Oh, and as for making a fool of myself in public, very large rock for a tiny little glasshouse.

Call me when we get something to the nearest star, then I’ll get interested. But as things stand that’s not going to be in my lifetime, so excuse me if I fail to share in your dreams of interplanetary trade.

Well that’s a silly point.

1) The universe IS a finite resource, just a very big one.
2) How exactly are you planning to bring the resources of the entire universe into practical use here on earth, where all humans happen to live? There are some inconvenient laws of physics which tend to make this a little bit impractical at present.

Oh bullshit Andrew….learn some basic economics before making a fool of yourself in public.I am stunned that there are people still pushing that “slice of a limited pie” crap.Wealth and resources are not finite…unless you consider the entire universe a finite resource.Wealth is created…there is no fixed pool and no one is disadvantaged because you earn a dollar…indeed that will lead to other people getting wealthier when you decide to enter into trade with them.And when those Chinese start to consume I and you are getting richer if we trade and supply them with goods and services.You have overlooked the fact that human beings don’t statnd still and wait to stagnant and die.They innovate and grow…thats what will happen to make us all richer and better off….unless Government gets in the way,which is the real threat.

Horrid, absolutely horrid. She should not be allowed out for many years.

Why are you still ranting?

By the way, making people richer. How would you do that? Are you aware that we live in a closed system. Wealth and resources are finite, and generally speaking, every dollar I earn, is another dollar someone else has to give up. Fortunately we have most of Asia, Africa and South America to keep us in wealth for a wee while longer, but buddy, the shit will hit the fan. There are a billion ambitious Chinese out there, and once they start consuming, you’re going to have to go without.

In my society Cadmus we have things called camps where the poor are sent to….and Im kidding!;-)

I want to live in a society that has as few poor people as possible ….how?…by making them richer,thats how! Welfare stops that process and makes it so hard for people to clamber out of the hole that they are in…and I have been there myself and its the closest thing I can imagine to drug addiction.

That is the Hide/Brash agenda Cadmus …to eliminate the poor by making them better off,prosperous and self sefficent..oh the horror!:-O

Capitalists,contrary to Lefty thinking, don’t want large numbers of poor people struggling to survive…why?…because poor people don’t have money to spend on the Capitalists goods to make them richer!

Capitalists want a society of prosperous, secure people wanting to improve their lifestyles because these people will make the Capitalists richer too…win win….just logical ain’t it?

Its actually the Left that need large numbers of poor people in society in order to have a voter base they can string along on dependancy.That is the Clark/Cullen/Winston agenda Cadmus…a nation of addicts all looking to them to get their fix…makes you proud to be a Socialist eh?

As to the abuse…for a start stop funding it by doleing out rewards for bad behavior! How obvious is that? If you create an incentive for people to have children they neither love nor really want why the suprise when they treat these kids as the pain in the arse that they truly see them as?

There will always be abuse…thats just reality Im afraid,but there is no need to activly encourage it amoungst people with welfare rewards for popping out babies that are not wanted.The States function is to protect rights….they should remove children from these monsters and create massive disencentives for these people to breed again…or until they are in a financial and mental state to be able to do so well.

2 – can’t see any reason why a Maori could blame a European for the treatment of the Maori child at the hands of the child’s own parent!

3 – children are a gift and looking at the state of this child I believe the judge that posted the photo’s is a charlatan, he has the opportunity to “make an example” out of these scum, but chooses to give him 10 years, be out in 5, and 18 months for the mother, what a crock of shit.

4 – I wonder how much effort Maoridom put into the tools needed to protect their own children from themselves, the reason I have stated it as them and us is quite simple, Maori have always stated they don’t need to be directed by anyone other than Maori.

What answer are you looking for? I would think there are a number of possibilities to choose from. My initial reaction is that there are two forces at work.

1. I have no doubt that there exists an element of “Maori bashing” alive and well in our media. Not necessarily of malicious or personally racist intent, but mostly because European and Maori cultures are not the same, and tend to view things through different lenses, and place a different weight upon them.

2. This links into something very fundamentatal about the Maori and European cultures world views. A Pakeha thinks of himself as standing in the present, and looking forward to the future. By contrast the Maori imagines himself standing in the present, with the entire past looking over his shoulder.

This difference means for instance that Maori society place more weight and value on the ancestors and elders than we do, whereas Pakeha bind up much of their hopes and plans into their children. This of course should NOT be interpreted in a black and white fashion, of course Pakeha care for their retired elderly, and Maori care for their mokopuna….but the cultures are not indentical in this respect, and there are differences in priorities and nuances. It is sticking my neck out to say this, but a dispassionate observer might say as a result, that child abuse is somewhat more likely in Maori society, and elder abuse more prevalent in Pakeha.

By itself this information does not contribute much. Yet is does offer us a choice. As two cultures that are profoundly influencing each other, we can choose to accuse and blame each other for our mutual failings, or we could choose to confirm and adopt each other’s strengths. I pick the latter.

Also James…Where would the poor fit into “your” NZ society. And how would you solve the above abuse problem?

Yet your response is to eliminate “state welfare” and rely on “human benevolence” at the personal level. This is the natural benevolence that has helped communities through civil emergencies, wars and the like – it is how almost everyone acts with family and friends. It is how many do with neighbours, it is civilisation. It isn’t out of guilt or obligation or force, but humanity. Great idea…. I have no objection, this fine sentiment is clearly a desirable part of the solution. Now demonstrate to me how well this plan works with some solid historic examples, or better still, from your own life. How many ill, lonely, displaced or alienated people did you PERSONALLY reach out to yesterday? Or where you planning to do it today?

Yet the fact is that the kind of “golden age” you are visualising does not come for free. People will help each other IF they have both the resources and they have as you correctly state…the sense of social empathy and connection. Historically we know this can works well enough at the level of a village, but it breaks down when the social unit is a city, or a nation. Besides, traditionally is was the women upon whom the burden of “benevolence” fell….these days they are out working to pay the mortgage. Personal benevolence is only possible if the community is sufficiently developed and configured to sustain it.

Yes I’d ultimately abolish state welfare

This commits the classic absurdity along the lines ” this house does not keep the rain out very well, lets get rid of the floors”. Your proposals would “destroy the village in order to save it”.

but for starters conviction of a violent/sexual offence should deny you ever receiving state welfare – why do people who ruin the lives of others deserve to be fed by them?

Because this statement uses weasel words to disguise something else….you proposing they should die. No money = no shelter, no food = death. (Unless of course they resort to crime to feed themselves). Spot the fundamental contradiction….you proclaim human liberty, but in reality your position is built on death. In a modern nation such as New Zealand, if you cannot find work, and you are barred from welfare, and you have no family able to support you…then there is no other choice but homelessness. And given enough of them, some will die. What you are calling for is a kind of half-arsed gutless form of death penalty. As a society we have abandoned both the explicit death penalty (capital punishment) and it’s implicit cousin, starvation to death. You do not get to pick and choose who lives or dies, within the bounds of a normal human lifespan. Abandoning someone to starve, when you could feed them, is the same moral act as putting a bullet in their head. Worse actually….death by cold, hunger and exhaustion is slow and especially brutal.

Curious too is the limited moral horizon that your outrage functions in. I’ve refrained so far from extrapolating from this one child’s tragedy, to the 150,000 odd children who die every month in Africa from readily preventable causes. Now I’m not making this your fault….it isn’t. But what I have read from you, it is clear that your moral horizon has shrunk to not extend much past the end of your own nose….while in my world, I want to continue pushing at it’s boundaries so as it might ultimately encompass the whole of humanity.

“It is not about charity, it is about justice.” Bono

The term social justice is an utterly bankrupt excuse for any form of state-enforced theft – the idea that someone who is more successful than someone else owes something to the less successful. This is nonsense. However, it is human to care for and the want to help others who you can relate to and empathise with. This is the natural benevolence that has helped communities through civil emergencies, wars and the like – it is how almost everyone acts with family and friends. It is how many do with neighbours, it is civilisation. It isn’t out of guilt or obligation or force, but humanity.

This case has little to do with that at all – it is about failed people. The men who did this deserve nothing, it is so unspeakably evil as to be beyond words – I’d happily pay for them to both be locked up in solitary confinement for life – I can have compassion for people who fail their own life because of abuse, but not those who are evil towards children. The child’s mother deserves to never receive state welfare at the very least and never to breed again – she has shown complete inability to act according to the basic instincts of a parent – to provide protection. It is no loss for her to not breed again. I would not enforce it medically, but ban her from having custody of children.

Yes I’d ultimately abolish state welfare, but for starters conviction of a violent/sexual offence should deny you ever receiving state welfare – why do people who ruin the lives of others deserve to be fed by them?