beings dont survive to reproduce and as such any species evolving an altruistic nature is a logical imposibility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
OK… that biggest-stick horse is dead… but you are still missing some interesting science, both among primates and in other mammals as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
http://www.gifthub.org/2008/08/altruism-in-mon.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml
Survival of the group being important to survival of members of the group, generosity ALSO has a payoff for the individual. Long-term we’ve evolved past the “lone-wolf” stage and learned to be something more interconnected.
We haven’t learned enough, and there’s no assurance individuals won’t cheat, but we don’t die of altruism.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis says:
big bro:
“Please do not try and re write history, Keith Locke is on record as saying he supported Pol Pot.?
Prove it.
…………………….Controversy
His political enemies have referred to him during question period as “Pol Pot” or “the Honourable Member for Cambodia” due to supportive articles he wrote while editor of the New Zealand Socialist Action newspaper about the Khmer Rouge regime under the headline; Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity. Locke has claimed his initial support for the Khmer Rouge was because “…many people thought the Khmer Rouge were an adjunct of the Vietnamese communist forces” and that he thought they “…would be better than the regimes they replaced”. He also responded that he renounced his support after hearing of their atrocities, while the New Zealand Government of the time continued to express support for the regime.[7].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Locke
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What about applauding when Annette Sykes said in her speech how she jumped for joy as the planes hit the twin towers ending the lives of about 3 thousand people, crushed burned and suffering terrible pain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Exactly. Virtually everyone supported the regime change when it occurred, including the then National government who were among the first to recognise it, because the old regime was so bad and there were hopes that the new one would be better. At that point, the world had never heard of Pol Pot as he didn’t emerge as the leader until a bit later. And Keith was ahead of our government in withdrawing support when things turned bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Annette Sykes is allowed to jump for joy, she is Maori.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What about applauding when Annette Sykes said in her speech how she jumped for joy as the planes hit the twin towers ending the lives of about 3 thousand people, crushed burned and suffering terrible pain.”
jh, that one traces back to nut case Trevor Loudon, who also repeats the Pol Pot lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
“From the early ’70s to 1977, Locke edited Socialist Action. In this job he made a blunder that haunts him to this day.
In April 1975 Locke wrote a lead article for Socialist Action under the banner heading: “Cambodia Liberated: Victory For Humanity” The “liberators” were of course the Khmer Rouge led by the infamous Pol Pot. More than million Cambodians were murdered under the Khmer Rouge.
In 1976 Locke made another faux pas. In a March 26th article for Socialist Action he wrote “Open Door to Warships Raises Nuclear Risks”. The risky ships were of course American. A short time later (July 23rd) a P Neary wrote a letter to Socialist Action, opposing nuclear weapons and supporting fusion power. Keith Locke’s reply “Capitalism cannot be trusted with nuclear power. . . socialism . . . would step up nuclear power research in order to make it safe”
How is that for proof Valis?
I note a distinct lack of “Green” causes in Keith’s past, to even suggest he is a “Green” is laughable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PC Says:
June 1st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Frog, you said, “First of all, I would note that the quote you have produced above differs considerably from the one printed in Free Radical…?
There was more than one person at that meeting who transcribed Sykes’ digusting comments, and like all transcriptions you’ll get slight differences in wording. There is no difference in the intent betwen transcriptions, nor in Keith’s reaction to them. If you want affidavits from those present who transcibed the comments, they indicated when they supplied them they’d be only too happy to oblige.
“Second of all, the Free Radical item referred to these words being spoken at a Green Party meeting. It was no such thing. It was organised by a anti-war group, the main organiser being a member of the Alliance.?
I agree, it was not a Green Party meeting but a meeting organised by an antiwar group with which Keith was involved.
But now here’s the crux:
“In fact, Keith says, Annette Sykes did not say what is quoted.?
Well, she did. I’m pleased to hear that Keith has on other occasions endorsed the hunt for Bin Laden. Perhaps he’s resiled from his reaction that night — I hope so. Or perhaps it just depends on the audience he’s speaking to — I truly hope not.
In any case, I’m pleased to see this blog resiling from what Sykes said.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/05/31/united-in-terrorism/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i wonder if theres a single mention of the ‘rotten to the core’ War on drugs in the 22page document…? Anyone know?
no doubt Keith spends several pages drawing the intrinsic links to, and parallels with, the War on Terror?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right!
So wanting our kids to be drug free and safe from drug pushers is “rotten to the core” is it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no bb (im right with you on keeping our kids safe from drug pushers),
but a 500 billion global trade on illicit drugs is, and approx 100billion on law enforcement is part of the same global racket which causes mahem and murder and is not keeping our kids safe (much higher drug use here than in holland for example)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no its not, but the War on Drug Users does not achieve those aims, in fact it:
* increases harm from drugs in many different ways
* makes young people more at risk from drug dealers
* encourages corruption in the law enforcement agencies
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Selfish beings are able to live to reproduce, and that is what is important. Altruistic beings dont survive to reproduce and as such any species evolving an altruistic nature is a logical imposibility.”
Sapient, that is the intuitive thing to say, but you are factually wrong. It is well accepted that altruism exist in nature and evolutionary biologists have been interested in explaining this forever. There may well be more than one theory, but the mainstream view is that of Richard Dawkins, who explained it in “The Selfish Gene” in 1976. I recommend the 30th anniversary edition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB “We only have the bail outs because socialists interfered with the capitalist system in the first place.”
No BB, we have collapse of parts of the economic system because the regulatory bodies in the US did not do their job and enforce their own rules on credit ratings; the market was allowed to run amok.
Here’s a challenge for you BB, can you find a single credible source, a single credible commentator who advocates the theory that you expressed above?
Here’s a credible source for you: http://suddendebt.blogspot.com
a good first one to read:
http://suddendebt.blogspot.com/2008/07/first-rule-of-banking-broken.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro,
“How is that for proof Valis?”
Laughable. I’ve just told you why the Pol Pot story isn’t true. To simply repeat it without even addressing the reasons I gave is, well, actually its what you do, isn’t it. The second matter I’ve not heard before, but even if true is hardly proof that Keith ever supported Pol Pot.
And why not give the source? More Trevor Loudon?
“I note a distinct lack of “Green? causes in Keith’s past, to even suggest he is a “Green? is laughable.”
That’s your myopia at work. No one, least of all Keith, denies his socialist past and most of his statements from those days I expect he would still stand by. (By the way, while at least one of his parents was in the NZ Communist Party, Keith was never a communist, though I’m not sure you know the difference.) But people’s views often change over time and Keith has not been afraid to say when he was wrong, such as comments he made regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Keith is now entirely at home with the Greens and supports the Charter in its entirety. While his specialty is foreign affairs, he is the Auckland spokesperson on transport issues, for instance, and has been touring the country this year discussing the politics of peak oil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” Keith is now entirely at home with the Greens and supports the Charter in its entirety.”
how does anyone make head or tail of the Green Charter; it is chickens entrails. That’s why the left embrace it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is from Carl Sagans Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
“In Abyssinia, Brehm encountered a great troop of baboons who were crossing a valley: some had already ascended the opposite mountain, and some were still in the valley: the latter were attacked by the dogs, but the old males immediately hurried down from the rocks, and with mouths widely opened, roared so fearfully, that the dogs quickly drew back. They were again encouraged to attack; but by this time all the baboons had re-ascended the heights, excepting a young one, about six months old, who, loudly calling for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was surrounded. Now one of the largest males, a true hero, came down again from the mountain, slowly went to the young one, coaxed him, and triumphantly led him away—the dogs being too much astonished to make an attack.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
On this matter I am not wrong; Altruism, defined as an action undertaken for the benifit for another where the individual undertaking the action makes no benefit, does not exist as a product of evolution and no credible mind would suggest that it does; richard dawkins certainly doesint. Not a single peice of psychological research supports the existance of true altruism and every peice that has tried has failed dismaly.
Where you may be getting confused is in the lax use of the term; altruism is often now used to describe actions where the imediate benifits to another surpass the immediate benifits to oneself; this certainly exists but by no means is this true altruism, this is mearly an evolved system of motivations that allows society to survive;certain forms of suicide are such an example, as is when a mother sacrifices herself for her young or the individual for the group; it ensures the maximal survival of ones gene. This is all about self interest and is not altruism.
There is no such an individual who undertakes an action they do not perceive to benifit the survival of their genes, we simply are not programed that way; to think any different is nothing more than naive romanticism/humanism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Stuey please stop repeating what the main stream american media is pushing. The reason the government is bailing out companies is because the companies knew the government would bail them out. It has nothing to do with regulation, of course the Americans need to have someone to blame and the congress has decided they need more regulation, so it looks like lack of regualtion will be the scapegoat, I mean congress is not going to stand up and blame its self is it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH,
Still a selfish action, even if not conciously so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In mid September 2008 the New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National Party support at 47.5% (up 3%), a lead of 11% (up 4.5%) over the Labour Party 36.5% (down 1.5%) as the 2008 Election campaign begins. If the Election were this weekend the National Party would lead the winning Coalition.
Support for NZ First 5% (up 2.5%) has rebounded after the party funding scandal that engulfed leader Winston Peters while support for the Greens 6.5% (down 1.5%) has fallen back.
Support for the Maori Party was 1.5% (down 2%), ACT NZ 1.5% (unchanged), United Future 0.5% (down 0.5%) and Others 1% (unchanged).
The Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating at 103 points (down 12) has fallen with the calling of the New Zealand Election with 44% (down 6.5%) of New Zealanders saying the country is “heading in the right direction? compared to 41% (up 5.5%) that say the country is “heading in the wrong direction.?
The Roy Morgan New Zealand Consumer Confidence Rating has continued to rise, increasing 2.6 points to 109.9 points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with the Green Party is that its dominant forces are anti status quo (= us) and so issues such as immigration; quality of life; infill don’t make it onto the radar. Party Vote NZ First.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow, a real NZF voter, I’ve never met one. That explains a few things, jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Still a selfish action, even if not conciously so.
One can only contort language so far Sapient. It’s a little bit like allowing no conceivable falsifying data for an hypothesis. You are getting to the point of making it meanlingless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad Said: September 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
>> what sets humans aside from other animals is our ability to think. . . . . . . . .
I don’t want the sort of world where that thinking leads.
we have the capacity to . . . discuss and agree on the circumstances in which the use of coercive force is legitimate .
>>
Acknowledged that I have picked out parts, but not to the point of changing meaning I think.
OK. Here’s my problem with this Toad. It seems that you don’t like what others may think is appropriate – so you want their view not to prevail. OK, you are entitled to have a different opinion – so far no problem. But then you want to “discuss and agree”, exactly the thing that the so despised United Nations was established to achieve.
The problem comes when those charged to ‘discuss and agree’ are driven by their ideology, part of which is that no other ideology or view can possibly be right. Let me put this discussion in a much simpler context, the use of “coercive force” in the disciplining of children!
We have a situation where a law was passed, as political expediency, that the vast majority of people who are affected by it (based on straw polls by many enterprises) do not agree with. OK, the law makers did the thing legally, so they had the right to take the action, but the action’s rightness is contested.
As allowed for by law, a plebiscite is to be held regarding the law and whether or not it should be repealed. However, the plebiscite result is not binding on the lawmakers, because they retain the right to be right, irrespective of the ‘will of the people’.
Two issues, both based on ideology. Neither will be resolved through discussion arriving at agreement. Ergo, what is the next move? Most parents will, at some time, use coercive force on their children to persuade them to comply with the mores of the family or society in which they live; these parents will be, by definition, criminals. Some parents will beat up, and in extreme situations maim or kill their children, in drunker or drugged rage perhaps, these too will be criminals. There will be, in law, whether identified, charged and convicted or not, no difference between them; there is no more discussion to be had, there is no agreement, but we have a legal situation which is, to many, intolerable.
What do we do to correct this disagreement on the use of coercive force in your world? (I believe the answer I will get is that I should accept the rule of the minority as they have discussed and agreed by simple majority. Exactly the situation that Germany was in in the 1930s. Only the subject matter is different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK Sapient, I do understand the difference. I wasn’t sure that you did.
“There is no such an individual who undertakes an action they do not perceive to benifit the survival of their genes, we simply are not programed that way; to think any different is nothing more than naive romanticism/humanism.”
I have to agree with kjuv that you are pushing things too far. Do you consider yourself a genitic determinst or even a social Darwinist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not pushing anything, and I haven’t addressed all the big bail outs; I’m only saying what I believe to be the truth regarding the economic melt-down. I would agree that it was a failure of governance as well as the regulatory agencies. Clearly the ultimate blame for the mess is the greed of investment bankers, but its obvious that investment bankers will do whatever they can; its up to society to prevent them from going too far.
“This crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary.”
Sen. Barack Obama.
“I think it’s a failure of government and I think it’s a failure of regulatory agencies.”
Sen. John McCain.
“This will come to be seen as the greatest regulatory failure in modern history. The degree of leverage that these institutions took on is indefensible.”
Roger Altman, deputy Treasury serectary under Bill Clinton, writing in the Financial Times.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10533077
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
This theory produces many testable, predictive, and falsifyable hypothesis’ and many have been tested; a lot.
The mind has evolved to favour certain actions instinctually and reward with pleasurable stimuli actions that benefit the individual and with pain those that do not, this comes about from random variations where those that benefit result in greater genetic proliferation and those that do not do not result in greater genetic proliferation. Sex is an example of that; our genitalia have evolved to have a massive amount of nerve endings which serve to generate pleasure in procreating along side many other mechanisms which work to rive us to do so.
In the case of the ape, keeping in mind its a fictional story, there are many possibilities; the small ape could be projeny and as such there is a benefit to gene spread in saving it; saving the ape could earn the other ape status or respect within the group which gains him greater mating potentiality; there could be social forces which result in him being shunned for not doing so; and there are many more. Dont belittle the sapience of animals, they can think to that degree, as can wolves and many other pack animals, even elephants and buffalo show such behaviours.
There is no contortion of language; adolecents tend not to have sex to, atleast conciously, spread there genes, they do it because they feel good and there is no concious motivation to spread the genes; sex feels good because we have evolved to have aprocess which is good for the spreed of our genes feel good so as to encourage it; there are of course those that do it for reasons other than the feeling but they all have the same primal cause. Atleast in that freud was correct.
Strings,
‘Coercive force’, as aforementioned, does not mearly mean physical force such as a smack; even the ‘naugty corner’,'grounding’, or ‘no TV’ are demonstrations of coercive force being used to get what one desires.
Valis,
From my writing how do I give any indication that I do not understand the differentiation? I explicitly state several times several examples of the non-true form of altruism and clearly state that pure altruism does not exist, or atleast it seems clear to me
I do not consider myself any of those; I consider myself a student of the humanities and I try mearly to search out truth; if I must classify myself I would say that my guiding philosophy is a form of Utilitarianism and my defining fields of Psychological practice are primarily Cognitive, secondaraly Evolutionary, and tertiarily Behaviouralist. But I do not conform blindly to any ideology, which is one of the reasons I find myself arguing with pretty much every member of this blog from time to time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Markets colapse because the CEO’s of listed companes are forced to favour massive short term but unstanable profits over a more stady but ultimatly more profitable path because in order to keep theirjob they must please the myopic shareholders.
Markets colapse because myopic speculators artificially raise and lower prices through self-fulfiling prophesies.
Markets colapse because myopic governments, keen to keep power, make ignorant, malinformed, and ideologicly driven demands of the market.
Markets colapse becasue myopic people with no understanding of economics head trade unions and form oligopolies of labour provision.
Markets colapse because people do not have perfect information, because people do not have perfect understanding, because there are always lags in information; and because of all this both consumers and producers are eternaly myopic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, its just that you seemed to strongly oppose any notion that humans might be able to rise above the dictates of our genes due to our unique brains that give us the ability for such great foresight. While I agree there is no absolute imperative for altruism, I think individuals can make choices that go against the interests of their genes.
I’m quite comfortable with your analyses of markets, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
I would like to think that we could make such decisions. But I see no reason why we would or should make such decisions as our bodies and our very being have been crafted by the brute force of natural selection to reward behaviour that benefits our survival and to disincentivise behaviour that is detrimental. No being undertakes an action without a motive to do so and that motive is lacking where there is no perceived net benefit in carrying out such an action and the motive is pointing in the opposite dirrection where there is a net cost present.
Durkheim, considered one of the foundign fathers of sociology, described many phenomena within various human societies but there was one type for which an explanation continued to illude him; that of suicide. He identified two types of suicide; anomie suicide such as is so common among our adolecents and altruistic suicide in which an individual gives up ones life, such as in cases of food shortages or predation, so that the rest of the community may live. Altruistic suicide, giving up ones life for others, is accually reasonable common and although at first this most selfless of actions does appear to be truly selfless with alittle investigation one finds that by giving up that life they allow their clan, which shares more common genes with them than other clans, to survive that small bit longer, an action which in terms of the individual being may seem selfless is, in terms of gene proliferation, still an entirly selfish action.
It may be that I am commiting a ‘White Swan’ fallacy and all I need to do is find my “Black Swan?, my truly altruistic action, to proove my deductions wrong. If you have such a “Black Swan? then I would be very interested in hearing it; the closist I can come is the desire of some to destroy all life; but even then it can still be considered to be a selfish action brought about through deluded, though not fataly flawed, logic.
I ranted alittle there, but basicly; our brains exist because of their ability to assist in the proliferation of our genes, one must ask “is it even desirable to partake in a truly altruistic action??; world prosperity is considered one fo the pinicles of desirable goals but in no way is that even remotly altruistic, it is mearly a inflated version of the exact same reasons we form tribes, clans, and societies.
If I ever get around to obtaining a job at the department of corrections I intend to do my doctoral thesis on just such a subject; prehaps then I will find something to disproove my assumptions; seems to me that murderers and rapists are the most likley place I will find the answers, if anywhere. Lol. But until then, to me, humans are little more than machines designed by natural selection as mechanisms to ensure the proliferation of life; genes.
Sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But until then, to me, humans are little more than machines designed by natural selection as mechanisms to ensure the proliferation of life; genes.”
Of course this is true and we wouldn’t be here otherwise. I don’t have a black swan, but our brains and their foresight are unique. That we can think about the natural drivers of our existence seems significant to me, for it should mean we can act against them if we choose. I’m not talking just about altruism. Procreation itself seems the simplest example. We know how to avoid passing our genes on and some people, through abstinence or contraception, choose not to. This is the biggest “up your’s” to our own genes possible and is not an option for other organisms. If we can do this, why not also be abel to overrule our nature in other ways too, altruism even?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>While I agree there is no absolute imperative for altruism, I think individuals can make choices that go against the interests of their genes.
The old ‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ argument. (Like in synergy – or Cantor in set theory). Isn’t this really a reductionist/determinist versus a non-reductionist discusssion? Like Valis, I think that Sapient is claiming that all our thoughts and actions can be explained in terms of (reduced to) gene theory and/or social Darwinism, whereas Valis disagrees. This takes the disagreement into the realms of metaphysics which attempts to produce internally consistent world views that may or may not be scientifically verifiable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Forgoing procreation is hardly a finger in the face of our genes, rather it is a demonstration of our capacity for thought and comprehension; we do after all share 99.9 % of our genes with other humans and even more among those more closley related, even if we have a unique gene not shared by any other we would still benefit the net of our genes by forgoing procreating if doing so benifits the survival of the species.
Kjuv,
You are more or less correct, although I would not postulate an ‘all’ or a ‘none’ as both are not scientificly verifyable; I am constantly looking for something to disproove my theory but have yet to discover such a thing. Although I dont like the meta-physics statement that is more or less what this debate has come down to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Wow, a real NZF voter, I’ve never met one. That explains a few things, jh
……………….
When you vote you get a mixture of what you want and what you don’t want but I feel NZ First gives balance as it as a party is prepared to protect our quality of life (low population). The Greens (reds) find that idea distasteful and get around it by expanding the horizon: there isn’t a problem yet.
The great changes that have overtaken NZ over the last two decades were completely missed by the “greens” (What changes?…. oh forget it!). The Greens do not qualify as a quality of life party doue to the priorities set by the left wing leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Certainly we qualify, we just have a different definition than you. Population is one factor, but hardly the only one. I’d note too, that you never hear NZF MPs talk about low population as a quality of life issue, or at least the media don’t report it. What you do hear is them talk about limiting Asian immigration due to the effects it may have on NZ culture and that’s what buys you so much grief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting how BB always brings up Keith Locke’s support of Pol Pot. According to John Pilger the British and Americans also supported Pol Pot. As they did Saddam Hussein and the Taleban. So does that make Keith pro-American?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What you do hear is them talk about limiting Asian immigration due to the effects it may have on NZ culture and that’s what buys you so much grief.
…………
“According to the 2001 Census there were more than 600,000 overseas-born people living in New Zealand. Changes in immigration policy have meant that almost two thirds of the overall growth in the “new immigrant” population since 1986 has come from Asia.”
City plan, green belt, infill, sprawl, rate increases for new infrastructure, massive profits for developers ……… the “greens” have never made the connection.
PS I happen to be married to an Asian immigrant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“According to the 2001 Census there were more than 600,000 overseas-born people living in New Zealand. Changes in immigration policy have meant that almost two thirds of the overall growth in the “new immigrant? population since 1986 has come from Asia.?
Who the immigrants are doesn’t matter if you’re interested only in the overall population and how it impacts QoL. Like I said, we never hear this from NZF. We never hear about city planning either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can see how far apart NZ First and the Greens are by comparing their immigration policies:
http://www.greens.org.nz/immigration
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies/immigration.php
“New Zealand First’s immigration policy has one clear aim: to ensure that immigration is in New Zealand’s interests. To that end, New Zealand First will:
* drastically reduce the inflow of migrants. We will end the blind commitment to bringing in 45,000 plus migrants annually and ensure that migrant numbers are matched to true gaps in the labour market that New Zealanders are not able to fill;”
The Greens have no immigration policy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Who the immigrants are doesn’t matter if you’re interested only in the overall population and how it impacts QoL. Like I said, we never hear this from NZF. We never hear about city planning either.”
…………..
Yes I don’t think they represent the policy well which is kind of dumb as a good case can be made for the quality of life angle.
I think it is ok for people to be a bit xenophobic though rather than the opposite. Do we want the entrepreneurial property types who look on our cities as big monopoly boards.
In Portugal local firms complain at the low prices of their Chinese competitors; they are clanish and they come in with incredibly low prices to get a foothold. The NZ population is green compared to the toughened Chinese but anyone who opines about these sort of things is considered racist.
Some of the older Japanese Kiwis who live in Auckland complain about it becoming a rat race, they liked the uniqueness of NZ 20 years + ago..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Watch this space jh – the Green’s immigration policy should be released in the next few weeks. Has New Zealand First got a population policy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Yes I don’t think they represent the policy well which is kind of dumb as a good case can be made for the quality of life angle.
Isn’t giving immigrants a higher standard of living than what they had in their home country likely to lead to an overall increase in the human carbon footprint? And isn’t this further exacerbated when they tend to retain their current levels of reproduction?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greens will be releasing a population policy soon too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good discussion Sapient, Valis et al.
I guess my testicles tell my brain that my gene pool will be better served by voting for clean rivers over more plasma screens. Hence I lurk on the lilly pond rather than other political blogs. I’m nuts that way!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
Altruism, defined as an action undertaken for the benifit for another where the individual undertaking the action makes no benefit,
Combining this definition with your caveat that “no benefit” means no benefit of any kind, either immediate or long-term or indirect as you do does allow you to make a narrow point that “altruism” cannot be survival positive. As you are defining it, it indeed logically cannot be. It is a very narrow definition.
By your definition that’s an incorrect description but it IS how the word is used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Greed remains not-good. Injustice is quite a bit worse and….
[stops, shaking head to clear it]
…how in the heck did this thread morph into a philosophical debate over what the meaning of altruism is?
I thought this was about foreign policy. What triggered this furore anyway?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj,
I beleive that it morphed due to my critique of the concept of legitimacy and coercive force, though how it became about altruism is alittle more cloudy.
Yes, how a word is used and how a word is defined are often different, but even in psychological literature where it is defined as I have defined it they test for altruism in a way that is clearly not measuring altruism as they define it but rather altruism as it is commonly used by lay people.
The wikipedia article that you link to (ergh, the academic credability of that site) starts with “Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others.” and this is how it is almost always defined in lay liturature and common usage; this could be interprited differently dependant on ones interpretation of the word selfless, to me selfless connotates that the individual undertaking the action makes not personal benefit and as such the two definitions match.
But anyway, back to foreign policy…
I think that foreign aid funding should come under military funding and the army whilst not engaged in peacekeeping and other activities should utilise the funding to construct infrastructure in countries in need and that aid money should be spent on food ONLY in the case of a severe disaster, not in the case of starvation due to a population above carrying capacity at that level of infrastructure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
You just have to read through any newspaper to find many examples of what most people would consider altruism. Its usually disguised as bravery, courage or heroism. Why would people take risks to rescue total strangers from dangerous situations, for example? Of course you might argue that people help others in anticipation that the tables might be turned at some time in the future. However, you could use this line of argument to discredit any act of altruism.
Have you not considered that the fireman saving a person from a burning house might truly be acting out of altruism? Indeed have you considered that the sort of arguments you are making (as to why altruism doesn’t exist) actually says quite alot about the society and culture that you were raised in? That is, I suspect the argument that everyone acts out of selfish motivations is more prevalent in Western society than in many other societies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
When you argue “aid money should be spent on food ONLY in the case of a severe disaster, not in the case of starvation due to a population above carrying capacity at that level of infrastructure.”, do you have no feelings or concern for the the people who are unfortunate enough to live in a famine area (for whatever reason)?
Now I think I understand where you are coming from now with regards to altruism. If you do not feel for others, you are very unlikely to act in an altruistic manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela, I think every society or philosophy defines motivations for behaviour in terms consistent with the mores of that group. A society focussed on the individual as the fundamental unit will regard an action as selfish whereas a society focussed on family or community will regard the exact same action as selfless. In reality in both cases the individual may have been motivated by the exact same combination of selfishness and selflessness, it is the group that projects it’s own groupthink onto the individual’s actions to claim that it is selfish or selfless.
The discussion of altruism so far on this thread seems to be framed by the concept of eonomic rationalism. Or, at the very least, is making the same assumption that individuals act rationally at all times. Our brains are too small and too slow to do that. But we have adapted by using patterns, proxies and opinions, all shaped by our life experiences (or enivironments). More often than not we act instinctively. We don’t stop to think of the danger before going to the rescue or, in the case of giving or lending something to a friend we may have it at the back of our minds that what goes around comes around but I know of no-one who actually calculates a probabolity score before acting on the thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Two quotes from this thread:
“No one, least of all Keith Locke, denies his socialist past and most of his statements from those days I expect he would still stand by. (By the way, while at least one of his parents was in the NZ Communist Party, Keith was never a communist …”
“But people’s views often change over time and Keith has not been afraid to say when he was wrong, such as comments he made regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Keith is now entirely at home with the Greens and supports the Charter in its entirety. While his specialty is foreign affairs, he is the Auckland spokesperson on transport issues, for instance, and has been touring the country this year discussing the politics of peak oil.”
I respond:
As an Oldie (born in 1941) with parents who were very well grounded in history and World affairs … what has been overlooked on this thread is the CONTEXT of the TIME, and the relevant INTERNATIONAL SCENE that shapes a person’s decisions.
In the forseeable future, what might be leveled against any of the bloggers here who support the behaviour of the USA in this current World? Justifiably, which nation is the (potential?) “pariah” now?
1. Communisim was NOT “a dirty word” after the Great Depression of the 1930′s and during WW2 (when Russia was one of the Allies that, at great cost to itself, and enormous loss of life, helped to defeat Hitler and the Nazi’s. (Don’t forget that the outcome of that War was by no means certain!)
2. Surely it is the TOTALITARIAN nature of that particular brand of “Socialism” that rankles? “Socialism” is part of the philosophy of many of the World’s currently successful countries … the Scandinavian countries, the Germans etc etc … and “totalitarianism” is certainly not restricted to the Left …
Keith Locke continues the tradition of his THINKING, intelligent, and socially minded family. I understood, from my parents that his father Jack Locke was associated with the Communist Party for a while … as were other friends at that time, (including a respected University Professor at Canterbury) … Whether or not he was “a member” is a matter of a few “shillings” and totally irrelevant to this thread !
If people chose to continue to make ignoramuses of themselves on this blog that is their problem …
Also, detractors have overlooked the fact that Dr Kennedy Graham, former NZ Diplomat to the UN, current Law Professor at Canterbury University (and brother of Doug Graham of National Govt fame!) was responsible for the writing of most of the Green Foreign Affairs Policy!
In other words, you are “badmouthing” the work of a recognized expert!
… but then that is nothing new …
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
.. and in case you don’t know …
Kennedy Graham is Number 9 on the Green Party list …
PARTY VOTE GREEN!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen, I have a few comments on your comments
“1. Communisim was NOT “a dirty word? after the Great Depression of the 1930’s and during WW2 (when Russia was one of the Allies that, at great cost to itself, and enormous loss of life, helped to defeat Hitler and the Nazi’s. (Don’t forget that the outcome of that War was by no means certain!)”
Communism was a dirty word from the time of World War I. At Versailles, the French wanted to see Germany broken up into several states, however, the British and Americans were concerned that there would not be a sufficient buffer between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. There was a deal of European involvement (if not official) in the Russian Civil War. By the 1930s, there was sufficient concern about Communists that in many circles, it was Stalin who was the worse person, not Hitler; and you had involvement in the Spanish Civil War as well by various nations and their nationals (again, if not official).
Furthermore, Russia only became one of the allies because it was invaded by Nazi Germany. Russia had allied with Nazi Germany in 1939 to split up Poland in two, and Nazi Germany had stood aside as Russia invaded Finland in an attempt to recapture it. Churchill and Roosevelt only allied with Stalin because they had to, neither of them really wanted to and it was later suggested that Churchill wanted to start World War III soon after World War II was over by invading the USSR.
“2. Surely it is the TOTALITARIAN nature of that particular brand of “Socialism? that rankles? “Socialism? is part of the philosophy of many of the World’s currently successful countries … the Scandinavian countries, the Germans etc etc … and “totalitarianism? is certainly not restricted to the Left … ”
That brand of socialism is not only problematic because of its totalitarian nature, but also because of its sheer idiocy. Stalin took over all the farms in Ukraine in the 1930s and the people, seeing no benefit to it, stopped working. A year or so later, there was a massive famine that spread through there and resulted in the deaths of millions. The same thing happened in Ethiopia in the 1980s – Live Aid would never have been necessary had Ethiopia not been Communist.
Furthermore, while you get totalitarian regimes from the Left and Right, they generally occupy the Left. The only right wing dictatorships that I can think of is Pinochet’s Chile; Apartheid Era South Africa and at a push Franco’s Spain. Hitler was not a right-winger, but a left-winger, so he does not count, and neither does Mussolini for that same reason.
“Interesting how BB always brings up Keith Locke’s support of Pol Pot. According to John Pilger the British and Americans also supported Pol Pot. As they did Saddam Hussein and the Taleban. So does that make Keith pro-American?”
Kiore, the reason why the Americans and British supported Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and the Taleban is the exact same reason why they supported Stalin in World War II, and that is:
The enemy of your enemy is your friend
Pol Pot was the enemy of the Vietnamese; Saddam Hussein was the enemy of the Iranians, and the Taleban was the enemy of the Soviet Union. Also, I don’t think that the Americans and British started supporting Pol Pot until he went to war with Vietnam, while Keith Locke supported him from the outset. Alright, I am not one of those who hold it against him because there would have been people who supported Hitler in 1933; Stalin in 1924 and so on who later regreted it.
Of course, the thing that concerns me more is that Locke supported a Communist, and that he still has that Communist streak. If that be true, then you start running the risk that the Green Party is really the de facto Communist Party of New Zealand, or at the very minimum, you get a wide perception of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
I wouldn’t use money that is required for defense preparedness on someone else’s infrastructure. Foreign policy and foreign aid have to come from us taxpaying chumps same as the money for defense, but they come in addition to rather than as part of the defense budget.
We can utilize manpower and the civil engineering capabilities in that regard, but money can’t be used both ways. If we need to keep a warship running we can’t spend that money on someone else’s irrigation project.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Of course, the thing that concerns me more is that Locke supported a Communist, …”
As did the National government and many others, as you say. But they didn’t support him because he was a Communist, but because the Khmer Rouge represented regime change, and there was hope that it would be better than the previous awful regime. When it proved otherwise, most of the same people denounced it, as did Keith, and before the National government too.
“…and that he still has that Communist streak. If that be true, then you start running the risk that the Green Party is really the de facto Communist Party of New Zealand, or at the very minimum, you get a wide perception of it.”
This is ridiculous and only said to scare people, often by people who don’t even know the difference between communism and socialism, let alone green political philosophy. There is no doubt Keith has a history on the left and is now on the Green left. The Green Party is completely democratic and demonstrates this in its internal decision making better than any other party currently in Parliament. To even suggest a link with communism should be beneath today’s politicos. It would be no different than us calling the Nats fascists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Agreed, what I was getting at was that if the purpose of foreign aid is to help with relations a presumibly act a s a passive form of defence then it should be considered a part of the defense budget and should be able to be diverted into the defence budget if needed but not visa versa. I am not by any means advocating spending money on someone elses infrastructure instaed of our own defensive capacities but mearly saying that if we must increase our tax load to help others out then we should ensure it goes into projects which will assist in the continued survival and development of those we help out rather than just assits in carrying the population of the country further over its carrying capacity and the miltary seems a ready source of labour for such projects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston
Thanks for that informative post ! I appreciate it.
I wholeheartedly agree with Valis that your sentence:
“Of course, the thing that concerns me more is that Locke supported a Communist, …? is RIDICULOUS !
(Last time I looked Aotearoa New Zealand was not, and hopefully never will be, a part of the USA, with its (weird) attitudes to “socialism” and “communism”.)
I wonder if you have met and spoken with Keith Locke ?
He is “one of nature’s gentlemen”, and reminds me of the prayer “Let peace begin with me.”
(Which I doubt could be said about most of his detractors on this blog.)
Sometime I’d be interested in your “take” on the Governments of the countries of Central and South America.
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, just because many governments might technically not be dictatorships, it doesn’t mean they’re not totalitarian in nature, or at least have terrible human rights records. Ironically, its generally easy to tell which ones too. Those with the most US aid! Go figure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“As did the National government and many others, as you say. But they didn’t support him because he was a Communist, but because the Khmer Rouge represented regime change, and there was hope that it would be better than the previous awful regime.”
The National Government and many others would have only supported the Khmer Rouge after they started doing battle with the Vietnamese – i.e. the Khmer Rouge were the enemy of my enemy. Locke would have been supporting them because of the Khmer Rouge’s Communist tendencies.
“When it proved otherwise, most of the same people denounced it, as did Keith, and before the National government too.”
Which is alright, and which is why I don’t hold the comments that Keith Locke supported Pol Pot against him. Like I said, there would have been people who supported Hitler in 1933, Stalin in 1924, Mao in 1949 and so on before the extent of the horror that they put on their various nations were realised.
“Last time I looked Aotearoa New Zealand was not, and hopefully never will be, a part of the USA, with its (weird) attitudes to “socialism? and “communism?.”
Alright, aside from its shady bits, what is wrong with having sceptism of isms (and I am thinking of all forms of ism)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
> Furthermore, while you get totalitarian regimes from the Left and Right, they generally occupy the Left. The only right wing dictatorships that I can think of is Pinochet’s Chile; Apartheid Era South Africa and at a push Franco’s Spain. Hitler was not a right-winger, but a left-winger, so he does not count, and neither does Mussolini for that same reason.
Hitler certainly wasn’t a free-market right-winger like Roger Douglas or Newt Gingrich. But he did much more closely resemble the ‘jingoistic patriotism and revolving-door-between-government-and-big-business’ style of right-wing politics typified by Bush and Cheney. He may not be your sort of right-winger, John-ston, but that doesn’t make him any more of a leftie than Cheney or Bin Laden are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The National Government and many others would have only supported the Khmer Rouge after they started doing battle with the Vietnamese – i.e. the Khmer Rouge were the enemy of my enemy. Locke would have been supporting them because of the Khmer Rouge’s Communist tendencies.”
I understand our government recognized the Khmer Rouge almost immediately in 1975, while war with Viet Nam didn’t start in earnest until 1978. Keith says he didn’t even know who Pol Pot was when the KR first took over and that after years of civil war, it was the hope of those who recognised the new regime that the death and destruction in the country would end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Keith Locke continues the tradition of his THINKING, intelligent, and socially
minded family. I understood, from my parents that his father Jack Locke was
associated with the Communist Party for a while … as were other friends at
that time, (including a respected University Professor at Canterbury) …
Whether or not he was “a member” is a matter of a few “shillings” and totally
irrelevant to this thread !
……………………..
An apologist for North Korea. He (WR) defended them when they killed an American soldier who cut a tree down on the South side. Similarily he defended the Soviet Union “that’s only a place where they put people in Gulags” (mocking) …”but they have arts and opera…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Without a reference, it is difficult to discern just how far out of context you’ve taken those statements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first was a letter to the Press , the second an Economic history lecture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well its very difficult then for us to comment, except to say that like so many other statements attributed to Keith, they are often not what they are made out to be and very often outright untrue. Accusing Keith of being an apologist for NK is just hyperbole that you shouldn’t engage in. Winston seems to be on very good terms with Condi Rice. Shall we say he is an apologist for American war crimes in the mid-east?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh argues:
“An apologist for North Korea. He (WR) defended them when they killed an American soldier who cut a tree down on the South side. Similarily he defended the Soviet Union “that’s only a place where they put people in Gulags? (mocking) …?but they have arts and opera…? ”
jh … Good Try!
However:
In this context, what immediately springs to my mind is that this can be the behaviour of War, and demonstrably IS the behaviour of at least some AMERICAN troops in Iraq, Afghanistan etc as we speak !
An example I read yesterday on “Information Clearing House”:
“Aside from the Iraqi people, nobody knows what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq better than the soldiers themselves. A new book gives readers vivid and detailed accounts of the devastation the U.S. occupation has brought to Iraq, in the soldiers’ own words.
“Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation,” published by Haymarket Books Tuesday, is a gut-wrenching, historic chronicle of what the U.S. military has done to Iraq, as well as its own soldiers.
“I remember one woman walking by,” said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the U.S. Marines who served three tours in Iraq. “She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realised that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces.”
“Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement in Iraq, and how lax they were, even to the point of being virtually non-existent.
“During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot,” Washburn’s testimony continues. “The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond.”
“Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry ‘drop weapons’, or by my third tour, ‘drop shovels’. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent,” Washburn said.
“devastating stories from the soldiers about what is being done in Iraq.
Everything from the taking of “trophy” photos of the dead, to torture and slaughtering of civilians is included.”
…….
I would say that the irony of this is, that Keith Locke would be one of the FIRST to bring such behaviour to the Public Eye … and would quite possibly be accused of being “Anti American” as a result!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In case of any readers haven’t read Information Clearing House …
http://www.informationclearinghouse.com
Tom Feeley, of California USA has been putting out a daily information bulletin for years now. It has become an international “must read”.
I get a daily bulletin by email (giving the links and a paragraph about each) but it can be accessed directly on-line.
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Hitler certainly wasn’t a free-market right-winger like Roger Douglas or Newt Gingrich. But he did much more closely resemble the ‘jingoistic patriotism and revolving-door-between-government-and-big-business’ style of right-wing politics typified by Bush and Cheney. He may not be your sort of right-winger, John-ston, but that doesn’t make him any more of a leftie than Cheney or Bin Laden are.”
Alright then, read this statement, and consider whether it belongs to a Conservative or a Socialist.
“He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend “lived together” for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man’s personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.
He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: “As Christ proclaimed ‘love one another’,” he said, “so our call — ‘people’s community,’ ‘public need before private greed,’ ‘communally-minded social consciousness’ — rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!”
The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people’s ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one’s ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one’s ethnic group “
It came from this piece – http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html . Once you have read it in its entirety, you will discover that Hitler wasn’t a Conservative, even by the standards of his day, and you will see that Hitler was a Socialist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who would ever call Facism or Hitler > Conservative, Capitalist.
That is such an absurd position. National Socialism, is the government & corporation’s in bed with each other, there is nothing free market or capitalist about that and it is so much closer to socialism than a libertarian free market.
I’m a libertarian who thinks the free market is a great system for the distribution of goods, the problem with the free market is keeping it free.
And to the absurd poster who replies look what the free market is doing in the US right now, please don’t post you don’t know what you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing free about the US market. In fact there are no free markets anywhere on this earth, well maybe in some village in the middle of the Amazon rain forest where each villager trades with each other in a fair and free way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
These are the details of the incident that sparked a letter in defence of North Korea by Wolfgang Rosenberg
http://tinyurl.com/4aeta6
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)