Richard – you are correct. The Green party and it’s members and supporters have been subject to similar and very effective ‘word games’ for years and in my opinion, hobbled by that. At the moment, it’s ‘eco-terrorist’ that is being embedded into the public conscience and flashed out into the media whenever there is a need to batter the Green movement back into impotence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Two specific identities that crafted the National Party’s key catchword phrases were Richard Long and Textor Crosby.

Phil needs to reread Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men, to see just how cynically manipulative the “politically correct” and “nanny state” phrases are and how as Jeanette wisely points out, he has been ambushed/caputured by them.

Basically they are used as a weapon to encapsulate anything that focus groups identify as a prejudice that could be harmful to conservatives. Not suprisingly issues such as human rights, anti racism, economic equality, environmental protection,required those engaged in such destructive activity to be shielded, by demonising those who are advocates for eliminating prejudice.
Michael Laws is the perfect personification of this syndrome and its utterances and these two categorisations viz.Nanny state and political correctness.

But most of the media to their shame in NZ have also bought into this cynically calculated word game and the DomPost and NZ Herald particularly so, as are their press gallery reporters.

Dumb stuff, but Long and Textor-Crosby managed one of the most effective communications word coup d’etats, by making part of the everyday venacular.Goff should have known better, though his mate Michael Moore is one of the worst perpetrators of the use of this word game b***s**t

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Apparently world news – Greenpeace attempts to stop Palm Kernel Shipment to Tauranga – British Company accused of off-loading toxic Waste in West Africa killing & maiming hundreds – Dutch authorities to prosecute them for serious crimes – knowingly exporting poisonous waste & dumping it after they acknowledged internally that they knew what they were doing.

Will NZ Govt. step in to stop this trade in Rain Forest destruction ?

Capitalism & Free Markets at their worst !

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The concept of ‘enforcing’ basic human rights seems rather contradictory to the concept of basic human rights

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat.

Are you suggesting the Chinese market is free?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Labour then and now sees workers as consumers to be serviced, rather than citizens in control of their own destiny.

Amen!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

For me the quote that best defines Capitalism is – Capitalism is a tension between FEAR & GREED !

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ,
I find that if I am going to do that its easier to just not bother hitting reply in the first place and just type it into the default box down the bottom; I did use preview but now that this threading comes into play I dont preview as it does exactly what you state and in doing so removes the one advantage of this inferior system. . Unfortunatly neither option solves the actual problem.

As to the scrolling around thing, I long ago started using external word processors for that purpose when the replies were more than afew paragraphs; if your going to bother having multiple tabs one might as well use a superior processor and cut + paste. Also gives the benefit of being able to hit ‘save’ for a latter encounter with wat, etc.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I know what the phrase ‘initiation of violence’ means in the context of the normal English meaning of the word ‘violence’, but I’m not entirely clear what it means in the context of the definition of violence used on Planet Wat Dabney.

So I’ll just ask you have previously used this concept of violence to argue that taxation is not legitimate, but that private property rights are legitimate. So how do you work out that defending one is initiating violence and defending the other isn’t?

(By the dictionary definition of violence, in both cases it could be either the defender of the principle or the challenger of the principle who initiates the violence, if it gets to the point of violence)

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Simplest thing to do about the comments problem is to use the preview feature, as this forces the comment to the end of the thread. Even if it is a reply-to. Bug or Feature… who can tell? …and it seems to me that preview helps the quality of the posts immensely. The harder bit is that the distance from comment to reply WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLYING seems to have increased.

In other words, I have to have a second window open on the thread to see the comment I am replying to, otherwise I can’t find the thing when I want to check that I am in fact replying to the comment, not just the little bit I remembered. Preview helps with that as well, as the reply shows up in context, but gets posted to the bottom.

This is almost workable but still less good IMHO, than the system without the threaded replies.

If it automatically threw up the preview (and/or the context message it is a reply-to) it might be better.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient – I’m with you on the comments system as well. Linear was easier.
Searching for replies to a range of comments is a headache, especially if you are away from the keyboard for a day. Good to see the blog lively though.
As to that what ails us..reminds me of ‘whack a mole’. (swat a wat?)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,
What fatigue? Wat fatigue!
Wat fatigue? Indeed indeed!

Thought this comments system is fatiguing me more than a wat ever could hope to; maybe that was the intention.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Exactly Sapient.

Anyone else suffering from Wat-fatigue?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

First,
I hate this comments system; it makes it so much harder to keep track of comments.

Second,
While I do not envy the situation at all the situation may be considered superior to that of today as they were able to exist within their own means and the waring, whilst present, was no-where near as profound as today and with weapons significantly less powerful. Even by your own standards of liberty they were in a better way.
Actually, no that was not colonization as the crucial part of colonization is the imposition of a significantly different culture. The damaging part coming in this instance from the introduction of a culture not suited for the region which vastly grew potential for greed and lead to bloodshed far exceeding anything previously experienced. That bloodshed being non-conductive of any form of prosperity or liberty.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

China didn’t introduce ‘free market’ reforms in the sense that free-market fundamentalists define the term. They introduced reforms to harness the power of the market, but rather different from either the utopian free-market ideal or the version the IMF tries to impose on third-world countries.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hmmm.
So coercive force may be used by the parent against the child because the child is assumed to be less cognitively able than the parent and as such needs the correction of the parent to make choices which ultimately deliver a superior outcome to the child.
So in this you are admitting both that not every individual is equally cognitively gifted and that a superior outcome for an individual may be obtained, and is desirable, through the intervention of a more cognitively able body.
Accepting that it is valid for a parent to use coercive force against their offspring for this reason it also becomes valid for the state to use suh coercive force against its citizens as invaribly the state consists of individuals more intelligent and with more access to information and resources and contains more such individuals, thus being better able to make a decision regarding some matters than the citizens themselves and leeding to a superior outcome through such action.
The fact that you agree with the former but disagree with the latter speaks of nothing but hypocrasy; that is apart from hinting at severe impairment in your own cognitive abilities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Unless you are a Capitalist then axiomatically you believe in some coercive system which is absolutely underpinned by a willingness to initiate violence.

Capitalism does not? PLEASE DO NOT explain the nature of this utopian fantasy further. The wage slave is every bit as much a slave as any other . Oppression is imposed by another human or a corporation rather than a government doesn’t become legitimate. I have to wonder, with all due respect, if you are in fact an inhabitant of this planet.

I don’t know when Jeanette has ever given a “share the wealth” speech. You might want to go find something IF YOU CAN, to back up your rant. Your ideological problems with reality are again pushing the limits of truth.

Greens are all about REGULATED Capitalism Wat… and in pretty much the entire rest of this thread you have been objecting to being REGULATED.

However, the self contradiction in your post is that you then go on to describe the benefits of a “minimal government” which has no power to regulate much of anything.

If it DOES have that power it will suffer the same fate as every other, attracting the seekers of power and using the police to enforce its regulations.

If it does NOT have that power, the Capitalism is unregulated and goes right to the extremes of slavery and corporate despotism described elsewhere.

This inherent contradiction is part of the Libertarian fallacy. It also underpins the arguments about election finance.

You have to govern WITH PEOPLE. So you have to make sure that everyone has a say, not just the people with money. That makes the election finance laws CRITICAL to the maintenance of the democracy and you were just here recently arguing that money should talk loudest.

Sorry about that ideology Wat, but it IS broken.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat

This business about “initiating violence” is dumb. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. When people don’t follow laws and regulations imposed by the society they are a part of, there are a lot of things that happen, warnings, infringement notices, fines, going to court… before there is any violence on offer, even the passive violence of being placed in a jail (assuming one is smart enough not to argue with the police who are only doing their job). I know it is part of your religion, but this claim about violence is not relevant or sensible. We ALL obey the same laws, we all MAKE the laws through our system of self-government.

The law is there to be obeyed, you don’t like it you have all the avenues available in a democracy to change it, and if you think it infringes on your rights as a person you can take it to the courts to get the law overturned.

Somehow I don’t think that the courts will agree with you on this one.

However, your real problem is far simpler.

You just don’t have the right to go round to your new neighbour’s house and threaten him with a poker unless he insulates to a degree you find satisfactory.

It isn’t the house of “my neighbour”. It is the house of my LANDLORD.
A house which, due to our society’s problem with giving tax advantages to landlords, a lot of the rest of us have to live in. Since (by your own form of reckoning) “violence” has already been initiated against us (on our landlord’s behalf) to force us to live in this house rather than buy or build our own… (see how stupid it really is to claim “violence” is what is happening here), we have every right to “insist” on its being insulated.

It IS in the interests of the society to make sure it is an efficient house. Wasting money is bad for the society, not just for the renter who has to pay the utility bills or the taxpayers who have to pay the medical bills this year. It is bad for the society long after we’re gone and the house continues to afflict the people in it, with the money burned in heating it (or healing its occupants) becoming unavailable for investment or commerce. This is NOT good for the economy.

Furthermore, since said landlord gets to deduct the cost of insulation projects almost entirely, the case is really that the taxpayer is paying for it anyway. Just as we are all paying his flipping mortgage interest. So it comes from the renters and owner occupiers anyway. To subsidize the landlords.

Which means that the landlord does not have the absolute rights to it that you seem to think he does. Even to a greater degree than if he/she lives in the house… because other people’s health and wealth are being taken from THEM as a result of his failure.

…and you don’t have an absolute right EVEN when you are building the house just for yourself. In its lifetime a house is extremely likely to be rented in this society, because we haven’t got the sense god gave a headless chook when it comes to taxes and investment properties.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What Wat ???

Ignoring your patently rediculuous statement equating the Greens with BNP

you appear to agree that any functional state must be regulated – conclusion – the discussion revolves around how much, of what type, by whom, & for what purpose.

One interpretation of what you state is that there should be minimal regulation but a standing Army & Police Force. Question – who regulates them ?

Another implication of your argument – as teased out from the noise by others, is that regulation (laws) that suit your purposes are fine but those that don’t are not. Admitted by you if not explicitly. e.g. some regulation of Buildings is OK like connection to a sewer, but not minimum insulation standards ( the unwise, gullible or stupid, should be allowed to live in wooden/brick tents irrespective of their knowledge of what is required to give them comfort & good health plus savings on fuel bills )

Therefore my conclusion on reading your many posts on this subject is that agreement on regulation (laws) which we can reasonably be expected to live by, is subject to political negotiation after reasoned discussion, voting in fair elections, thus selection of ‘the peoples’ representatives who will pass laws & regulations in parliament. Surely this is what we have.

I am therefore confused. You seem to argue for no regulation, or only ‘sensible’ or ‘light’ regulation, but then state a few instances where you would encourage or perhaps tolerate some regulation. It’s a matter of interpretation as to whether this would be considered ‘correct’, ‘light’, market friendly or what Wat. You would consider it one, I another.

What it all comes down to in my opinion, is a matter of degree, direction, purpose, & who benefits for what purpose. A society, Utopian surely, that can function well without any regulation, direction or laws, is one that has tempted novelists since writing began, without any success.

One that has some degree of politically negotiated regulation is surely the only one that can work, given human nature, therefore the discussion can only be about the who, how, why, not about the IF.

Your faith in the power of ‘the market’ is surely misplaced given the many instances of it’s failure to satisfy it’s aspirations to benefit the many. It seems to me that it has succeeded in satisfying the few at the expense of the many. Therefore a New Paradigm is essential.

Your example of Somalia seems to reinforce my view that Armies (armed populace) & dedicated Police Forces (to one seat of power at the expense of others) can be a recipe for disaster. Many examples can be found of Armies & Police Forces misdirected by Tyrants causing mayhem for populations both foreign & domestic. A strong case in my view for minimal fully volunteer Defence Forces & Police to be lightly armed (Police not with firearms) with a strict remit to operate within Territorial Borders except in extreme circumstances & only with approval of say 66 % of the elected Parliament (not the PM or President). A statute I believe intended by the US Founding Fathers & connected in my view to the carrying of Arms by the populace as part of an armed Militia for the defence of the populace against Tyranny.

Only my humble opinion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

- “You have to realise that Wat and James define violence and coercion as not being violence or coercion if they are to enforce principles that they consider are basic human rights.”

You should understand that we are talking about the initiation of violence against others. Think about it.

- “and about the only thing they define as a basic human right is private property rights.”

Apart from the freedoms of speech, association, religion etc you mean? Those things, in fact, which are inherent in the condition of being a free person.

- “Defining violence and coercion as not being violence and coercion if they are in the service of private property rights dramatically reduces the amount of violence and coercion you see.”

Again, you have misunderstood. The issue is the initiation of violence. Do you see the difference? Do you see how resisting violence is legitimate?

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)